JRTC-Full Package EA-FONSI - Jacksonville Transportation Authority

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION 

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Highway Administration 

and 

Federal Transit Administration 

and 

Federal Railroad Administration 

and 

Florida Department of Transportation 

Financial Identification Number: 217417-1 

Federal Aid Project Number: XA-8888(461) 

Jacksonville Transportation Center 

Downtown Jacksonville bounded by Park Street on the east, I-95 on the west, Adams Street 

on the north and McCoy’s Creek and Hanover Street on the south. 

DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA 

This project consists of a Jacksonville Transportation Authority (JTA) bus terminal, a JTA 

Skyway people mover station (Automated Skyway Express/ASE), bus rapid transit stations, 

an Amtrak station, a Greyhound terminal, two park-and-ride facilities/parking garages, a 

public plaza, retail establishments, an elevated pedestrian concourse, JTA offices, and a 

regional transportation management center. 

Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332 (2)(c) and 49 U.S.C. 303. 

Date 

Division Administrator 


Date 

Regional Administrator 


The FHWA and FTA have determined that this project will have no significant impact on the 

human environment. This FONSI is based on the attached EA which has been independently 

evaluated by the FHWA and FTA and determined to adequately and accurately discuss the 

need, environmental issues, and impacts of the proposed project and appropriate mitigation 

measures. It provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an EIS is not 

required. The FHWA and FTA take full responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and content of 

the attached EA.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION 

and 

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION 

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 

JACKSONVILLE TRANSPORTATION CENTER 


The FHWA and FTA have determined that proposed Jacksonville Transportation Center 

will have no significant impact on the human environment. This FONSI is based on the 

attached EA which has been independently evaluated by the FHWA and FTA and 

determined to adequately and accurately discuss the need, environmental issues, and 

impacts of the proposed project and appropriate mitigation measures. It provides 

sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an EIS is not required. The FHWA 

and FTA take full responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and content of the attached EA. 

The location of the proposed action is in downtown Jacksonville in the La Villa 

neighborhood. The project area is bounded by Park Street on the east, I-95 on the west, 

Adams Street on the north and McCoy’s Creek and Hanover Street on the south. The 

Brooklyn neighborhood is located to the south, across McCoy’s Creek. The site is 

strategically located at the I-95 / I-10 merge and is accessible to all three major rail 

providers; CSX, FES, and Norfolk Southern. 

The Jacksonville Transportation Center consists of a Jacksonville Transportation 

Authority (JTA) bus terminal, a JTA Skyway people mover station (Automated Skyway 

Express/ASE), bus rapid transit stations, an Amtrak station, a Greyhound terminal, two 

park-and-ride facilities/parking garages, a public plaza, retail establishments, an 

elevated pedestrian concourse, JTA offices, and a regional transportation management 

center (RTMC). These facilities are described in detail in Chapter 3. 

Several changes have occurred in the recommended layout of the JTC. The JTA Bus 

Terminal has been reduced from 24 slips to 16 and the associated parking garage and 

the RTMC were shifted accordingly. Additionally, the RTMC was moved from the JTA 

Bus Terminal to the existing surface parking area for the Skyway Terminal (Figure F-1). 

This parcel is owned by the Florida Department of Transportation and will not require 

any additional right-of-way acquisitions. The parking spaces lost by this construction will 

be replaced by a parking garage located at the Skyway Terminal. This move was a 

result of the funding for the RTMC and Skyway Terminal upgrades being available 

before the funds for the JTA Bus Terminal and associated parking garage. No additional 

impacts are anticipated as a result of this change. 

Realizing that integrating Jacksonville’s transportation system is essential to the longterm 

economic health of the greater Jacksonville region, the City of Jacksonville, the 

Jacksonville Transportation Authority, and the Florida Department of Transportation are 

pursuing the development of a multimodal transportation center situated in the 

downtown area. This facility, the Jacksonville Transportation Center (JTC), will serve as 

Jacksonville’s regional transportation hub and as a gateway to downtown. Its downtown 

location will provide increased linkages to all existing and planned transportation nodes.

• Project location is adjacent to both I-95 and I-10 and will allow for Park-N-Ride at 

the proposed parking garages with easy transfer to the Skyway. 

• The relocation of Amtrak will allow access to both CSX and FEC rail lines. 

• Relocating the Greyhound facility to the JTC will provide easier access to I-95 

and I-10. 

• The JTC will provide greater capacity for the JTA Bus Terminal. 

1. The proposed project will require three business relocations. The construction 

and antique business presently occupying the McDaniel building will need to be 

relocated for the construction of the Greyhound Bus Terminal. The owners have 

been contacted by FDOT and have attended a public meeting on June 29, 2006. 

The third relocation, Liberty Steel, is required for the realignment of the railroad 

tracks to accommodate AMTRAK trains. FDOT has been in communication with 

Liberty Steel throughout the project. These relocations will be conducted in 

accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property 

Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. 

2. Two historical properties are located within the project boundaries; the McDaniel 

Building and the Jacksonville Terminal. The McDaniel Building is potentially 

eligible for listing and the Jacksonville Terminal is already listed on the National 

Registrar of Historic Places. In an effort to avoid and minimize any impacts to the 

historical integrity of either the McDaniel Building or Jacksonville Terminal, 

intensive coordination continued through out this project with both state and local 

agencies A December 12, 2005 letter from the State Historical Preservation 

Officer stated that “the proposed project will have no adverse impacts on the 

historic Jacksonville Terminal Complex or other properties listed or eligible for 

listing in the National Register of Historic Places.” An additional letter was 

received on July 20, 2006 reiterating the “no adverse effect” and requesting 

additional coordination during the design phase. 

3. The proposed action will not use any properties as defined by Section 4(f) of the 

Department of Transportation Act. FHWA has determined that 4(f) does not 

apply. 

4. The project is located in Duval County, which is an area in attainment of all 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS); thus, the transportation 

conformity rule does not apply. Due to the nature of the project, further air quality 

analysis was not deemed necessary. At both the regional and “project” level, the 

project conforms with the SIP and meets all requirements of the state and federal 

clean air acts. 

5. In accordance with the Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations Part 772, 

“Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise”, 

and the procedures outlined in the Federal Transit Authority (FTA) Guidance 

Manual for Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (May 2006)., a study 

was conducted to assess the potential noise impacts associated with the 

proposed project. The study included the potential noise impacts associated with 

the proposed changes to bus routes, car traffic patterns, the increase in train 

traffic, and construction noise and vibrations. None of the proposed actions

produced noise increases or vibrations that exceeded the limits established by 

either FHWA or FTA. 

6. Pursuant to Executive Order 11988, “Floodplain Management”, the proposed 

action was determined to be within the 100-year floodplains associated with 

McCoy’s Creek. There is no practicable alternative to construction within the 

floodplain. Impacts associated with the encroachment have been evaluated and 

determined to be minimal. Therefore, the proposed action does not constitute a 

significant encroachment. 

7. In accordance with Executive Order 11990, special considerations were taken in 

developing and evaluating the alternatives to avoid and minimize wetland 

impacts associated with this project. In an effort to minimize and avoid impacts 

to wetland resources the project has been modified to reduce the footprint of the 

Amtrak Service Area and to remove the service road’s eastern crossing of 

McCoy’s Creek. Minimal impacts, approximately 0.26 acres, to wetlands 

associated with McCoy’s Creek are anticipated with proposed Amtrak 

improvements. Based upon the above consideration, it is determined that there 

is no practicable alternative to the proposed new construction in wetlands and 

the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to 

wetlands which may result from such use. Mitigation for unavoidable wetland 

impacts are typically mitigated pursuant to Section 373.4137, Florida Statutes. In 

accordance with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) policy, as contained in 

23 CFR 77.11, the full range of mitigation options will be considered in 

developing this project to avoid long-term and short-term adverse impacts to 

wetland resources. 

8. No significant degradation of water quality is anticipated. The proposed 

stormwater design associated with the construction of the proposed 

transportation facility will include, at a minimum, the water quantity requirements 

for water quality impacts as required by the SJRWMD in F.A.C 40-C. Any 

deficiencies in these requirements will be offset by offsite mitigation. 

9. Pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the project area 

was evaluated for the potential occurrence of threatened and endangered 

species. A copy of the Endangered Species Biological Assessment Report was 

submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for their review. A letter 

was received on September 12, 2007 stating USFWS’s opinion that the proposed 

action is not likely to adversely affect resources protected by the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973. It has been determined by FHWA, that the project, as 

proposed, will have no effect on any threatened or endangered species. 

10. Through coordination with the Natural Resources Conservation Service, it has 

been determined that the project area, which is located in the urbanized area of 

Jacksonville, does not meet the definition of farmlands as defined by 7 CFR 658. 

Therefore, the provisions of the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1984 do not 

apply to this project. 

11. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection has determined that the 

proposed project is consistent with the Florida Coastal Zone Management Plan.

12. A Public Involvement Program was conducted during the course of the study 

(Section 5.1). In addition a Public Hearing was held on January 10, 2008. 

Overall response to the project was generally in favor of the Jacksonville 

Transportation Center with most of the discussion pertaining to architectural 

design features and aesthetics and modes of transportation supported at the 

center. 

13. In February 1994, the President of the United States issued Executive Order 

12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations 

and Low-Income Populations) requiring federal agencies to analyze and address, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high adverse human health and environmental 

effects of Federal actions on ethnic and cultural minority populations and low 

income populations, when such analysis is required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The Department of Transportation 

similarly requires FTA and FHWA to explicitly consider human health and 

environmental effects related to transit projects that may have a 

disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority and low-income 

populations. It also requires them to implement procedures to provide 

“meaningful opportunities for public involvement” by members of these 

populations during project planning and development. (DOT Order No. 5680.1) 

Due to the absence of a residential population in the project site, potential direct 

changes to neighborhood character will not occur. The project will provide 

enhanced transportation choices for local and regional populations. The 

disadvantaged populations adjacent to the project site will be benefited by its 

proximity, since the project will stimulate economic activity in the vicinity and offer 

more convenient public transportation for work or recreational purposes. The 

construction and operation of the Jacksonville Transportation Center would not 

have disproportionately high and adverse effects on low-income or minority 

populations. 

14. The build alternative will not only replace any lost parking spaces currently found 

onsite, mainly consisting of non-designated parking spaces found on vacant lots, 

but will dramatically increase that number and adequately address the parking 

needs of the existing and future demands. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities have 

been considered as required under 23 USC Section 109(n) and F.S. 335.065. 

This project will not result in the severance or destruction of an existing major 

route for non-motorized traffic or light motorcycles. Consideration was given and 

elements were added to the proposed project to allow for safe pedestrian access 

between the various transportation elements included with the Jacksonville 

Transportation Center. 

A traffic study was performed for the project area, which analyzed level of service 

(LOS) on a peak-hour basis for roadway intersections located in the study area. 

The analysis found that proposed action would degrade the operations of two 

analyzed intersections beyond acceptable levels by 2025. One additional 

intersection failed for the 2025 background and background plus project. 

Recommendations are offered, in Chapter 4.3.17, to alleviate these issues.

The approved Environmental Assessment addresses all of the viable alternatives 

that were studied during project development. The environmental effects of all 

alternatives under consideration were evaluated when preparing the assessment. 

The document was made available to the public prior to and at the public hearing 

for review and comment. The Finding of No Significant Impact was made after 

consideration of all comments received as a result of the public availability and 

the public hearing.


PD&E STUDY 

UPDATED JTC 

SITE PLAN 

FIGURE 

F-1

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION 

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

U.S. Department of Transportation 


and 


and 

Federal Railroad Administration 

and 


Financial Identification Number: 217417-1 

Federal Aid Project Number: XA-8888(461) 


Downtown Jacksonville bounded by Park Street on the east, I-95 on the west, Adams 

Street on the north and McCoy’s Creek and Hanover Street on the south. 


This project consists of a Jacksonville Transportation Authority (JTA) bus terminal, a 

JTA Skyway people mover station (Automated Skyway Express/ASE), bus rapid 

transit stations, an Amtrak station, a Greyhound terminal, two park-and-ride 

facilities/parking garages, a public plaza, retail establishments, an elevated 

pedestrian concourse, JTA offices, and a regional transportation management 

center. 

Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332 (2)(c) and 49 U.S.C. 303.

Table of Contents 

1.0 Description of Proposed Action………………………………………………………….1-1 

2.0 Need ……………………………………………………………………………….………2-1 

2.1 Social Demands…………………………………………………………………. 2-1 

2.2 Economic Demands…………………………………………………………….. 2-2 

2.2.1 Downtown Master Plan……………………………………………. 2-2 

2.2.2 La Villa District……………………………………………………… 2-3 

2.2.3 Brooklyn District……………………………………………………. 2-4 

2.3 System Linkage/Transportation Demand…………………………………….. 2-4 

2.3.1 Transportation Demand……………………………………………. 2-4 

2.3.2 System Linkage…………………………………………………….. 2-6 

2.4 Consistency with Regional and Local Transportation Plans………………... 2-9 

2.4.1 First Coast Metropolitan Planning Organization Long Range 

Transportation Plan………………………………………………… 2-9 

2.4.2 First Coast Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation 

Improvement Plan………………………………………………….. 2-10 

2.4.3 Strategic Intermodal Systems…………………………………….. 2-10 

2.4.4 City of Jacksonville…………………………………………………. 2-11 

3.0 Alternatives Considered…………………………………………………………………. 3-1 

3.1 “No Build” Alternative…………………………………………………………….3-1 

3.2 Transportation System Management…………………………………………. 3-1 

3.3 Build Alternative…………………………………………………………………. 3-2 

3.3.1 Intracity Component………………………………………………... 3-2 

3.3.2 Intercity Component………………………………………………... 3-5 

3.3.3 Parking Component………………………………………………... 3-9 

3.3.4 Regional Transportation Management Center (RTMC)/Office 

Component………………………………………………………….. 3-12 

3.3.5 Retail Component………………………………………………….. 3-12 

4.0 Impacts……………………………………………………………………………………. 4-1 

4.1 Social and Economic Environmental Impacts………………….……………. 4-1 

4.1.1 Community Services………………………………………………. 4-1 

4.1.2 Community Cohesion……………………………………………… 4-1 

4.1.3 Land Uses………………………………………………………….. 4-1 

4.1.4 Utilities and Railroads……………………………………………… 4-1 

4.1.5 Relocations…………………………………………………………. 4-3 

4.1.6 Secondary Development…………………………………………... 4-3 

4.1.7 Environmental Justice……………………………………………… 4-3 

4.2 Cultural and Historical Resources…………………………………………….. 4-5 

4.2.1 Archaeological and Historical…………………………………….. 4-5 

4.2.2 Recreational / Parkland…………………………………………… 4-9 

4.3 Natural and Physical Impacts………………………………………………….. 4-10 

4.3.1 Visual / Aesthetics…………………………………………………. 4-10 

4.3.2 Air……………………………………………………………………. 4-10 

4.3.3 Noise and Vibration………………………………………………… 4-10

4.3.3.1 Noise Assessment……………………………………….. 4-11 

4.3.3.2 Vibration Assessment……………………………………. 4-22 

4.3.4 Wetlands……………………………………………………………. 4-27 

4.3.5 Aquatic Preserves…………………………………………………. 4-27 

4.3.6 Water Quality……………………………………………………….. 4-27 

4.3.7 Outstanding Florida Waters………………………………………..4-30 

4.3.8 Contamination………………………………………………………. 4-30 

4.3.9 Wild and Scenic Rivers……………………………………………. 4-36 

4.3.10 Floodplains………………………………………………………….. 4-36 

4.3.11 Coastal Zone Consistency………….…………………………….. 4-36 

4.3.12 Coastal Barrier Island Resources………………………………… 4-36 

4.3.13 Wildlife and Habitat………………………………………………… 4-38 

4.3.14 Farmlands…………………………………………………………… 4-38 

4.3.15 Scenic Highways…………………………………………………… 4-38 

4.3.16 Construction………………………………………………………… 4-38 

4.3.17 Parking, Pedestrian Activities and Traffic………………………... 4-38 

4.3.18 Energy Requirements……………………………………………… 4-42 

4.3.19 Safety and Security………………………………………………… 4-43 

5.0 Comments and Coordination…………………………………………………………… 5-1 

5.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………. 5-1 

5.2 Advance Coordination………………………………………………………….. 5-1 

5.3 Interagency Coordination and Consultation………………………………….. 5-2 

5.4 Public/Local and Regional Agency Coordination…………………………….. 5-3 

6.0 Commitments and Recommendations………………………………………………… 6-1 

6.1Commitments……………………………………………………………………. 6-1 

6.2 Recommendations…..………………………………………………………….. 6-1 

List of Tables 

4.1 Noise Screening Assessment…………………………………………… 4-12 

4.2 Summary of Noise Monitoring Data…………………………………….. 4-15 

4.3 Existing and Proposed Bus Route Volumes…………………………… 4-17 

4.4 General Noise Analysis for Proposed Bus Routes……………………. 4-18 

4.5 General Noise Assessment Input Data and Results for Trains……… 4-19 

4.6 General Noise Assessment Input Data and Results for Vehicle 

Operations Associated with Amtrak Mail Service Area……………….. 4-21 

4.7 Screening Distances for Vibration Assessment……………………….. 4-23 

4.8 General Vibration Assessment Input Data and Results for Amtrak…. 4-26 

4.3.8 Potential Contamination Sources……………………………................ 4-31 

4.3.17a Signalized Intersections Level of Service………………………………. 4-40 

4.3.17b Existing Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Summary…….. 4-41 

4.3.17c Improvements Needed in Design Year 2025………………………….. 4-42 

5.4 List of Meetings…………………………………………………………… 5-7

List of Figures 

1.0 Project Location……………………………………………………………... 1-2 

1.1 Study Area…………………………………………………………………… 1-3 

2.3.1 BRT Proposed Corridors…………………………………………………… 2-7 

3.3.1 JTC Site Plan………………………………………………………………... 3-3 

3.3.2 JTA Bus Terminal and Skyway Station…………………………………… 3-4 

3.3.3 McDaniel Building…………………………………………………………… 3-7 

3.3.4 Amtrak Terminal…………………………………………………………….. 3-8 

3.3.5 Parking Structures…………………………………………………………... 3-10 

3.3.6 Transport Concourse……………………………………………………….. 3-11 

3.3.7 Office and Transportation Management Center…………………………. 3-13 

3.3.8 Retail Space…………………………………………………………………. 3-14 

4.1.3 Future Land Use……………………………………………………………. 4-2 

4.1.5A ROW Impacts at Federal Reserve………………………………………… 4-6 

4.1.5B ROW Impacts at Federal Reserve………………………………………… 4-7 

4.3.1 Noise Analysis Location Map……………………………………………… 4-13 

4.3.4 Wetland Impacts…………………………………………………………….. 4-29 

4.3.8 Potential Contamination Sites……………………………………………... 4-34 

4.3.10 Floodplains……………………………………………………………………4-37 

6.2 Updated JTC Project Layout………………………………………………. 6-3 

Appendix A - Memorandum of Understanding 

Appendix B - Agency Coordination and Advance Notification 

Appendix C - Prior Project Public Meeting Information 

Appendix D - Public Meeting Information 

Appendix E - Public / Local and Regional Agency Meeting Minutes 

Appendix F – Public Hearing Information


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

1.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION 

The Jacksonville Transportation Center (JTC) project site is in downtown Jacksonville in the La Villa 

neighborhood. The project area is bounded by Park Street on the east, I-95 on the west, Adams 

Street on the north and McCoy’s Creek and Hanover Street on the south. The Brooklyn 

neighborhood is located to the south, across McCoy’s Creek. The site is strategically located at the 

I-95 / I-10 merge and is accessible to all three major rail providers; CSX, FES, and Norfolk 

Southern. Figure 1.0 shows the project location while Figure 1.1 shows the study area in more 

detail. 

The JTC will bring together both intra- and intercity transportation systems into a common facility 

offering commuters and visitors convenient intermodal transfers and access to Jacksonville’s public 

transportation network. The JTC consists of a Jacksonville Transportation Authority (JTA) bus 

terminal, a JTA Skyway people mover station (Automated Skyway Express/ASE), bus rapid transit 

stations, an Amtrak station, a Greyhound terminal, two park-and-ride facilities/parking garages, a 

public plaza, retail establishments, an elevated pedestrian concourse, JTA offices, and a regional 

transportation management center. 

One objective of the JTC project is to make use of the circa 1919 historic neoclassical style building 

presently known as the Jacksonville Union Terminal. This grand historic building will be the focal 

point of the passenger rail improvements. Presently, the building is part of the Prime Osborn 

Convention Center and is not accessible by the general public. This building will be restored to its 

original use as a rail station for Amtrak and will be easily accessible by the public. Track 

improvements will be made to accommodate Amtrak trains arriving and departing from the 

Jacksonville Union Terminal. The existing Skyway station on Bay Street will act as the hub of 

transportation activity, connecting the multiple nodes of transportation to an existing downtown 

linkage system. 

This project is being conducted under the guidance and supervision of the Federal Highway 

Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration, and by the 

Florida Department of Transportation under the provisions set forth in a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) signed by all four supporting agencies in 1995. A copy of the MOU is located 

in Appendix A. 

Description of Proposed Action 1-1


PD&E STUDY 

PROJECT CORRIDOR 

LOCATION MAP


PD&E STUDY 

STUDY AREA 

FIGURE 

1.1


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

2.0 PROJECT NEED 

Realizing that integrating Jacksonville’s transportation system is essential to the long-term 

economic health of the greater Jacksonville region, the City of Jacksonville, the Jacksonville 

Transportation Authority, and the Florida Department of Transportation are pursuing the 

development of a multimodal transportation center situated in the downtown area. This facility, the 

Jacksonville Transportation Center (JTC), will serve as Jacksonville’s regional transportation hub 

and as a gateway to downtown. Its downtown location will provide increased linkages to all existing 

and planned transportation nodes. 

• Project location is adjacent to both I-95 and I-10 and will allow for Park-N-Ride at the 

proposed parking garages with easy transfer to the Skyway. 

• The relocation of Amtrak will allow access to both CSX and FEC rail lines. 

• Relocating the Greyhound facility to the JTC will provide easier access to I-95 and I-10. 

• The JTC will provide greater capacity to the JTA Bus Terminal. 

2.1. Social Demands 

Northeast Florida has experienced steady growth over the past few decades. The 

2000 census reported the region's population at 778,879 for Duval County, 123,135 

for St. Johns County and 142,480 for Clay County, totaling 1,042,824 people. Duval 

County's population increased 15.7% from 1990 to 2000. Duval County contains 

774 square miles and has a population density of approximately 1,006 persons per 

square mile. Projections developed by the Bureau of Economic and Business 

Research (BEBR) estimate the region's population will reach 1,620,400 by the year 

2020, an increase of 55.3 percent over the 2000 count or 2.8% per year. BEBR is 

located at the University of Florida and is the established source for county 

population totals in the State of Florida. 

In 1991 the citizens of Jacksonville joined in a visioning process to prioritize the 

city’s goals and choose directions for the next century. The vision for transportation 

was to strengthen Jacksonville’s role as a major hub for transportation to the 

southeastern United States. Port, rail, air, and highway connections would be 

strengthened, increasing commercial and private travel. In anticipation of 

Jacksonville’s population growth, mass transit was envisioned to transport 

increasingly more people downtown and across town to work, shop, or engage in 

leisure activities. 

Specific goals for transportation developed by the citizens of Jacksonville in the 

vision process included the following: 

• Plan a regional transportation system which incorporates the use of 

interstate highway system, existing rail, high speed rail, airports, and 

waterways. 

• Develop an accessible and affordable transportation system that connects 

all parts of the city. 

• Make more efficient use of mass transit, reduce rush hour traffic delays, and 

discourage dependence on the automobile in the core city. 

Project Need 2-1


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

• Develop the Port of Jacksonville to its fullest and expand the Automated 

Skyway Express and complete the SR 9A / I-295 highway link. 

• Encourage mass transit while reducing the use of automobiles. 

• Provide mass transit services to suburban neighborhoods. 

• Develop a transportation center to help implement the vision for the city. 

These goals are the underlying concept behind the planning and development of a 

multi-modal center for Jacksonville. Integrating the planning and development of the 

multimodal center with transportation improvements and neighborhood development 

projects will create transportation and economic benefits for the area. Subsequent 

to the 1991 visioning process, a 1993 Feasibility Study recommended the 

Jacksonville Union Terminal as the site of the multi-modal center. A Project Needs 

Report was written in 1995, followed by a PD&E Study in 2000. This PD&E Study is 

currently being revised to reflect the desire to incorporate Amtrak, Greyhound, 

Skyway, and JTA bus service at a single center. 

The proposed site of the JTC is a logical choice, given the site’s extensive 

transportation history. The site was formerly the Jacksonville Union Terminal of the 

Great Union Railroad, which opened in 1919. In its prime, 200 trains carrying 

20,000 passengers a day passed through the terminal. In the 1920’s, Jacksonville 

Union Terminal was the South’s largest train station. The last train departed 

Jacksonville Union Terminal on January 3, 1974. 

The proposed JTC complex includes the Jacksonville Union Terminal and a portion 

of the 1897 Union Depot, which was gutted by fire in 1979. The site reopened as 

the Prime Osborn Convention Center on October 17, 1986. 

2.2. Economic Demands 

2.2.1 Downtown Master Plan 

The Downtown Master Plan, entitled Celebrating the River: A Plan for Downtown 

Jacksonville, contains the following vision statement: 

Jacksonville aspires to be one of the world’s great cities. Downtown is the 

heart of Jacksonville, and its vitality is critical to the city’s future as a worldrenowned 

livable place. The community and its leaders believe downtown 

Jacksonville continues to be the regional capital for commerce, government, 

culture, and entertainment. It will feature pedestrian development in new and 

historic neighborhoods. It will have ample green space accessible to an 

intensive urban park along the St. Johns River. It will have a strong, 

progressive transportation system. 

The current Downtown Master Plan was approved by the City Council on May 5, 

2000 and has received approval from the boards of the Jacksonville Transportation 

Authority (JTA) and Downtown Development Authority (DDA). The guiding 

principles of the Downtown Master Plan are as follows: 

1. Improve access to river banks, creating a greenway of substantial amenity to 

the citizens. 

Project Need 2-2


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

2. Develop clearly defined downtown districts with distinct identities and a mix 

of uses and identify which district would be an appropriate location for major 

public capital investment projects. 

3. Develop interconnected, attractive, safe pedestrian links among 

neighborhoods, activities, and open space. 

4. Encourage adequate, well-designed, and strategically-placed parking 

throughout downtown. 

5. Recognize open space as a valuable development asset. 

6. Provide a sustainable system of connected public open spaces that 

encourage variety, both in terms of size and function. Water and natural 

features will be important elements. 

7. Establish downtown as a 24-hour city and as a new location for residential 

development, a regional destination for tourists, conventioneers, and local 

residents. 

8. Enhance the perception of downtown as a safe place. 

9. Pursue short-term actions that help achieve the long-term vision. 

These principles can be summarized into nine features: 

• Pedestrian-friendly development 

• Neighborhood enhancement 

• Ample and accessible green space 

• Progressive transportation system 

• Vibrant, mixed-use district 

• Cultural and entertainment uses 

• Urban housing 

• Interconnected open space network 

• Transit-oriented development 

2.2.2 La Villa District 

La Villa, one of Jacksonville’s most historic neighborhoods, is undergoing the 

process of revitalization. Some noteworthy features of the area include: 

• La Villa is the oldest part of Jacksonville. 

• Known as the “Harlem of the South” in the 1930’s and 40’s. 

• Has a rich cultural and entertainment history. 

• The 1960’s saw a significant migration of residents out of the central city and 

into the suburbs, contributing to the decline of La Villa and many other 

neighborhoods. 

• La Villa is the home of the Prime Osborn Convention Center, the recently 

restored Ritz Theater, the La Villa Museum, JTA Skyway facility, and other 

redevelopment efforts. 

• La Villa’s future is a vibrant, walkable, urban transit village that recalls the 

district’s rich cultural heritage and history. 

The City of Jacksonville has actively marketed its land holdings in the district in an 

effort to attract commercial and various publicly-funded projects. The Downtown 

Master Plan envisions the La Villa district to be a “vibrant, mixed-use urban district 

where commercial, cultural, entertainment, light industrial uses, and urban housing 

Project Need 2-3


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

such as loft apartments and walk-ups coexist side-by-side and create the synergy 

needed to sustain a neighborhood.” By co-locating Amtrak, Greyhound, Skyway, 

and JTA bus service into a single facility, the JTC will be a catalyst for business 

development in the La Villa district. The Downtown Master Plan encourages 

commercial and industrial development in concert with residential uses in close 

proximity to each other to maximize lot coverage. 

2.2.3 Brooklyn District 

Bordering the La Villa district on the south is McCoy’s Creek, which is envisioned to 

become a proposed greenway in the Downtown Master Plan. The Brooklyn district 

is located south of McCoy’s Creek and is bounded by I-95 to the west and the St. 

Johns River to the east. Brooklyn formerly supported family homes and businesses 

with Riverside Avenue as a major entry to downtown. Currently, Brooklyn suffers 

from a detachment to the downtown area and La Villa to the north. The vision for 

Brooklyn is to “regenerate it as a vibrant mixed use neighborhood and to link it to the 

river via as many routes as possible,” according to the Downtown Master Plan. 

Additionally, the Brooklyn Neighborhood Strategy Plan includes the incorporation of 

significant pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the District as well as connections 

to the downtown area. The Strategy Plan also includes the encouragement of 

corporate, commercial and residential development. 

In June 2006, the City of Jacksonville and representatives of the Miles Development 

Partners, Hallmark Partners and the YMCA of Florida's First Coast announced a 

series of significant private and public initiatives designed to redevelop and revitalize 

Jacksonville's Brooklyn neighborhood. These efforts will concentrate on the areas 

located within Riverside Avenue on the south, McCoy's Creek on the north, Park 

Street on the east and Forest Street on the west. 

The private development projects, led by Miles Development Partners and Hallmark 

Partners, will result in a mixed-use residential environment offering retail and office 

space and up to 1,500 residential units for both rent and sale. A cornerstone of the 

Miles Development Project is an emphasis on workforce housing - both rental 

properties and homes for purchase - with price ranges lower than those currently 

offered in downtown housing projects. 

2.3. System Linkage / Transportation Demand 

2.3.1 Transportation Demand 

The need for the Jacksonville Transportation Center was originally established in the 

1995 Project Needs Report, which considered transportation demand, federal, 

state, and local government authority, social and economic demands, systems 

linkage and modal interrelationships, and safety. The Project Needs Report built 

upon the recognition that an improved and expanded mass transit system is 

essential to serving the growth and development of the Jacksonville area, 

particularly downtown. 

A number of proposed economic development and transportation facility 

improvements are expected to have direct impacts on the JTC. Foremost are three 

major improvements to Jacksonville’s transportation system which have occurred in 

recent years: 

Project Need 2-4


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

• Relocating the JTA downtown bus transfer facility from Hemming Plaza to 

the FCCJ Skyway station in 1994; 

• Extending the Skyway from the Jacksonville Center Station to FCCJ in 1997; 

• Extending the Skyway from the Jacksonville Center Station to the River 

Place Station and the Kings Avenue Garage on the south side of the St. 

Johns River in 2000; 

And one improvement that is in the process of being studied: 

• Creation of a Bus Rapid Transit System comprising of a North / Southeast 

corridor and a East / Southwest corridor 

In 1999 the JTA embarked on a Rapid Transit Study, which examined various rail 

and bus rapid transit options inside a North / Southeast corridor and an East / 

Southwest corridor. The North / Southeast Corridor links the Jacksonville 

International Airport, downtown, and the Avenues Mall in the Southside area of 

Jacksonville, while the East / Southwest corridor links Orange Park, downtown 

Jacksonville, and the Beaches. Both rapid transit corridors would intersect at the 

proposed JTC, where riders could transfer buses, board the Skyway, Amtrak, 

Greyhound, or walk (Figure 2.3.1). 

The JTA is planning for future expansion of the Skyway along the north bank of the 

St. Johns River to Alltel Stadium, south along San Jose Blvd. (Atlantic Station), and 

north to 8 th St. (Skyway Medical Center Station). These proposed improvements are 

important not only for short and long-range transportation goals but also as 

incentives for new business start-up and business relocation to Jacksonville. 

Employee access to work and leisure activities are important considerations for 

corporate management in start-up and relocation decisions. Not unlike the 

traditional amenities of pension and health care plans, business owners have found 

personnel turnover rates to be lower in cities where the quality of life is desirable. 

Quality of life issues are directly related to affordable and reliable transportation. 

According to the JTA’s website (www.jtaonthemove.com), cities such as Portland, 

Buffalo, Boston, and Atlanta have experienced increased property values and 

economic development in the vicinity of rapid transit corridors. The JTC will 

combine both intra- and inter-city rail and intra- and inter-city bus transit with large 

scale parking and pedestrian accommodations to facilitate public transportation. 

The transportation component of the Downtown Master Plan calls for high-capacity 

parking facilities located at several sites on the periphery of downtown. This 

configuration will help reduce the need to meet all parking on-site and to reduce the 

large supply of surface lots which exist in downtown. The plan calls for examination 

of the JTC as one of the potential sites for high-capacity parking. 

Part of the “progressive transportation system” described in the vision for the 

Downtown Master Plan includes the use of forms of non-automotive forms of 

transportation. The JTC is a catalyst for promoting alternative forms of 

transportation. The transit component of the Downtown Master Plan recommends 

the following: 

Project Need 2-5


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

• Regional transit centers with park-and-ride facilities 

• Expand skyway as development dictates downtown 

• Integrate transit into the planning of downtown development projects 

2.3.2 System Linkage 

The successful functioning of all the modes within the transportation system 

depends on the linkages between modes, that is, the ability of passengers to 

transfer from one mode to another efficiently and safely with a minimum of time, 

cost, or inconvenience. Linkages are important both in a local context, i.e. at points 

where passengers need to transfer between modes, and also in a system context, 

i.e., where passengers choose their travel modes based on the perceived ease or 

difficulty of completing their journeys. 

Existing passenger transportation modes serving the Jacksonville area include 

highways, JTA express bus and local bus service, Greyhound intercity bus service, 

Amtrak, Automated Skyway Express (Skyway), taxicab and limousine services, 

bicycles and pedestrians. Currently, these modes operate largely independent of 

each other with little or no linkage or coordination. 

Project Need 2-6

 


PD&E STUDY 

BUS RAPID TRANSIT 

PROPOSED CORRIDORS 

FIGURE 

2.3.1


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

The existing Amtrak station is located approximately six miles northwest of the 

downtown area. Although good roadway access is available and JTA local bus 

service is provided, this facility is essentially isolated from all other existing and 

future transportation modes from major developments. Incorporating the Amtrak 

station into the JTC will allow the approximately 4,700 – 5,500 passengers a month, 

either originating or destined for Jacksonville, to have greater access to the transit 

network. 

The campus of the Florida Community College of Jacksonville (FCCJ) 

accommodates a Skyway station and a JTA bus transfer station, formerly located at 

Hemming Plaza. Both of these stations are fully utilized, and expansion is not 

possible. 

The existing Greyhound intercity bus terminal is located in the downtown area and 

has convenient access to the Skyway system. However, the terminal site is 

constrained due to the existing adjacent development and can not be expanded to 

meet increased user need. All Greyhound buses enter and leave downtown 

Jacksonville via the interstate system. The existing terminal is located 

approximately 0.7 miles east of I-95. A location closer to I-95 would result in both 

greater efficiency for Greyhound and also less travel on downtown streets by large 

intercity buses. The location of the Greyhound terminal requires arriving and 

departing buses to cross the public sidewalk on Forsyth Street and on Bay Street. 

Due to the orientation of the terminal and the one-way streets, buses are unable to 

approach and depart the terminal in a smooth traffic pattern and are required to 

drive around the block. 

The present independent, uncoordinated operation of individual transportation 

modes requires each operator (Amtrak, Greyhound, Skyway) to provide security of 

its own passengers and facilities. Integrating all modes into a single coordinated 

multi-modal facility will make more productive use of the investment in security, will 

result in an increased level of overall security, and will reduce the amount of offpeak 

time when individual terminals are empty and may be vulnerable to theft or 

vandalism. 

Presently, each terminal operator provides a limited level of passenger amenities 

such as waiting areas, ticket sales, and schedule information, vending machines, 

restrooms, pay telephones, etc. Integrating all modes into a single coordinated 

multimodal facility will, through economies of scale, enable an expanded and more 

attractive package of passenger amenities to be provided. These amenities may 

include restaurants, retail shops, personal and business services, etc. 

The First Coast MPO’s Year 2025 Adopted Cost Feasible Plan included a St. Johns 

River Water Taxi Study to keep mobility options open for commuters between the 

southern region of the city and downtown Jacksonville. Should such a service be 

implemented, the JTC would facilitate the movement of people to and from the 

waterfront vicinity. A planning study entitled Analysis of Waterborne Access to the 

Jacksonville Transportation Center was also conducted in 1998 to explore the 

possibility of opening McCoy’s Creek to boat traffic. 

Project Need 2-8


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

2.4. Consistency with Regional and Local Transportation Plans 

2.4.1. First Coast Metropolitan Planning Organization Long Range 

Transportation Plan 

Federal law requires that every urbanized area with a population of 50,000 or more 

have a Metropolitan Planning Organization. The First Coast Metropolitan Planning 

Organization (FCMPO) is supported through an inter-agency agreement between 

the City of Jacksonville, the Jacksonville Transportation Authority, the Jacksonville 

Planning and Development Department, Clay County, St. Johns County, Nassau 

County (a recent addition), and the Florida Department of Transportation. One of the 

functions of the FCMPO, which serves approximately 900,000 people, is to annually 

maintain a Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) with a 20-year outlook that is 

updated a minimum of every three to five years. The 2025 LRTP recently 

underwent its triennial re-evaluation. The last public workshop was held in October 

2004, and the new 2030 plan was approved by the First Coast MPO Board on 

December 9, 2004. Information about the 2030 LRTP can be found at 

www.firstcoastmpo.com. 

The 2030 LRTP predecessor, the 2025 LRTP Update, was adopted in December 

2001 and lists goals and objectives to assist in evaluating possible roadway 

projects. The proposed JTC is consistent with the following goals stated in the 2025 

LRTP Update: 

• To improve access to port, airport, and intermodal facilities. 

• To provide for and enhance the movement of freight within and through the 

urbanized area. 

• To improve the connectivity of the transportation network within the 

urbanized area with the transportation network globally. 

• To improve access to major employment centers. 

• To minimize travel times within and through the area. 

• To maximize access to historic sites, monuments, national parks, recreation 

areas, and military installations. 

• To add capacity to an existing facility and/or construct a new road only after 

all other alternatives have been considered. 

• To ensure consistency with the future land use and transportation-related 

elements of local comprehensive plans. 

• To ensure consistency with growth management strategies of local 

governments within the urbanized area. 

• To enhance the regional transportation system's ability to provide for 

adequate evacuation times in the event of an emergency. 

Through dialogue with State and local government officials, 23 public workshops, 

frequent meetings with civic organizations, distribution of thousands of newsletters, 

and a rigorous traffic projection analysis, a 2030 Needs Plan was developed. This 

report details proposed roadway projects without regard to transportation costs and 

revenues. Based on the goals and objectives, a set of evaluation criteria was 

developed and used to rank each project in the Needs Plan: 

Project Need 2-9


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

• Provide proactive public involvement 

• Support economic vitality of the region 

• Efficiently meet transportation needs 

• Recognize transportation and land use linkage 

• Expand, enhance, and increase transit use 

• Improve transportation safety and security 

• Protect environmental and historical resources 

• Equitably expand the transportation system 

Based on forecasted areas of growth and congestion, as well as public input, a list 

of potential projects was developed to address the needs identified. Two versions 

focusing on highway versus transit projects were created. The Highway Emphasis 

Alternative concentrated on widening roadways and new highways. The Transit 

Emphasis Alternative stressed projects such as bus service, expanded rail transit 

and water transport, special use lanes for high occupancy vehicles and intelligent 

transportation systems (ITS) to make travel more efficient through technology, rather 

than added pavement. The Transit Emphasis Alternative was tested with an 

alternative land use scenario that redirected growth into planned rapid transit 

corridors. 

This plan also underwent further screening by Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 

Century (TEA-21) rules and the FCMPO's funding criteria. The purpose of 

developing and testing Needs Plan alternatives is to prepare and evaluate different 

packages of strategies aimed at providing enhanced mobility and air quality 

conformity in the year 2030. The 2030 Needs Plan contained a wish list of over 250 

projects at a cost of $6.3 billion. 

The Year 2030 Adopted Needs Plan was reduced to a 2030 Cost Feasible Plan by 

projecting financial resources from federal and state sources. These sources 

include the federal motor fuel tax (currently at 18.4 cents per gallon) and Florida's 

sales tax on fuels (currently at 9.3 cents per gallon). These financial resources were 

compared against estimates of project costs, and the public provided input on 

prioritizing projects at a series of workshops. A Cost Feasible Plan comprised of 96 

projects costing approximately $3.3 billion was finalized and presented to the 

FCMPO Board, who adopted the plan on December 9, 2004. 

The JTC is listed in the Adopted 2030 Cost Feasible Plan under “FDOT InterModal 

Funded Projects” with a current program funding of $23.53 million. 

2.4.2. MPO Transportation Improvement Plan 

The Adopted 2030 Cost Feasible Plan is further refined by FCMPO into a more 

specific, 5-year outlook called the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The 

TIP is required by the US DOT as a prerequisite for federal funding and serves as a 

clearinghouse for all area-wide transportation projects. The TIP for fiscal years 

2005/06 to 2009/10 was approved by the FCMPO on May 11, 2006. In addition, the 

JTC is listed in the TIP under “State Highway Projects (FDOT)” for Duval County at 

a current funding level of $1.7 million for design and right-of-way. 

Project Need 2-10


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

2.4.3 Strategic Intermodal System 

The Florida Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) was established in 2003 as a means 

of increasing the State’s competitive edge by allocating state resources on those 

facilities that are determined to be critical for the transport of commercial goods or 

passengers. The SIS Strategic Plan, Adopted in January of 2005, lists the 

Jacksonville Transportation Center as a Proposed Passenger Hub. The SIS 

Strategic Plan defines hubs as key “ports and terminals that move goods or people 

between Florida regions or between Florida and other markets in the United States 

and the rest of the world”. 

2.4.4 City of Jacksonville 

The City of Jacksonville established a Transportation Concurrency Exception Area 

(TCEA) for the downtown area for the purpose of allowing residential and 

commercial densities, not normally allowed under the existing Comprehensive Plan, 

that are supported by a number of transit services. The TCEA Implementation Plan, 

finalized in December 2005, details the importance of the Jacksonville 

Transportation Center in accommodating the transit requirements of the planned 

development. 

Project Need 2-11


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

3.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

3.1. “No Build” Alternative 

Under this scenario, all existing buildings and the Skyway station on W. Bay Street 

would remain in place but would not be improved. The present transportation 

system would remain unchanged except for routine maintenance and safety 

improvements. 

The "No Build" alternative has certain advantages and disadvantages. The 

advantages of the "No Build" alternative include: 

• No new design, utility, right-of-way, or construction costs 

• No inconveniences to the motoring public during construction 

• No environmental impacts, particularly wetlands along McCoy’s Creek 

Portions of the existing project area transportation system are operating with 

deficiencies in traffic capacity, inadequate linkages between transportation modes, 

and functional or structural deficiencies. The disadvantages of the "No-Project" 

alternative include: 

• Continuing delays on the city’s roadway network, which is already over 

capacity on many arterials 

• Continuing underutilization of the JTA’s transit system and Skyway 

• The long-term effect of the No-Build Alternative is primarily the inability of the 

existing area transportation system to serve future needs 

• Jacksonville would forego the opportunity to establish a multimodal 

transportation system and to integrate the system with major developments 

in the downtown area 

• Alternative travel modes would not be instituted to address problems of 

traffic congestion in the downtown and in suburban areas 

• Instead of a highly connective transportation system, the present 

unconnected, disjointed system would remain. Transportation-related air 

quality concerns would have to be addressed by some other means 

• Inconsistency with the Downtown Master Plan and the FCMPO 2030 Cost 

Feasible Plan 

3.2. Transportation System Management 

Transportation System Management (TSM) activities include improvements such as 

separate turn lanes, traffic signal timing optimization, and pavement marking 

improvements to enhance traffic safety and mobility. The Transportation System 

Management (TSM) alternative would include implementing minor, relatively lowcost 

improvements to area-wide roadways with the intent of alleviating existing 

transportation problems. While individual transit and roadway TSM measures might 

provide some benefits to the project area transportation system, they are not likely 

Alternatives Considered 3-1


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

to fulfill the system-wide need for the project without the construction of the 

multimodal facility. 

However, the JTC is the focus of numerous TSM actions in Jacksonville including 

park-and-ride, ride sharing, and an Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) control 

center as part of the regional transportation management center. Incorporating ITS 

into the JTC and its associated highway and transit modes will provide real-time 

information and guidance to travelers. The JTC is a key element in the area-wide 

strategy to redirect traffic from congested roadways and onto alternative modes. A 

major function of the JTC is to expedite area-wide traffic movements by facilitating 

transfers among modes. The JTC has a TSM component and supports the 

implementation of other downtown and area-wide TSM projects. 

3.3. Build Alternatives 

The JTC is comprised of four primary components: a JTA bus terminal (intracity), a 

Greyhound bus terminal (intercity), a Skyway and RTS station (intracity), and an 

Amtrak station (intercity). Secondary components of the facility include significant 

parking, retail, a regional transportation management center, and a transportation 

office complex. The construction of the proposed facilities requires the closing of 

Stuart Street. Figures 3.3.1 displays the overall site plan for the JTC. Each 

component and its comparative advantages over the existing conditions are 

described below in more detail. 

The majority of the proposed improvements will occur within areas that have similar 

existing or historical uses, or are presently vacant and undeveloped property. The 

vacant properties that are presently undeveloped are utilized as make shift parking 

lots. Additionally, with the exception of six individual parcels, all of the lands used in 

this project are owned by JTA, FDOT, or the City of Jacksonville including the City 

owned Prime Osborn Convention Center. 

3.3.1. Intracity Component (JTA Facilities) 

JTA Bus Terminal 

Figure 3.3.2 displays the proposed JTA bus terminal and Skyway Station. The JTA 

bus terminal is located between Houston and Forsyth Streets and is proposed to be 

located beneath an open-air canopy to provide shelter for passengers. Locating the 

JTA bus terminal at the JTC has the following advantages: 

• JTA’s terminal at the Florida Community College of Jacksonville (FCCJ) is 

fully utilized; expansion of the existing JTA facility is not feasible or costeffective 

• JTC location is in close proximity to bus maintenance yard 

• JTC is accessible to key routes and the Interstate 

• JTC location places BRT directly adjacent to the Skyway station 

• Excellent transfer from BRT to Greyhound bus lines or Skyway 

• Central bus transfer facility and rapid bus transit stations integrated with 

structured parking and office / regional transportation management center 

complex 


 


PD&E STUDY 

JTC SITE PLAN 

FIGURE 

3.3.1

 


PD&E STUDY 

JTA BUS TERMINAL & 

SKYWAY STATION 

FIGURE 

3.3.2


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

JTA Skyway Station 

Locating the JTA bus terminal and the existing Skyway station adjacent to each 

other has the following advantages for the Skyway: 

• Integration of existing Skyway terminal into structured parking and retail 

opportunities 

• Economies of scale for security, janitorial services, maintenance, and 

outside vendors 

3.3.2. Intercity Component 

Intercity Bus Terminal (Greyhound) 

The configuration of the proposed Greyhound bus terminal can be seen on Figures 

3.3.1 and 3.3.3. Relocating the Greyhound operation to the JTC has the following 

advantages: 

• Excellent access to Interstate with exit and entrance ramps linking I-95 

directly with the JTC 

• Internal bus movements contained on-site 

• Vacates existing site 

• Relocates regional Greyhound administration staff to the JTC site 

• Greyhound bus terminal and operations facility integrated with retail 

• Bus wash facility located on-site 

• Ease of transfer for Greyhound passengers to other transportation modes; 

JTA, Skyway and Amtrak 

• Reduced bus movement within congested downtown 

Figure 3.3.3 shows the McDaniel Building, an existing historic structure that will be 

incorporated into the Greyhound facility. As can be seen by the figure, the southern 

non-historic half of the building is proposed to be removed, and the building will be 

reconstructed into driver dormitories. The original historic portion of the structure, 

both interior and exterior features, will be retained. 

Intercity Rail Terminal (Amtrak) 

Figure 3.3.4 shows a conceptual view of the proposed Amtrak terminal at the JTC. 

The following benefits are achieved with this concept: 

• Consolidates Amtrak’s operational and administrative functions at one 

location 

• Allows potential new East Coast Atlantic Service along FEC tracks 

• Improves passenger accessibility and safety 

• Accommodate possible future commuter rail, with the JTC serving as the 

main transfer hub 

An Amtrak Service Area consisting of a parking lot connected to Dennis and Harper 

Streets is proposed to be located on the north bank of McCoy’s Creek just 

southwest of the Amtrak passenger platforms (see Figure 3.3.1). This service road 

may impact wetlands along McCoy’s Creek. The access road is critical, not only for 

refueling the locomotives, but also as a major safety consideration. The proposed 



PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

access road represents the only means of fire and rescue services from reaching 

the southern most rail line passengers platform and acts as the best possible route 

for individuals needing quick evacuation from that location. The one-lane roadway 

will be used for emergency vehicle access, express mail vehicles and for locomotive 

re-fueling trucks. 

Some slight modifications to the existing Florida East Coast rail alignment are 

required to accommodate the proposed Amtrak line. This realignment will require 

the acquisition of right-of-way from the adjacent Federal Reserve Bank. 


 


PD&E STUDY 

McDANIEL BUILDING 

FIGURE 

3.3.3


PD&E STUDY 

AMTRAK TERMINAL 

FIGURE 

3.3.4


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

3.3.3. Parking Component 

Three parking schemes were examined as part of this PD&E study: 

Scheme A 

• JTA office building and Regional Transportation Management Center 

(RTMC) in separate footprints over retail. Either building can be constructed 

individually. 

• Below-grade parking provided for 15-20 vehicles. 

Scheme B 

• JTA office building and RTMC over Skyway parking structure; 

Scheme C 

• JTA office building and RTMC over primary parking structure; 

Figure 3.3.5 shows the proposed parking structures above the JTA bus terminal and 

retail space. Scheme C was chosen as the preferred parking configuration. A 

transport concourse connecting four primary JTC components is shown in Figure 

3.3.6. The transport concourse will include a moving walkway to facilitate the 

movement of passengers with luggage and children. The proposed JTA parking 

configuration features the following: 

• 2200 Parking Spaces 

• Adjacent to Interstate 

• Park ‘n’ Ride facility 

• Parking for JTC users 

• Convenient and safe vehicular access and parking 


 


PD&E STUDY 


SKYWAY STATION - 

PARKING STRUCTURES 

FIGURE 

3.3.5

 


PD&E STUDY 



TRANSPORT CONCOURSE 

FIGURE 

3.3.6


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

3.3.4. Regional Transportation Management Center (RTMC)/Office 

Component 

Figure 3.3.7 shows the proposed layout of the offices and RTMC. These facilities 

will be located above the 7-level parking garage above the ground-floor JTA bus 

terminal. The RTMC will feature the following: 

• Centralized management of transit, highway and arterial road traffic 

• Centralized emergency response services 

• Centralized distribution of travel information in the JTC 

• Centralized JTA customer service center 

The offices will house the headquarters of the JTA, which is currently strained for 

office space at the existing location on north Myrtle Street. The offices are called 

the “Transport Office Complex” and will provide office space for offices for 

transportation staff, including the First Coast Metropolitan Planning Organization 

(FCMPO). Additional office space will be provided to Florida Highway Patrol, the 

Florida Department of Transportation and the City of Jacksonville’s Fire and Rescue 

operations. 

3.3.5. Retail Component 

Figure 3.3.8 shows the configuration of the proposed retail space within the JTC. 

Over 30,000 square feet of retail space is proposed between the JTA bus terminal 

and Amtrak terminal. The addition of retail offers a revenue source for the JTC and 

is viewed by the Florida Transportation Association as essential in station area 

planning. The retail space located on the ground level of the Skyway Parking 

Structure is mandated by the Jacksonville Downtown Development Authority and 

detailed in the Downtown Jacksonville Master Plan. 

A safe, user-friendly public facility is critical to the provision of services and public 

amenities to the JTC. Rest rooms, drinking fountains, public telephones, business 

and personal services, restaurants, vending facilities for food and drink, 

newspapers, etc., are important enhancements for each leg of a passenger’s trip. 

Attractive, well-placed services and amenities act as a greeting to passengers 

stepping off a transportation mode or a pleasant diversion while waiting between 

mode changes. 

Shopping and dining facilities are not limited to serving transportation users but can 

also serve a wide variety of Convention Center attendees, tourists, downtown 

employees, visitors, etc. By creating concentrations of people the JTC can 

encourage the economies of scale and flexibility needed to support a greater variety 

of services and amenities. 


 


PD&E STUDY 



OFFICES & TMC 

FIGURE 

3.3.7

 


PD&E STUDY 



RETAIL SPACE 

FIGURE 

3.3.8


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

4.0 IMPACTS 

4.1 Social and Economic Environmental Impacts 

4.1.1 Community Services 

The proposed project may potentially have minor impacts to community services 

during the construction phase. These limited disruptions will occur as a result of 

temporary road closures within the project limits. Any other proposed road 

improvements will mainly pertain to widening at the intersections to accommodate 

bus movements. Any potential delays caused by construction activities will be 

minimized to the greatest extent practicable and are anticipated to be very minor as 

there is an extensive existing road network that provides multiple avenues of 

accessing any singular location. 

Additionally, the construction of the Jacksonville Transportation Center will result in 

the permanent closing of Stuart Street to vehicular traffic. Stuart Street exists as a 

three block long local roadway. The closing of Stuart Street will not have a 

detrimental impact on emergency services reaching any location due to the fact that 

these areas will still be accessible from the side streets (Houston, West Forsyth and 

Bay). Additionally, the Emergency Services Vehicles will also be able to reach 

locations through the use of parking lots and JTA and Greyhound bus loading areas. 

All practicable measures will be taken during the construction to reduce any possible 

impacts to essential community services. 

4.1.2 Community Cohesion 

Two businesses and no residential areas will be disrupted or displaced and no 

segments of existing communities will be isolated as a result of the build alternative. 

4.1.3 Land Uses 

The majority of the proposed improvements will occur within areas that have similar 

existing or historical uses, or are presently vacant and undeveloped property. The 

majority of the project area, to the east of I-95, is contained within the City of 

Jacksonville’s Central Business District (see Figure 4.1.3) and falls within the 

accepted land uses for that designation. The Jacksonville Union Terminal will be 

renovated to its former visage and will again be used as a train station. The portion 

of the project area located between Bay Street and Adams Street is presently 

vacant land with one exception. This exception, the McDaniel Building, located 

along Adams Street and presently the site of the McDaniel Contractor’s Inc., will be 

incorporated into the Greyhound facility. 

4.1.4 Utilities and Railroads 

Utilities 

Public and private above ground and below ground utilities are located within the 

project area. Utility coordination will continue in the design phase to avoid any 

conflicts. 

Impacts 4-1

Heavy 

Industrial 

Public 

Buildings 

& Facilities 

Light 

Industrial 

95 

ADAMS ST 

DENNIS ST 

BAY ST 

Light 

Industrial 

Recreation & Open Space 

Public 

Buildings 

& Facilities 

Central Business District 

PARK ST 

0 600 1,200 

1 inch equals 600 feet 

Feet 


PD&E STUDY 

Future Land Use 

FIGURE 

4.1.3


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

Railroads 

Active CSX Transportation (CSX), Norfolk Southern (NS), and Florida East Coast 

(FEC) railroad lines run through a portion of the project area along McCoy’s Creek 

and adjacent to the Prime Osborn Convention Center. These rail tracks are 

presently used by CSX, NS and FEC for the transportation of freight. Coordination 

with CSX, NS, FEC, and Amtrak has been ongoing and will continue throughout the 

study in an effort to minimize and avoid any potential impacts. While the build 

alternative includes potentially modifying the existing railroad line and adding 

passenger trains to the schedule, no impacts to the existing freight traffic is 

anticipated from this project. 

4.1.5 Relocations 

There are three business relocations (two business relocations located in the same 

building) anticipated as a result of the proposed build alternatives. The construction 

and antique business presently occupying the McDaniel building will need to be 

relocated under the build alternative. The owners have been contacted by FDOT 

and have attended a public meeting on June 29, 2006. The third relocation, Liberty 

Steel, is required for the realignment of the railroad tracks to accommodate 

AMTRAK trains. FDOT has been in communication with Liberty Steel throughout 

the project. All applicable provisions detailed under the Uniform Relocation 

Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 will be followed. 

The slight modifications to the existing Florida East Coast rail alignment required to 

accommodate the proposed Amtrak line will impact lands associated with the 

adjacent Federal Reserve Bank (FRB). Two different alternatives were analyzed in 

detail and are displayed in figures 4.1.5A and B. The preferred track realignment 

will require the acquisition of approximately 3,920 square feet of FRB property, as 

opposed to approximately 6,000 square feet for the other alternative. The preferred 

alternative has been informally approved by FEC and will not impact any buildings 

or structures associated with the FRB. A letter from the FRB is located in Appendix 

B. 

4.1.6 Secondary Development 

The project area is located within the Core Business Development area of 

downtown Jacksonville as indicated by the City of Jacksonville’s land use maps. 

Additionally, the project is located within an area containing vacant and undeveloped 

property and is adjacent to areas designated as Heavy Industrial located to the north 

and west of I-95. While it is likely that this project will result in some secondary 

development, most likely commercial and residential in nature, this development will 

conform to the existing land uses and not conflict with any officially adopted plans. 

This anticipated secondary development is desirable as a means of redeveloping a 

once thriving commercial area of the La Villa District. 

4.1.7 Environmental Justice 

In February 1994, the President of the United States issued Executive Order 12898 

(Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low- 

Income Populations) requiring federal agencies to analyze and address, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high adverse human health and environmental 

effects of Federal actions on ethnic and cultural minority populations and low income 

Impacts 4-3


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

populations, when such analysis is required by the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA). An adverse effect on minority and/or low-income populations 

occurs when: 1) the adverse effect occurs primarily on a minority and/or low-income 

population 2) the adverse effect suffered by the minority and/or low-income is more 

severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect suffered by the non-minority 

and/or non-low-income populations. 

In addition to compliance with Executive Order 12898, any proposed federal action 

must comply with the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as 

amended by Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. The specifics of Title VI are 

that “no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national 

origin be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to 

discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 

Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 guarantees each person equal opportunity in 

housing. The proposed project has been developed in accordance with Civil Rights 

Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1968 and with Executive Order 

12898. 

Data obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau (Census 2000) were reviewed to gain a 

picture of the demographic conditions of the project study area and surrounding 

neighborhoods. The Census statistical area that encompasses the study area, 

Census Tract 18 Block Group 1, has a total population of 386 people. The small 

population size is indicative of the commercial and industrial nature of the project 

area with all of the residential land-uses occurring outside of the project footprint to 

the north and east in the La Villa neighborhood. The two adjacent residential areas 

had similarly small populations with Census Tract 19, Block Group 1, the Brooklyn 

area to the west, having a population of 275, and with Census Tract 18 Block Group 

2, located to the east, having 333 residents. 

The U.S. Census Bureau data were also used to determine the presence or 

concentration of minority and low-income populations. The Census statistical area 

that encompasses the study area, Census Tract 18 Block Group 1, has a minority 

population of 322 (83%) with 252 (67%) living at or below the poverty level. The two 

adjacent residential areas had similar populations with Census Tract 19, Block 

Group 1, the Brooklyn area to the west, having a minority population of 275 (100%) 

with 41 (15%) living at or below the poverty level. Census Tract 18 Block Group 2, 

located to the east, has a minority population of 171 (51%) with 121 (36%) living at 

or below the poverty level. As these numbers indicate, impacts to these populations 

warrant scrutiny for environmental justice concerns. 

Due to the absence of a residential population in the project site, potential direct 

changes to neighborhood character will not occur. The project will provide enhanced 

transportation choices for local and regional populations. The disadvantaged 

populations adjacent to the project site will be benefited by its proximity, since the 

project will stimulate economic activity in the vicinity and offer more convenient 

public transportation for work or recreational purposes. Construction is not 

anticipated to cause disruption to the residential community in the project vicinity. 

Residential areas are outside the project site and are serviced by roadways that will 

not be significantly affected during the construction period. 

Impacts 4-4


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

Socio-economic impacts are expected to be direct and positive, although they may 

accrue slowly and cumulatively as the JTC will play a role in economic development 

throughout the project vicinity. The JTC, like the other financial investments in the 

downtown, will create retail/office activity as well as support adjacent economic 

activity, which is much needed and desired by the City. Social and quality of life 

benefits relating to the transportation functions of the JTC include the following: 

• Better access to public transportation for members of the community 

• Availability of modern and efficient transit facilities 

• Increased speed and ease of transfers between transportation modes 

• Improved links to commercial, educational, governmental, entertainment and 

cultural activity centers 

4.2 Cultural and Historical Resources 

4.2.1 Archaeological and Historical 

Archaeological 

In accordance with 36 CFR, Part 800, a background search and a field survey have 

been performed for this project. The survey was completed in compliance with 

Section106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended by Public 

Law 89-655; the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended 

by Public Law 93-291; Executive Order 11593; Chapter 267, Florida Statutes, and 

Part 2, Chapter 12 of the FDOT PD&E Manual. 

As part of this PD&E study, a Cultural Resource Assessment (CRAS) has been 

conducted to determine the possibility of project related impacts to archaeological 

resources. Archaeological background research and field surveys have been 

conducted for this project. The objective of these efforts was to locate and identify 

any archaeological sites within the vicinity of the proposed project and assess their 

significance in terms of eligibility for listing in the NRHP. 

Impacts 4-5


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

During the initial archaeological survey, 24 round and 6 square shovel tests were 

conducted across two separate parcels within the project boundaries considered to 

be of high archaeological site potential. Due to the positive results of the tests, two 

newly identified archaeological sites, 8DU17727 and 8DU17728, were recorded. 

Historical documentation indicates that both sites were utilized as staging ground 

encampments by both Union and Confederate troops during the Civil War. 

Subsequent testing at both sites was conducted to ascertain the sites’ eligibility for 

listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Results and analysis of 

the subsequent investigations resulted in determining that both sites are not eligible 

for listing due to their low potential to provide any new or important information 

concerning their respective historic timeframes. A July 20, 2006 letter from the State 

Historical Preservation Officer concurred with this finding and requested that they be 

notified of any changes in order to make sure that the concurrence remains valid. A 

copy of this letter is located in Appendix B. 

Historical 

In accordance with 36 CFR, Part 800, a background search and a field survey have 

been performed for this project. The survey was completed in compliance with 

Section106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended by Public 

Law 89-655; Executive Order 11593; Chapter 267, Florida Statutes, and Part 2, 

Chapter 12 of the FDOT PD&E Manual. 

As part of this PD&E study, a Cultural Resource Assessment has been conducted to 

determine the possibility of project related impacts to historical resources. 

Background research and field surveys have been conducted for this project. The 

objective of these efforts was to locate and identify any structures within the vicinity 

of the proposed project and assess their significance in terms of eligibility for listing 

in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The background search, 

including a review of the Florida Master Site File (FMSF) and the NRHP, indicated 

that two historic properties have been previously recorded within the Area of 

Potential Effect (APE) for the proposed roadway. 

The initial survey resulted in the identification of twenty-one previously recorded 

historic buildings and two bridges located within the project APE. Of these, eight 

historic properties were determined to require further evaluation with the remaining 

properties having been either removed from the APE or demolished since originally 

recorded. 

Of the eight properties identified, three were determined to not be eligible for listing 

in the NRHP, four were determined to be possibly eligible for listing and one 

property has already been listed in the NRHP. Of the four properties eligible for 

listing two of them, the Myrtle Avenue Subway Bridge and the I-95/Myrtle Avenue 

Bridge, will not be impacted by any of the build alternatives. The other two 

properties, the McDaniel Building and the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad, and the 

property already in the NRHP, the Jacksonville Terminal Complex, are within the 

footprints of the build alternative. 

The Atlantic Coast Line Railroad was owned and operated by the Florida Central & 

Western Railroad as early as 1882 until the early 20 th century when it became 

consolidated under the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad. Atlantic merged with Seaboard 

Impacts 4-8


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

Air Line Railroad in 1967 and has been under CSX control since 1980. Despite 

such alterations as the installation of modern electrical control boxes and chain-link 

fences, the segment retains its integrity of location and still conveys the feeling and 

association of a late 19 th or 20 th century industrial railroad corridor. This segment of 

railway lines maybe reconfigured as part of the build alternative. This 

reconfiguration will not include relocation nor will it cease its extant use as a freight 

corridor. The proposed changes will not impact the segment’s integrity of location or 

association of a 19 th /20 th century industrial railroad corridor and will not impact its 

possible eligibility for listing in NRHP. 

The McDaniel Building will be incorporated into any of the proposed build 

alternatives as Greyhound driver dormitories (Figure 3.3.3). This one-story masonry 

commercial building reflects elements of the Spanish Eclectic style. This influence is 

evident in the parapet roof, clay tile detail and cast stone ornamentation. Although 

presently altered, its traditional commercial elements are seen in its placement at 

the street, corner entry and apparent storefront design with numerous bays and 

knee walls. The building has been designated as a local historic landmark. 

Additionally, the existing Jacksonville Terminal, listed on the National Register of 

Historic Places, will be a focal point of the proposed Jacksonville Transportation 

Center. This grand historic building, which adjoins the Prime Osborn Convention 

Center in downtown Jacksonville, will be restored to its original use as a rail station 

for Amtrak. All practicable measures will be taken to assure that the rehabilitation 

will be conducted in a manner that preserves the historical and architectural value of 

the historic property through conformance with the Secretary's "Standards for 

Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Buildings". 

In an effort to avoid and minimize any impacts to the historical integrity of either the 

McDaniel Building or Jacksonville Terminal, intensive coordination continued 

through out this project with both state and local agencies. Coordination with the 

State Historic Preservation Officer and the City of Jacksonville were key elements of 

this project. A December 12, 2005 letter from the State Historical Preservation 

Officer stated that “the proposed project will have no adverse impacts on the historic 

Jacksonville Terminal Complex or other properties listed or eligible for listing in the 

National Register of Historic Places.” An additional letter was received on July 20, 

2006 reiterating the “no adverse effect” and requesting additional coordination 

during the design phase. Copies of these letters are located in Appendix B. 

4.2.2 Recreational / Parkland 

In accordance with Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 

(Title 49, U.S.C., Section 1653(f), amended and recodified in Title 49, U.S.C., 

Section 303, in 1983), the project was examined for potential Section 4(f) properties. 

Section 4(f) is comprised of three categories that include: 

1. publicly owned parks, recreational areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges; 

2. historical and archaeological sites 

3. properties which represent public multiple use land holdings 

Impacts 4-9


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

There is a publicly owned park and an active recreation facility known as the 

Brooklyn Park and consists of a baseball / softball field and support facilities. This 

park is located south of McCoy’s Creek from the Jacksonville Terminal. Considering 

that freight trains presently utilize the tracks along McCoy’s Creek and that the 

active recreational use of the park is not considered noise-sensitive, the addition of 

passenger trains will not conflict with the present use of the facility. There are no 

anticipated impacts, direct or indirect, to this park from any proposed build 

alternative. Since there is no use of this resource, Section 4(f) does not apply. 

The City of Jacksonville is currently conducting a study into the creation of a 

McCoy’s Creek Greenway. The greenway will include parks and passive 

recreational components in an effort to provide natural areas to an otherwise urban 

environment. The proposed corridor is located to the west and south of the 

Jacksonville Transportation Center and the portion of McCoy’s Creek that flows 

adjacent to the JTC is not included. Therefore, the construction related to the 

proposed JTC will not constitute a use of resources associated with the proposed 

Greenway and Section 4(f) does not apply. 

The historical and archaeological sites are discussed in section 4.2.1. 

4.3 Natural and Physical Impacts 

4.3.1 Visual / Aesthetics 

The proposed location for the Jacksonville Transportation Center is presently mostly 

vacant and undeveloped property. The exceptions are the Jacksonville Terminal, 

Prime Osborn Convention Center and some small commercial buildings along the 

eastern project boundary. The portion of the project area located between Bay 

Street and Adams Street is presently vacant land with one exception. The McDaniel 

Building, located along Adams Street and presently the site of the McDaniel 

Contractor’s Inc., will be incorporated into the Greyhound facility. 

Care was taken during conceptual design to maintain the historic visage of the 

Jacksonville Terminal and the McDaniel’s building and to incorporate the historic 

elements of these buildings into the proposed adjacent structures. Coordination 

with the State Historic Preservation Officer and the City of Jacksonville was 

conducted to insure that the proposed project is compatible with the visual character 

of the surrounding area. 

4.3.2 Air 

The proposed project will not result in an increase in bus or rail traffic but will 

redirect existing traffic to a new location. Additionally, the project is located in an 

area which is designated attainment for all of the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards under the criteria provided in the Clean Air Act. Therefore, the Clean Air 

Act conformity requirements do not apply to the project. 

4.3.3 Noise and Vibration 

The construction and operation of the proposed JTC will result in changes in noise 

and vibration levels in the project vicinity. An assessment was conducted to 

Impacts 4-10


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

determine whether the changes in noise and vibration levels would impact any 

sensitive sites in the surrounding area. This assessment was conducted in 

accordance with the procedures outlined in the Federal Transit Authority (FTA) 

Guidance Manual for Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (May 2006). 

In accordance with FTA’s methodology, their Screening Procedures were used to 

evaluate each of the project’s primary and secondary components (see Section 3.3 

Build Alternatives). FTA’s Screening Procedures serve to determine the areas with 

noise and vibration sensitive land uses that warrant further analysis. The purpose of 

these procedures is to determine whether these noise and vibration sensitive land 

uses will be impacted by the proposed JTC. If no sensitive land uses are present 

within a defined area of project influence, then no further assessment is necessary. 

For sensitive sites that warrant further analysis based on the results of the 

Screening Procedures, FTA’s General Assessments were performed. The purpose 

of these General Assessments is to estimate the severity of noise and vibration 

impacts and the need for abatement measures. Because of the type of project and 

the location of the project in downtown Jacksonville which has few sensitive sites, 

the third level of analysis, FTA’s Detailed Analysis, was not warranted. Detailed 

Analysis, which is a more comprehensive assessment based on specific design 

concepts, is generally for major fixed-guideway projects and for transit projects 

where severe impacts are anticipated. 

4.3.3.1 Noise Assessment 

Noise Screening Procedures 

Table 4.1 lists each of the JTC components, FTA’s source-type categories, and the 

unobstructed screening distances for each of the transit components. The 

screening distances for the bus facilities ranged from 100 ft to 225 ft and from 100 ft 

to 750 ft for rail (fixed guideway) facilities. A land use survey was conducted to 

determine if any noise sensitive sites are located within these screening distances. 

Noise sensitive sites include exterior areas of frequent use, residences, parks, 

schools, hospitals, churches, and other places where quiet is important for normal 

activities and are grouped into three categories by FTA. Category 1 includes tracts 

of land where quiet is an essential element in their intended purpose, such as 

outdoor concert pavilions or National Historic Landmarks where outdoor 

interpretation routinely takes place. Category 2 includes residences and buildings 

where people sleep, including homes, hospitals, and hotels. Category 3 includes 

institutional land uses with primary daytime and evening use such as schools, 

places of worship, and libraries or places for meditation or study associated with 

cemeteries, monuments, museums, parks, and recreation facilities. 

The closest noise sensitive sites are described in Table 4.1 and depicted in Figure 

4.3.1. Further noise analysis is warranted if one or more noise sensitive sites are 

within the screening distances. As indicated in Table 4.1, no further analysis is 

warranted for the proposed stationary bus facilities including parking structures and 

the parking facilities associated with Amtrak Service Area. The closest noise 

sensitive sites (i.e., LaVilla School of the Arts and single family residences) to these 

facilities are substantially further than the screening distances for these facilities. 

However, a number of noise sensitive sites do occur within screening distance for 

access roads and the proposed Amtrak Station. Therefore, there may be a potential 

Impacts 4-11


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

for noise impacts and a General Assessment is required for these JTC components 

that are within FTA’s screening distances. 

Table 4.1 Noise Screening Assessment 

JTC Component 

FTA’s Source- 

Type Category 

Screening 

Distance*(ft) 

Unobstructed 

Closest Noise 

Sensitive Site (ft) 

General Noise 

Assessment 

Required? 

Bus Facilities 

JTA Bus Terminal; 

JTA Skyway; 

Greyhound Bus 

Terminal; Retail 

Shops; and Office 

Spaces 

Parking Structures 

(2,218 Parking 

Spaces) 

Stationary Source - 

Transit Mall 

Highway/Transit 

Source - Access 

Roads/Bus Routes 

Stationary Source - 

Park and Ride Lots 

225 

100 

225 

820 (LaVilla School 

of the Arts) 

30 (See Table 4.3; 

Apartment Building, 

Library, Hotel, and 

Recreational) 

1,060 (Residence - 

83A Chelsea Street) 

No 

Yes 

No 

Rail (Fixed Guideway) Facilities 

Amtrak Station 

Commuter Rail 

Station 

250 

140 (Residence - 83 

A Chelsea Street) 

Yes 

Amtrak Service 

Area (~150 Parking 

Spaces) 

Commuter Mainline 

Tracks 

750 

Parking Facilities 125 

Access Roads 100 

170 (Residence - 83 

A Chelsea Street) 

180 (1402 Harper 

Street) 

50 (1402 Harper 

Street) 

* Values taken from Table 4-1 from FTA’s 2006 Guidance Manual; Distances measured from the centerline of 

rail/roadway for mobile sources or from the outer boundary of the proposed JTC site. 

Brooklyn Park which is located south of McCoy’s Creek and the proposed JTC 

includes a baseball field and two basketball courts. Since this park is primarily used 

for active recreation, it is not considered noise-sensitive and was not assessed for 

potential noise impacts. 

Within the project area there is one historic structure eligible for listing on the NRHP, 

the McDaniel Building, and one which is listed on the NRHP, the Jacksonville 

Terminal Complex (see Section 4.2.1 Archaeological and Historical). Both of these 

structures are within the boundaries of the JTC. The McDaniel Building will be 

incorporated into the Greyhound Terminal (see Figure 3.3.3). The Jacksonville 

Terminal will be restored to its original use as a rail station for Amtrak. Although 

both of these structures are historically significant, neither of these are considered 

noise or vibration sensitive because of their intended use. 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Impacts 4-12


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

General Noise Assessment 

As identified in Table 4.1, General Noise Assessments are required to assess 

potential noise impacts associated with several of the proposed JTC transit 

components. The purpose of these assessments are to estimate the existing and 

proposed noise levels at the closest noise sensitive sites from these particular 

transit components and to determine if these levels exceed FTA’s Noise Impact 

Criteria for transit projects. The appropriate noise metric for the assessment is 

dependent upon the land use category. The noise metric for Land Use Category 2 

(i.e., residential) is the day-night sound level [Ldn] or the hourly equivalent sound 

level [Leq(h)]. Ldn represents the cumulative noise exposure from all events over a 

full 24 hours, with events between 10 pm and 7 am increased by 10 decibels to 

account for greater nighttime sensitivity to noise. Leq(h) is the steady-state sound 

level which contains the same amount of acoustic energy as the actual time-varying 

sound level over a one-hour period. Leq(h) is measured in A-weighted decibels 

(dBA), which closely approximates the human auditory response. The noise metric 

for Land Use Category 3 (i.e., non-residential) is Leq(h). 

The existing noise levels were based on noise measurements at three 

representative locations in the area potentially affected. These sites were selected 

based on the types of noise sources and the closeness to existing or proposed 

transit sources. A description of these sites, monitoring periods, and measured 

levels are summarized in Table 4.2. The measured levels were used to estimate the 

Ldn levels at these and other sites based on the methodology provided in Appendix 

D of FTA’s 2006 Guidance Manual. 

Impacts 4-14


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

Table 4.2 Summary of Noise Monitoring Data Used to Establish Existing Levels 

Monitoring Site 

Number, 

Description, and 

Location 

Distance to 

Noise Source 

Begin and 

End Hourly 

Monitoring 

Period 

Measured 

Level of 

Existing Noise 

Exposure 

(Leq(h)) 

Existing Ldn Based 

on Measured 

Levels (-2 dB) 

MS1 - Residential, 

320 Jefferson St 

(Downtown 

Jacksonville) 

40 ft from the 

Centerline of 

Jefferson St 

(2-Lane 

Roadway) 

8:32 am to 

9:32 am 

65 63 


83A Chelsea St 

(Brooklyn Park 

Community) 

170 ft from the 

Center of the 

Existing FEC 

Railroad 

Tracks 

5:00 pm to 

6:00 pm 

12:52 pm 

to 1:52 pm 

59 57 

57 55 


1402 Harper St 

(Brooklyn Park 

Community) 

30 ft from 

Centerline of 

Harper St (2- 

Lane 

Roadway) 

2:32 pm to 

3:32 pm 

59 57 

Bus Facilities and Operations - Of the proposed bus facilities associated with JTC, 

access roads have the potential to impact adjacent noise sensitive sites. A 

comparison of existing bus routes and proposed bus routes were performed to 

identify local streets that will experience increases in bus traffic as a result of the 

JTC. In general, the JTC will redistribute the bus traffic over a number of streets 

compared to the current bus routes. Currently, most of the buses leaving the FCCJ 

Bus Transfer Station travel south and north along Newnan Street and then east and 

west along Bay, Waters, and Forsyth Streets. With JTC, bus traffic along Newnan 

Street will be reduced and increased along Jefferson Street (one-way southbound) 

and Broad Street (one-way northbound) as well as Main Street (one-way 

southbound) and Ocean Street (one-way northbound). Also, bus traffic will be 

reduced on Water Street and increased on some portions of Adams Street while 

some of the proposed bus routes no longer have stops at the FCCJ Station. Table 

4.3 summarizes the bus volumes on local streets based on the existing routes and 

those proposed with JTC. As indicated in Table 4.3, eight streets will experience 

increases in bus volumes with JTC. Of these streets, six have noise sensitive sites 

within 100 ft of the roadway centerline. Eight sites along these roads were selected 

to represent the noise sensitive sites potentially affected by the increase in bus 

volumes. These noise sensitive sites represent the closest to the roadway and 

include residential areas, institutional land use including the Jacksonville Public 

Library, two churches, and recreational areas. The description of these noise 

sensitive sites, the data used in the assessment, FTA’s impact criteria, and the 

Impacts 4-15


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

results of the General Noise Assessment at each of these eight locations are 

summarized in Table 4.4. The predicted project noise exposure levels at the eight 

noise sensitive sites are below FTA’s noise impact exposure levels. Therefore, 

none of the adjacent noise sensitive sites located along these roads or from the 

proposed JTA and Greyhound Bus Terminals are expected to experience significant 

noise impacts from the bus operations associated with JTC. 

Rail Facilities - Based on the results of the Screening Procedures, the train 

operations associated with the proposed Amtrak Station have the potential to impact 

adjacent noise sensitive sites. A residential building is located approximately 170 ft 

south of the existing FEC tracks, well within the 250 ft screening distance for a rail 

station and 750 ft from the railroad tracks. The data used in the General Noise 

Assessment and results are summarized in Table 4.5. 

Currently, an average of 18.4 freight trains per day travel through this area on two 

parallel FEC Railroad tracks. Based on the current train activity through this area 

and an average speed of 20 miles per hour (mph), the predicted noise exposure 

level is 59 Ldn at the nearest noise sensitive site. The reference sound exposure 

level (SEL) at 50 ft is 67 dBA. The estimated Ldn at this site based on measured 

noise levels which is used in assessing potential noise impacts was 57 Ldn. With 

the proposed Amtrak Station occupying the existing FEC tracks, two additional sets 

of tracks will be constructed 61 ft north of the existing tracks to accommodate FEC 

train operations. The shift of the freight trains to the north will reduce the predicted 

noise exposure level at the closest residence by 2 dB from 59 Ldn to 57 Ldn. 

With the proposed Amtrak Station, four additional trains per day (i.e., Amtrak 

passenger trains) and possibly two Amtrak Auto Trains per day would use the 

existing FEC Railroad tracks. Based on the existing Amtrak schedules, the four 

passenger trains stopping would result in locomotives idling for an average of 22 

minutes at the proposed Amtrak Station. It is likely that two Amtrak Auto Trains per 

day would continue to use the US 17 corridor on its way to and from Sanford and 

not pass by the proposed Amtrak Station. Currently, the Auto Train does not stop in 

Jacksonville. However, to represent worst case conditions, it was assumed that the 

Auto Train would pass by the proposed Amtrak Station. 

The predicted noise exposure level associated with the Amtrak trains idling and 

traveling through this area is 55 Ldn at the closest noise sensitive site. Since the 

predicted level is less than the FTA’s impact level of 57 Ldn, the proposed train 

operations and the associated increase in noise levels are not expected to impact 

any noise sensitive sites (see Table 4.5). In addition, based on an existing noise 

exposure level of 57 dBA, the proposed Amtrak Station and FEC train operations 

will result in only a 2 dB increase in cumulative noise levels (i.e., 57 Ldn to 59 Ldn). 

Based on Figure 3-2 in FTA’s 2006 Guidance Manual, this increase does not 

represent a noise impact. 

The predicted noise exposure level with the train operations associated with the 

proposed Amtrak Station and the new FEC tracks is 59 Ldn which is the same level 

as the existing FEC train operations. Therefore, the project may not actually 

increase train noise at any noise sensitive sites in the vicinity of the JTC. 

Impacts 4-16

Table 4.3 Existing and Proposed Bus Route Volumes on Local Streets in the Vicinity of Jacksonville Transportation Center 

Roadway Segment 

Existing Bus Volume 

Total Per 

Day 

Total Per 

Night 

Bus Volume With JTC 

Total Per 

Day 

Total Per 

Night 

Net Difference Bus 

Volumes With JTC 

Total Per 

Day 

Total Per 

Night 

Bus Volumes 

Increase With 

JTC? 

Noise Sensitive Site 

Within 100 ft? 

(Distance) 

North-South Bus Routes 

Lee St 

Adams St to Forsyth St 0 0 363 57 363 57 Yes No 

Forsyth St to Bay St 0 0 382 60 382 60 Yes No 

Bay St to Water St 47 8 207 34 160 26 Yes No 

Pearl St 

Adams St to Forsyth St 44 7 0 0 -44 -7 No --- 

Forsyth St to Bay St 314 50 0 0 -314 -50 No --- 

Bay St to Water St 594 95 0 0 -594 -95 No --- 

Jefferson St 

Union St to Adams St 106 25 178 44 72 19 Yes Yes (40 ft) 




Broad St 





Main St 




Ocean St 



Newnan St 

Union St to Duval St 761 120 367 57 -394 -63 No --- 

Duval St to Adams St 815 138 367 57 -448 -81 No --- 


Forsyth St to Bay St 447 70 201 31 -246 -39 No --- 

Bay St to Water St 73 12 40 7 -33 -5 No --- 

East-West Bus Routes 

Water St 

Lee St to Jefferson St 241 41 67 13 -174 -29 No --- 

Jefferson St to Broad St 267 45 67 13 -200 -33 No --- 

Broad St to Pearl St 667 107 127 23 -540 -84 No --- 

Pearl St to Main St 116 19 74 12 -42 -7 No --- 

Main St to Newnan St 116 19 74 12 -42 -7 No --- 

Bay St 

Lee St to Jefferson St 76 13 225 35 149 22 Yes No 

Jefferson St to Broad St 76 13 225 35 149 22 Yes No 

Broad St to Pearl St 107 17 225 35 118 19 Yes Yes (30 ft) 

Pearl St to Main St 377 60 251 41 -126 -19 No --- 

Main St to Newnan St 377 60 173 29 -205 -31 No --- 

Forsyth St 

Lee St to Jefferson St 29 5 703 126 674 121 Yes No 


Broad St to Pearl St 135 29 360 55 225 27 Yes No 

Pearl St to Main St 380 69 386 61 7 -9 No --- 

Main St to Newnan St 380 69 386 61 7 -9 No --- 

Adams St 

Lee St to Jefferson St 0 0 571 104 571 104 Yes Yes (30 ft) 


Broad St to Pearl St 52 7 366 55 314 49 Yes No 

Pearl St to Main St 96 14 209 32 114 19 Yes No 

Main St to Ocean St 96 14 209 32 114 19 Yes No 

Ocean St to Newnan St 86 12 86 12 0 0 No --- 

C:\JT Center\[DailyBusVolumesbyRoute100406v5.xls]Table 4.3 Bus Totals

Table 4.4 General Noise Analysis for Proposed Bus Routes on Local Streets in the Vicinity of Jacksonville Transportation Center 

Roadway Segment 

Type of Noise 

Sensitive Site 

Location 

Land Use 

Category 

Distance from 

Site to Center 

Line of Road 

Additional Buses With 

JTC 

Day 

(Per Hour) 

Night 

(Per Hour) 

Existing 

Noise 

Exposure 

Level 

Project 

Noise 

Exposure 

Project Impact Noise Exposure 

Levels 

No Impact 

(dBA) 

Moderate Impact 

(Severe Impact 

Level) dBA 

Impacted JTC 

Operations? 

(Yes or No) 

North-South Bus Routes 

Jefferson St (2-Lanes Southbound) - 

Union St to Adams St 

Two Story 

Duplex 

320 Jefferson St 

2 

(Residential) 

40 ft 4.8 2.1 63 (Ldn) 55 (Ldn) 65 Ldn) No 

Broad St (2-Lanes Northbound) - 

Adams St to Union St 

Main St (3-Lanes Southbound) - 

Union St to Adams St 

Playground 

(Head Start 

School) 

Jacksonville 

Public Library 

Ashley St and 

Broad St 

Main Street and 

Monroe Street 

3 

(Institutional) 

3 


36 ft 8.2 4.1 66 (Leq) 54 (Leq) 66 Leq) No 


Duval 

Apartments 

601 Ocean St 

2 

(Residential) 

30 ft 65 (Ldn) 60 (Ldn) 66 Ldn) No 

Ocean St (3-Lanes Northbound) - 

Adams St to Union St 

East-West Bus Routes 

Bay St (3-Lanes Westbound) - 

Pearl St to Broad St 

Adams St (3-Lanes Eastbound) - 

Jefferson St to Lee St 

First 

Presbyterian 

Church 

Immaculate 

Conception 

Catholic Church 

St James Inn 

Playground 

(Salvation 

Army) 

C:\JT Center\[DailyBusVolumesbyRoute100406v5.xls]Table 4.3 Bus Totals 

Ocean St and 

Monroe St 

Ocean St and 

Duval St 

Broad St and Bay 

St 

Davis St and 

Adams St 

3 


3 


2 

(Residential) 

3 

(Recreation) 


38 ft 65 (Leq) 56 (Leq) 66 Leq) No 

30 ft 7.9 2.1 65 (Ldn) 58 (Ldn) 66 Ldn) No 

30 ft 38.0 11.5 67 (Leq) 62 (Leq) 67 Leq) No

Table 4.5 General Noise Assessment Input Data and Results for Train Operations Associated with the Proposed Jacksonville Transporation Center (JTC) Amtrak Station 

FEC Railroad 

Amtrak (Proposed Train Operations at JTC) 

Noise Assessment Parameters 

Existing Conditions 

With Jacksonville 

Transporation Center 

Passenger Trains 

Auto Trains 

Rail Operations 

Average Daily Volume of Trains (Trains/Day) 18.4 

4 2 

Average Hourly Daytime Volume of Trains (Trains/Hr) 1.000 

0.200 0.067 

Average Hourly Nighttime Volume of Trains (Trains/Hr) 0.370 

0.111 0.111 

Average Number of Locomotives per Train (Type) 1.7 (Freight/Diesel) 

1 (Passenger/Diesel) 2 (Passenger/Diesel) 

Length of Train (ft) or Number of Cars per Train (Type) 

3,451 (Freight) 

10 (Passenger and Service 

Cars) 

40 (Passenger, Service, and 

Auto Carrier Cars) 

Train Speed (Miles per Hour) 20 

20 20 

Average Time Locomotives Idling at the Amtrak Station 

(Minutes) 

Description of Noise Receiver Sites 

Noise Sensitive Receiver Site Within Screening Distance of 

750 ft or 250 ft of the Proposed Amtrak Train Station 

Distance from Closest Receiver Site to the Center of 

Railroad Tracks 

Type of the Closest Noise Recevier Site 

Location 

Land Use Category 

Noise Levels 

--- 

Yes 

170 (ft) 231 (ft) 

Two Story Apartment Building - Two Dwelling 

Units (No Patio or Balconies) 

83A Chelsea Street (South of JTC) 

2 (Residential) 

22 --- 

Yes 

170 (ft) 

Two Story Apartment Building - Two Dwelling Units (No 

Patio or Balconies) 

83A Chelsea Street (South of JTC) 


Monitored Noise Levels 57 Ldn --- --- --- 

Predicted Noise Levels 

59 Ldn 

57 Ldn (Tracks Shifted 

61 ft to North) 

55 Ldn 

NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Increase in Cumulative Noise Level 

Existing Noise Level at Closest Receiver Site 

Overall Predicted Noise Level for JTC (Sources Combined - 

FEC & Amtrak) 

Net Increase in Cumulative Noise Exposure Level (Ldn) 

Associated With JTC 

Increase in Cumulative Noise Exposrue Level (Ldn) 

Allowed by FTA's Criteria (Figure 3-2 in FTA's 2006 

Guidance Document) 

Is the Increase in Cumulative Noise Levels Associated with 

JTC Less Than FTA's Noise Impact Criteria? (Yes or No) 

57 Ldn 

59 Ldn 

2 dBA 

3 dBA 

Yes 

Comparison of Existing Noise Levels to Future Noise Levels with the Amtrak Station at JTC 

Existing Noise Level at Closest Receiver Site to JTC 

Overall Predicted Noise Level for New Rail Noise Sources 

Associated with JTC Operations (i.e., Amtrak) 

No Impact Level Based on Existing Noise Level (Figure 3-1 

FTA's 2006 Guidance Document) 

Moderate Impact (Severe Impact Level) Noise Level 

(Figure 3-1 FTA's 2006 Guidance Document) 

Is the Predicted Noise Level Associated with the Amtrak 

Train Operations at the Proposed JTC Amtrak Station Less 

Than FTA's Noise Impact Criteria at the Closest Noise 

Receiver Site? (Yes or No) 

57 Ldn 

55 Ldn 

62 Ldn) 

Yes 

Noise Impact Assessment Results 

Will the Proposed Train Operations Associated with the 

JTC Impact Any Noise Sensitive Receiver Sites? (Yes or 

No) 

C:\Jax Intermodal Center\Noise Analysis\Trains\[TrainVolumes112106.xls]Table 4.5 Rail Volumes 

Note: Ldn represents the Day-Night Sound Level 

No


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

Amtrak Service Area - Based on the results of the Screening Procedures, traffic 

traveling to and from the Amtrak Service Area and employee parking facility on local 

access roads (i.e., Harper Street) has the potential to impact adjacent noise 

sensitive sites (see Figure 4.3.1). A single family residence is located approximately 

30 ft south of Harper Street well within the 100 ft screening distance for an access 

road. The data used in the General Noise Assessment and results are summarized 

in Table 4.6. This facility is also expected to operate during daytime hours (i.e., 7:00 

am to 10:00 pm) so the peak hour Leq(h) was used for the noise metric versus Ldn 

in the assessment of potential impacts. 

The Amtrak Service Area is expected to generate approximately 120 vehicle trips in 

the peak hour based on the approximately 150 parking spaces planned for the 

facility. The vehicles using this facility will have to use either Harper Street or 

Dennis Street and Hanover Street to access this facility. To represent worst case 

conditions, the 120 vehicles (i.e., automobiles and vans) in the peak hour were 

assumed to use Harper Street and pass by a single family residence located along 

this street traveling 30 mph. Currently, Harper, Dennis, and Hanover Streets 

provide local access to this residence and Duval Container Company. 

As indicated in Table 4.2, the estimated noise exposure level [Leq(h)] at this location 

based on measured noise levels which is used in assessing potential noise impacts 

was 59 dBA. The dominant noise source during the monitoring was from 

manufacturing noise from the Duval Container Company and trucks entering and 

leaving this facility. With the proposed Amtrak Service Area and the additional 

vehicle traffic, the predicted noise level using Federal Highway’s Traffic Noise Model 

(TNM) 2.5 is 57 Leq. Since the predicted level [Leq(h)] is less than the FTA’s impact 

level of 58 dBA, the proposed train operations and the associated increase in noise 

levels are not expected to impact any noise sensitive sites (see Table 4.6). The 

predicted noise level is also substantially less than FHWA’s 67 dBA Noise 

Abatement Criteria. 

Impacts 4-20

Table 4.6 General Noise Assessment Input Data and Results for Vehicle Operations Associated with the Proposed Amtrak Service Area 

Noise Assessment Parameters 

Amtrak Service Area - Access Road 

Automobiles and Vans Data 

Peak Hour Traffic Data (Automobiles and Vans/Hour) 120 

Speed (Miles per Hour) 30 

Description of Noise Receiver Sites 

Distance from Closest Receiver Site to the Centerline of Harper Street 

Type of the Closest Noise Receiver Site 

Location 

Land Use Category 

30 ft 

Single Family Residence 

1402 Harper Street (~50 ft West of Amtrak Mail Service Area) 


Comparison of Existing Noise Levels to Project Noise Levels (dBA) 

Existing Noise Level at Closest Receiver Site 

Predicted Noise Level for Amtrak Service Area at Closest 

Receiver Site Based on FHWA's Traffic Noise Model Version 2.5 

No Impact Level Based on Existing Noise Level (Figure 3-1 FTA's 

2006 Guidance Document) 

Moderate Impact (Severe Impact Level) Noise Level (Figure 3-1 FTA's 

2006 Guidance Document) 

Is the Predicted Noise Level Less Than FTA's Noise Impact Criteria at 

the Closest Noise Receiver Site? (Yes or No) 

59 Leq 

57 Leq 

63 Leq) 

Yes 

Noise Impact Assessment Results 

Will the Operations of the Proposed Amtrak Service Area Impact 

Any Noise Sensitive Receiver Sites? (Yes or No) 

C:\Jax Intermodal Center\Noise Analysis\AMTRAK Area\[AMTRAK_Analysis_112406.xls]Table 4.6 Mail Service Area 

No


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

Short-Term Noise Impacts During Construction 

Construction noise impacts are evaluated on a project-specific basis because FTA 

does not have standardized criteria for assessing these impacts. For this project, 

small to large equipment is expected to be used to construct the various primary and 

secondary components of JTC (see Section 3.3 Build Alternatives) and for the 

demolition of existing structures (e.g., southern portion of McDaniel Building). The 

vehicles and machinery (e.g., backhoe, concrete mixer, dozer, grader, loader, dump 

trucks and cranes) associated with the construction activities and handling of 

materials are anticipated to temporarily increase ambient noise levels during the 

construction phase of the project which is expected to last at least 12 months. At 50 

feet, the typical noise level for a backhoe is 80 dBA, 81 dBA for a grader, and 85 

dBA for a dozer. Most of the construction and construction noise is anticipated to be 

within the boundaries of the JTC and the adjacent FEC rail corridor. As depicted in 

Figures 1.0 and 4.3.1, the project area is located in an area with few noise sensitive 

land uses. In addition, as indicated in Section 4.3.16 Construction, construction 

noise impacts will be controlled and minimized by FDOT’s Standard Specifications 

for Road and Bridge Construction. Therefore, construction noise impacts 

associated with the JTC are expected to be minimal. 

4.3.3.2 Vibration Assessment 

Common sources of ground-borne vibration are trains, buses on rough roads, and 

construction (e.g., blasting, pile driving, and heavy earthmoving equipment). 

Ground-borne vibration can be an issue when: it is perceptible to building 

occupants, it creates airborne noise in the form of rattling objects or rumbling 

building surfaces, or it causes structural damage. The rumbling sound caused by 

the vibration of room surfaces is called ground-borne noise. Building damage is not 

a concern for most transportation projects with the occasional exception of blasting 

and pile driving during construction. 

The proposed project is anticipated to generate some ground-borne vibration and 

noise associated with train operations along the existing and proposed FEC 

Railroad alignment and during construction of the various JTC facilities but not from 

the bus operations. Buses typically do not cause ground-borne noise and vibration 

problems are minimized by the rubber tires and suspension systems of the buses. 

The few circumstances where buses may have potential vibration impacts will not be 

involved with the proposed project: rough roads (e.g., expansion joints, speed 

bumps, or other design features that result in unevenness in the road surface), or 

operation of buses inside or directly beneath buildings that are vibration sensitive. 

The potential for the project to impact vibration sensitive sites is dependent upon 

their type and distance to the vibration sources associated with the proposed JTC. 

Vibration sensitive land uses include residential and institutional/commercial uses 

and are grouped in three categories (i.e., Category 1, 2, and 3) by FTA. Category 1 

buildings are those for which low ambient vibration is essential for interior 

operations. This includes theaters and auditoriums, vibration sensitive research and 

manufacturing buildings, hospitals with vibration-sensitive equipment, and university 

research operation buildings. Category 2 includes residences and buildings where 

people normally sleep and includes hotels and hospitals. Category 3 includes 

institutional land uses with primary daytime use such as schools, churches, other 

Impacts 4-22


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

institutions, and quiet offices that do not have vibration-sensitive equipment but still 

have the potential for activity interference. 

Vibration Screening Procedures 

FTA’s Vibration Screening Procedures were used to assess the likelihood of 

significant ground-borne vibration and noise impacts associated with the Amtrak 

train operations. Currently, an average of 18.4 freight trains per day travel through 

this area on two parallel FEC Railroad tracks. With the proposed Amtrak Station, six 

additional trains per day including four passenger trains and two auto trains would 

use the existing FEC Railroad tracks. In addition, two additional sets of tracks will 

be constructed 61 ft north of the existing tracks in the vicinity of the JTC to 

accommodate FEC train operations. 

Screening distances have been developed by FTA for each of the three land use 

categories. The screening distances are dependent upon the type of transit and 

include: Commuter and Intercity Passenger Trains, Rail Rapid Transit, Light Rail 

Transit, and Intermediate Capacity Transit. The screening distances for Commuter 

and Intercity Passenger Trains (i.e., Amtrak trains operations) are depicted in Table 

4.7. Based on a land use survey, there are no Land Use Categories 1 or 3 within 

their respective screening distances. However, as previously indicated, a residential 

building (83A Chelsea Street) is located approximately 170 ft from the existing FEC 

track or approximately 140 ft from the existing FEC Railroad right of way line. The 

two story masonry residential building currently consists of two dwelling units. Since 

the closest vibration sensitive site is within the 200 ft screening distance for Land 

Use Category 2, there may be a potential for vibration impacts. Therefore, a 

General Vibration Assessment was conducted for this component of JTC. 

Table 4.7 Screening Distances for Vibration Assessments 

Vibration Source 

Commuter and 

Intercity Passenger 

Trains 

Critical Distance for Land Use Categories 

[Distance from Right of Way or Property Line (ft)] 

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 

600 200 120 

General Vibration Assessment 

The purpose of the general vibration assessment is to estimate the vibration level 

associated with the operation of the Amtrak trains at the closest vibration sensitive 

sites and to determine if these levels exceed FTA’s ground-borne vibration and 

noise impact criteria. Unlike FTA’s and FHWA’s noise impact criteria which is based 

on noise exposure over a period of time, the vibration criteria is based on the 

maximum level for a single event. The limits are specified by vibration velocity level 

(VdB) for vibration and dBA for ground-borne noise. FTA’s ground-borne vibration 

and noise impact criteria for residential land uses (i.e., Category 2) with fewer than 

Impacts 4-23


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

30 vibration/train events per day (i.e., infrequent events) is 80 dBV and 43 dBA, 

respectively. 

The general vibration assessment is based on FTA’s Generalized Ground Surface 

Vibration Curves (Figure 10-1, FTA’s 2006 Guidance Manual) which are adjusted to 

site specific conditions including vehicle speed, track condition, local geology, 

building type, and receiver location within the building (Table 10-1, FTA’s 2006 

Guidance Manual). FTA’s base line curves assume all equipment is in good 

condition and operate at speeds of 50 mph. These curves predict the overall 

ground-surface vibration as a function of distance from the source. The adjustments 

to the baseline curves and the predicted ground-borne vibration and noise levels at 

the closest sites are presented in Table 4.8. An estimate of the ground-borne noise 

was determined by reducing the predicted ground-borne vibration levels by a 50 dB 

adjustment factor for surface tracks as described by FTA’s 2006 Guidance Manual. 

As noted in Table 4.8, the vibration level was adjusted down by 8 dB to reflect the 

less than 20 mph operating speeds of the trains versus 50 mph. The subsurface 

conditions along this segment of the FEC Railroad are unknown at this time. 

Therefore, it was assumed that geologic conditions are such that they promote 

efficient vibration propagation which added 10 dB to the base line level. The type of 

building foundation also affects ground-borne vibration and noise levels. The 

general rule is the heavier the building the greater the coupling loss. The coupling 

loss for a two story masonry building represents a 7 dB reduction in the base line 

level. Other factors affecting vibration levels include floor-to-floor attenuation (i.e., -2 

dB) and amplification due to resonances of floors, walls, and ceilings (+6 dB). 

The estimated ground-borne vibration and noise levels for the Amtrak trains at the 

closest sensitive site were 72 VdB and 12 dBA, respectively. Since these values 

are less than the impact criteria (i.e., 80 VdB and 43 dBA), the additional train 

operations associated with the JTC are not anticipated to have significant groundborne 

vibration or noise impacts. In addition, the additional Amtrak trains represent 

only a 32.6% increase in trains/vibration events compared to existing conditions. 

Based on information provided in FTA’s 2006 Guidance Manual, on heavily used rail 

corridors (i.e., more than 12 trains per day), doubling the number of events is 

required for a significant increase in vibration levels and additional impact. Also, 

shifting the FEC Railroad tracks 61 ft to the north is anticipated to reduce vibration 

levels at the closest receiver site. With the shift in tracks, the distance from tracks to 

the nearest residence would increase from 170 ft to 231 ft. 

Construction Vibration 

Construction activities can result in varying degrees of ground-borne vibration, 

depending upon the equipment employed. The effect of ground-borne vibration on 

buildings is dependent upon the level and the closeness of buildings. At high 

vibration levels, slight damage to nearby buildings is possible. At moderate levels, 

low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration can be experienced. At low levels, 

the effects are not perceptible. Ground vibrations from construction activities rarely 

reach the levels that can damage structures, but can achieve the audible and 

perceptible ranges in buildings in close proximity. 

Impacts 4-24


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

Most of the construction activities and the associated ground-borne vibration and 

noise are anticipated to be within the boundaries of the JTC and the adjacent FEC 

rail corridor. As previously indicated, the project area is located in an area with few 

noise sensitive land uses (see Figures 1.0 and 4.3.1) and none within 25 ft of the 

project boundaries. Generally, excluding impact pile driving, vibration sensitive land 

uses have to be within 25 ft of the proposed construction activities to be affected 

[i.e., above the minimum damage threshold of 0.20 inches per second (in/sec) peak 

particle velocity (PPV)] for masonry buildings. The PPV at 25 ft for heavily loaded 

trucks and large bulldozers is 0.076 in/sec and 0.089 in/sec, respectively. 

Therefore, general construction activities are not expected to exceed the vibration 

damage criteria of 0.20 in/sec PPV. In addition, as indicated in Section 4.3.16 

Construction, construction noise impacts will be controlled and minimized by 

FDOT’s Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. Therefore, 

general construction activities are not anticipated to have any adverse impacts to 

any vibration sensitive sites or land uses within the study area or result in any 

significant long- or short-tem vibration impacts to adjacent properties or the 

community at large. 

The construction activities that typically generate the most severe vibrations are 

blasting and impact pile driving. For this project, no blasting is currently proposed. 

However, impact pile driving is likely to be used within the JTC boundaries between 

Forsyth Street and Houston Street with augur piles used south of Forsyth Street. No 

pilings are planned for construction activities north of Houston Street. Depending 

upon the type of building (i.e., reinforced-concrete or masonry), vibration damage for 

the upper range of impact pile driving (i.e., 1.518 in/sec) can occur between 75 ft 

and 100 ft, respectively. Currently, there are no structures within 100 ft of the area 

where pile driving will be used. The existing Skyway Terminal, and the two historic 

sites McDaniel Building and the Jacksonville Terminal Complex are all greater than 

100ft away. Therefore, there is sufficient distance between the impact pile driving 

activities and any sensitive receivers such that no significant impacts are 

anticipated. 

Impacts 4-25

Table 4.8 General Vibration Assessment Input Data and Results for Amtrak Train Operations at JTC 

Vibration Assessment Parameters 

Amtrak Train Operations 

Train Data 

Average Daily Volume of Trains (Trains/day) 6 

Locomotive Type 

Passenger/Diesel 

Speed (Miles per Hour)


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

4.3.4 Wetlands 

In accordance with Executive Order 11990, special considerations were taken in 

developing and evaluating the alternatives to minimize wetland impacts associated 

with this project. In an effort to minimize and avoid impacts to wetland resources the 

project has been modified to reduce the footprint of the Amtrak Service Area and to 

remove the service road’s eastern crossing of McCoy’s Creek. 

Wetlands located within the project area are associated with McCoy’s Creek, a 

tidally influenced tributary of the St. Johns River. McCoy’s Creek has been 

channelized and bulkheaded west of I-95 and channelized east of I-95. Past urban 

development in the area has considerably reduced the wetland resource in extent 

and quality from the historic condition. Highly disturbed remnant forested and 

emergent wetlands associated with McCoy’s Creek are all that remain. Cattail and 

coastal plain willow have reached noxious levels in several sections of the creek 

channel adversely impacting the wetland quality. The quality of the forested 

systems are further reduced by the presence of exotic species such as Japanese 

honeysuckle, Chinese tallow, Japanese climbing fern, and Chinese privet. Due to 

the limited extent and species diversity, the remaining wetlands provide poor quality 

fish and wildlife habitat as well as minimal pollution abatement and stormwater 

control. 

Minimal impacts, approximately 0.26 acres, to wetlands associated with McCoy’s 

Creek are anticipated with proposed Amtrak improvements. Figure 4.3.4 shows the 

wetland impacts associated with the build alternative. Mitigation for unavoidable 

wetland impacts are typically mitigated pursuant to Section 373.4137, Florida 

Statutes. In accordance with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) policy, as 

contained in 23 CFR 77.11, the full range of mitigation options will be considered in 

developing this project to avoid long-term and short-term adverse impacts to 

wetland resources. 

4.3.5 Aquatic Preserves 

A review of F.A.C. 62-302.700 revealed that there are no designated Aquatic 

Preserves located within or in the vicinity of the project area. Therefore, this project 

will not adversely impact any Aquatic Preserves. 

4.3.6 Water Quality 

The lower St. Johns River and its surrounding tributaries are designated as Class III 

waters. This designation means the waters can be used for recreational activities 

such as swimming and fishing as well as provide viable habitat for wildlife. 

Additionally, McCoy’s Creek, located adjacent to the project area, appears on the 

most recent 303 (d) list of impaired waters. The 303 (d) list shows McCoy’s Creek 

as having the following parameters of concern: 

• Lead 

• Copper 

• Zinc 

• Nutrients 

• Total Suspended Solids 

Impacts 4-27


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

The proposed stormwater design associated with the construction of the proposed 

transportation facility will include, at a minimum, the water quantity requirements for 

water quality impacts as required by the SJRWMD in F.A.C 40-C. Any deficiencies 

in these requirements will be offset by offsite mitigation. 

Impacts 4-28


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

4.3.7 Outstanding Florida Waters 

A review of F.A.C. 62-302.700 revealed that there are no designated Outstanding 

Florida Waters located within or in the vicinity of the project area. Therefore, this 

project will not adversely impact any Outstanding Florida Waters. 

4.3.8 Contamination 

A Contamination Screening Evaluation Report has been conducted for this study. 

Review of available records as well as visual reconnaissance of the project corridor 

to identify facilities with potential compliance and/or contamination impacts within 

the project area. Review of available records identified 19 facilities with Medium to 

High environmental impact ratings. Of these 19 facilities, eleven (11) were 

associated with petroleum storage systems (UST/AST), three (3) identified as small 

quantity generators (SQG), seven (7) were associated with unknown or multiple 

activity/contamination sites, one (1) was associated with a brownfield site and one 

(1) identified as an incinerator. Note that the above facilities may be associated with 

more than one environmental activity. These sites are listed in Table 4.3.8 and 

displayed in Figure 4.3.8. 

Based on the identification of 19 facilities with Medium to High environmental impact 

ratings within or adjacent to the JTC project area, there is a potential that adversely 

impacted soil and groundwater will be encountered during construction activities. 

Construction activities within the JTC project area will include grading, boring, 

excavation and dewatering. 

Of the 19 Medium to High risk facilities that have a potential to impact the project 

area, a total of nine (9) facilities/sites are either located within or immediately 

adjacent to Project Areas A, B and C. These facilities/sites and associated 

environmental concerns are summarized below: 

Project Area A 

• McDaniels Building renovation (potential asbestos containing materials and 

lead based paints – Site No. 100) 

• The Former Duval Motors facility (reported petroleum discharge – Site No. 

48) 

• Festivities Publications (reported petroleum discharge and closed in place 

USTs – Site No. 38) 

• FDOT right-of-way (reported buried creosote timbers, petroleum, solvent, 

metal and ash soil and groundwater contamination – site No. 105) 

Project Area B 

• McIlvaine property (known petroleum contamination/railroad operations – 

Site No. 99) 

• McCoys Creek (heavy metals impact from incinerator ash – Site No. 104) 

Project Area C 

• Liberty Steel (small quantity hazardous waste generator – Site No. 45A) 

• JTA facility (petroleum discharge – Site No. 34) 

Impacts 4-30


Environmental 

PD&E Study Assessment 

SITE 

No. 

20 

Table 4.3.8. Potential Contamination Sources. 

FACILITY NAME & ADDRESS 

A&EC Properties 

West Bay Street & Myrtle Avenue 

Jacksonville, Florida 32204 

Distance/ 

Direction 

From Nearest 

Project 

Boundary 

0.23 Miles 

North- 

Northwest 

FDEP 

FACILITY ID No. / EPA ID 

No. 

FDEP FAC. ID. No. 

8943484 

POTENTIAL SOURCE 

OF CONTAMINATION 

LUST/Petroleum 

RISK 

RATING 

Medium 

RATIONALE FOR RISK RATING 

Discharge Reported 

11/30/88; SA Ongoing; Tanks 

Removed; Closed Facility. 

SAMPLING 

RECOMMENDATION 

Yes 

20A 

A&EC Properties (Former) 

West Bay Street & Myrtle Avenue 


0.23 Miles 

North- 

Northwest 


8943435 


Medium 

Discharge Reported 5/1/88 

Cleanup Required, Closed 

Facility. 

Yes 

26B 

Sanderlin Property 

1287 West Adams Street 


0.14 Miles 

East 


9502418 


Medium 

Discharge Reported 5/16/95; 

NCR 4/23/2001; Abandoned 

Facility; Unmaintained Tanks. 

Yes 

26C 

Taylor Diesel 

202 North Myrtle Avenue 


0.16 Miles 

East 


9201459 


Medium 

Discharge Reported 5/12/92; SA 

Ongoing; Facility Closed; Tank 

Removed. 

Yes 

26E 

34 

36A 

SMM Soffit & Siding, Inc. 



Jacksonville Transportation 

Authority 



2100 Dennis Street Remediation 

Trust 

2100 Dennis Street 


0.16 Miles 

East 

0.08 Miles 

East 

0.08 Miles 

West 

FDEP FAC. ID. No. 8628644 

RCRA-SQG 1000290618 

FINDS FLD004425872 


8521404 

RCRA-SQG 1000272642 

FINDS FLD077584423 

VCP S105980900 BF 

160001003 

LUST/Petroleum/ 

SQG 

UST/AST/LUST 

Petroleum/SQG 

Brownfield 

Medium 

High 

High 

Discharge Reported 

11/12/91; RA Ongoing; 

Closed Facility; Tank Closed 

In Place; No Violations For 

SQG. 

Discharges Reported 7/9/85, 

3/4/88, 5/15/91, 1/11/97, RA 

Ongoing For Discharges 

7/9/85 & 3/4/88, Cleanup 

Required For Discharges 

5/15/91 & 1/11/97, Violations 

For SQG- Compliance 

Achieved 

Unknown Contamination; 

Past Activities; Proximity To 

Site. 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Impacts 4-31


Environmental 


Table 4.3.8. Potential Contamination Sources (continued). 

SITE 

No. 

38 

45 

45A 

48 

69 

99 

100 

101 


Festivities Publications 

1205 West Forsyth Street 


Bellingham Marine 



Liberty Steel 



Jacksonville City Property 

Former Duval Motor Company 

1001-1005 West Forsyth Street 


Forest Street Incinerator 

Forest Street/Margaret Street and 

McCoy Creek 


McIlvaine Property 

Along Rail Road Corridor 

McDaniel Contractors, Inc. 

1104 Adams Street 


City Directory Findings Past 

Activities 800 -1000 West Bay 

Street 

Distance/ 

Direction 

From Project 

Boundary 

Onsite Area 

A 

0.04 Miles 

East 

Within 

Project Area 

C 

0.05 Miles 

East 

0.18 Miles 

South 

FDEP 


No. 


9102346 


8629533 

RCRA-SQG 1001487066 

FINDS FLR000051169 


9600524 

CERCLIS 1001114837 

FINDS FL0001576008 





SQG 


Lead/Incinerator 

RISK 

RATING 

Medium 

High 

High 

Medium 

High 

Area B Not Assigned Petroleum High 

Area A 

Not Assigned 

Petroleum/ Asbestos 

Containing Material/ 

Lead Based Paint 

High 

Area A Not Assigned Hazardous Waste Medium 


Discharge Reported 2/12/91; 

Discharge Notification Report 

(DNR) 10/9/00; Closed 

Facility; USTs Closed In 

Place; Proximate To Project. 

Discharge reported 5/31/90, 

Cleanup required, Closed 

facility; Tanks closed in place. 

Violations – compliance 

achieved 

Discharges Reported 8/14/95 

& 8/2/96; Cleanup Required; 

DNR 2/4/02; Closed Facility; 

Tanks Removed. 

HRS Package 4/8/02, Being 

Considered For Proposal To The 

NPL; McCoy’s Creek 

Contamination. 

Indication Of Oil Spill. Oil 

Spill/Soil Staining Along Rail 

Road Tracks. 

Past Discovery Of 

Contamination; Building Asbestos 

Containing Material/Lead Based 

Paint. 

Past Activities Includes, Timber 

And Pulp, Dry Cleaner, Paper 

Company, Chemical 

Manufacture, Fertilizer Plant, 

Insecticide Company. 

SAMPLING 


Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Impacts 4-32


Environmental 


SITE 

No. 

102 

103 

Table 4.3.8. Potential Contamination Sources (continued). 



Activities 800 -1000 West Forsyth 

Street 


Activities 800 -1000 West Adams 

Street 

Distance/ 

Direction 

From Nearest 

Project 

Boundary 

FDEP 


No. 

104 McCoy’s Creek Area B Not Assigned 

105 I-95 West and Adams Street ROW Area A Not Assigned 



RISK 

RATING 



Incinerator Ash/ 

Lead, Copper, Zinc, 

Nutrients, TSS, and 

Arsenic 

Timber/Creosote/Pet 

roleum/Lead/ 

Incinerator 

Ash/Solvents 

High 

High 


Past Activities Includes, Timber 

And Pulp, Dry Cleaner, Paper 

Company, Chemical 

Manufacture, Fertilizer Plant, 

Insecticide Company. 

Past activities in the area 

includes, dry cleaning companies 

Known ash contamination along 

McCoy’s Creek, Dewatering 

activities in the area will be a 

concern. 

During construction to I-95 

Ramp contaminated soil was 

encountered. 

SAMPLING 


Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Impacts 4-33

§¨¦ 95 

Dennis St. 

Mc Coys Creek 

26E 

26D 

!!! ! 26C 

26B26A 

! 

26 

! 

105 

! 

30C 

! 30B30 

!! 

! 100 

C 

34 

! 

! 

36A 

36B 

36! 

! 

! ! 

! A 

38 

20 

42 

45A 

44 

45 

! 46 

! ! ! 

48 

52 

57 

! 

B 

99 

! 

Adams St. 

20A 103 

102 

! 

101 

! 

! 

Forsyth St. 

Bay St. 

69 

! 70 

! 

Park St. 

104 

! 

Forest St. 

§¨¦ 10 §¨¦ 95 


ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

Riverside Ave. 

**Site locations & numbers are associated 

with Table 7-1 of the CSER. 

LEGEND 

! 

! 

CSX Railroad Lines 

POTENTIAL 

CONTAMINATION 

SITES MAP 

Medium/High Concern Site 

No/Low Concern Site 

Medium/High Concern Corridor 

JTC Project Area 

Water 

0 500 1,000 

Feet 

¯ 

FIGURE 

4.3.8


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

Area Wide (Project Areas A, B and C) 

• Entire JTC Project Area (unreported incinerator ash deposits associated with 

Forest Street Incinerator – Site No. 69) 

The remaining ten (10) Medium to High risk facilities/sites that have a potential to 

impact the project area, are located beyond the boundaries of Project Areas A, B 

and C. These facilities and associated environmental concerns include: 

Adjacent to Project Area A 

• Historical business activities located along Adams Street (Site No. 103) 

• Historical business activities located along Forsyth Street (Site No. 102) 

• Sanderlin property (reported petroleum discharge – Site No. 26B) 

• Taylor Diesel (reported petroleum discharge – Site No. 26C) 

• SMM Soffit and Siding, Inc. (reported petroleum discharge and SQG – Site 

No. 26E) 

Adjacent to Project Area B 

• Historical business activities located along Bay Street (Site No. 101) 

• A&EC Properties (reported petroleum discharge – Site No. 20 & 20A) 

Adjacent to Project Area C 

• Dennis Street Remediation (Brownfield designation – Site No. 36A) 

• Bellingham Marine (reported petroleum discharge – Site No. 45) 

These potential contamination sources identified are discussed in detail in the 

Contamination Screening Evaluation Report. The sites have been assigned a risk 

rating based on the site’s potential to impact the proposed project area. These 

ratings represent the highest potential impact on the project based on the site’s 

proximity to the project area, groundwater flow direction, documented presence of 

soil and/or groundwater contamination, topography, and the level of success of past 

remediation strategies at the sites. The majority of the potential contamination sites 

identified in the environmental database report were rated as a No or Low risk to the 

project area. Even though these sites may have had documented contamination or 

handle hazardous materials, these sites will not impact the project due to hydrologic 

barriers, groundwater divides or location relative to the project area (hydraulically 

down gradient or distance from the project area). 

Another issue of concern relates to the relocation of Amtrak from the existing facility 

to the Jacksonville Terminal. Prior to the future relocation, Amtrak will comply with 

local, state, and federal regulations regarding any environmental contamination and 

remediation required at the existing facility. Amtrak will also comply with any lease 

agreements regarding such matters. 

There is the potential for contamination to occur from minor fuel spills as a result of 

the re-fueling operations along the proposed service road located adjacent to 

McCoy’s Creek. In an effort to reduce the risk of potential contamination run-off 

associated with the refueling of the locomotives, refueling activities will be confined 

to a few specific locations along the service road and all required and practicable 

containment practices will be implemented. 

Impacts 4-35


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

Based on the identification of potential contamination sites, their associated 

environmental risks, and their proximity to the proposed JTC project area, there is a 

high probability that contaminated soil and groundwater may be encountered during 

the construction phase of JTC. Furthermore, based on the history of industrial 

activity at the proposed JTC project area, there is a potential for undocumented soil 

and groundwater impacts not identified through these research efforts. Therefore, a 

Level 2 contamination impact assessment will be conducted to assess the 

contamination concerns prior to the start of the right-of-way acquisition phase 

estimated to start in 2009/2010. 

4.3.9 Wild and Scenic Rivers 

None of the rivers located within or adjacent to the project area are listed in the 

National Park Service Southeastern Rivers Inventory and, therefore, the 

coordination requirement for the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act does not apply to this 

project. 

4.3.10 Floodplains 

According to the City of Jacksonville, Florida Duval County Flood Insurance Rate 

(FIRM) Maps 1200770161E, 1200770155E, and 1200770142E, a small portion of 

the project will impact floodplains classified as Zone X or AE. Zone AE is defined as 

an area where base flood elevations have been determined. Zone X is defined as 

areas of 0.2% (500 yr) annual chance flood; areas of 1% (100 yr) annual chance 

flood with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 

square mile; and areas protected by levees from 1% (100 yr) annual chance flood. 

Figure 4.3.10 shows the floodplains within the project area. 

The only proposed areas with impacts are right along McCoy’s Creek at the 

southern edge of the FEC Railroad property and at the undeveloped property east of 

the warehouse on Myrtle Avenue. Impacts to Zone X and Zone AE are 

approximately 0.2 acres and 2.0 acres respectively. These impacts have been 

minimized by the reconfiguration of the Amtrak Service Area and the corresponding 

service road. Flooding problems throughout McCoy’s Creek are well documented 

and floodplain compensation will likely be required. 

4.3.11 Coastal Zone Consistency 

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection has determined that the 

proposed project is consistent with the Florida Coastal Zone Management Plan. 

4.3.12 Coastal Barrier Island Resources 

Upon reviewing the coastal barrier resource maps, it was determined that this 

project will not encourage the growth of development on the only Coastal Barrier 

Island Resource Unit (Talbot Island Complex) in Duval County. It has therefore been 

determined that this project is not subject to the provisions of the Coastal Barrier 

Resource Act. 

Impacts 4-36


PD&E STUDY 

FLOODPLAINS 

FIGURE 

4.3.10


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

4.3.13 Wildlife and Habitat 

Pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the project area 

was evaluated for the potential occurrence of threatened and endangered species. 

An extensive literature review, a review of Florida Natural Areas Inventory data, and 

field reviews were used to determine potential impacts to listed species. Additionally 

existing land use/cover within the study area was analyzed to identify the natural 

community and habitat types possibly affected by the project. 

The majority of the existing project area is highly urbanized and does not support 

any suitable wildlife habitat. The areas adjacent to McCoy’s Creek are highly 

disturbed through years of impacts from adjacent and upstream land uses. A high 

number of exotic species present within these areas further exasperates the 

problems. The creek it self has been channelized and bulk headed west of I-95 and 

channelized east of I-95. Additionally the last 1,000 feet of the creek runs through a 

culvert underneath the City of Jacksonville before emptying into the St. Johns River. 

This acts as a sizable barrier to fish and other wildlife from moving between the two 

aquatic systems. Due to the highly urbanized nature of the project area no adverse 

impacts are expected to listed species or their habitats. An Endangered Species 

Biological Assessment Report has been completed as part of this project and was 

submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for their review and concurrence. 

Concurrence was given on September 12, 2007. A copy of the letter is located in 

Appendix B. 

4.3.14 Farmlands 

The entire project resides within the Jacksonville Urbanized area. Therefore an AD 

1006 form will not be required for submittal to the Natural Resource Conservation 

Service. 

4.3.15 Scenic Highways 

This project will not adversely impact any designated scenic highways. 

4.3.16 Construction 

Construction activities for any of the proposed alternatives will have minimal, 

temporary, yet unavoidable air, noise, water quality, traffic flow, and visual impacts 

for those residents and travelers within the immediate vicinity of the project area. 

These impacts will be controlled by FDOT’s Standard Specifications for Road and 

Bridge Construction, and through the use of Best Management Practices. 

Maintenance of traffic and sequence of construction will be planned and scheduled 

so as to minimize traffic delays throughout the project. Signs will be used as 

appropriate to provide notice of lane closures and other pertinent information to the 

traveling public. The local news media will be notified in advance of any road 

closures and other construction related activities that could excessively 

inconvenience the community so that motorists, residents, and businesses can plan 

for any delays. 

4.3.17 Parking, Pedestrian Activities and Traffic 

The build alternative will not only replace any lost parking spaces currently found 

onsite, mainly consisting of non-designated parking spaces found on vacant lots, 

but will dramatically increase that number. Figure 3.3.5 shows the proposed parking 

Impacts 4-38


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

structures above the JTA bus terminal and retail space. A transport concourse 

connecting four primary JTC components is shown in Figure 3.3.6. The transport 

concourse will include a moving walkway to facilitate the movement of passengers 

with luggage and children. The proposed JTA parking configuration includes 

approximately 2000 spaces in located in one main parking garage (over the JTA bus 

terminal) and 200 spaces in a smaller garage located over the retail area. These 

facilities are adjacent to the interstate and have the added benefit of providing 

convenient and safe vehicular access and parking for JTC users. 

Pedestrian and bicycle facilities have been considered as required under 23 USC 

Section 109(n) and F.S. 335.065. This project will not result in the severance or 

destruction of an existing major route for non-motorized traffic or light motorcycles. 

Consideration was given and elements were added to the proposed project to allow 

for safe pedestrian access between the various transportation elements included 

with the Jacksonville Transportation Center. 

Daily traffic and peak hour volumes on the study area roadways and intersections 

were collected to establish existing conditions. These volumes were then projected 

using an average historic growth rate of 1.23%. Using procedures outlined in the 

2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), operational conditions at signalized and 

unsignalized intersections were evaluated for the design year 2025. This 

operational analysis used background traffic growth in conjunction with the existing 

lane configuration to obtain an LOS for each intersection. 

Future conditions were then added by projecting traffic from the following facilities: 

• JTC Facility 

• JTA Buses 

• Greyhound Buses 

Using the same HCM methodology, the intersections were re-evaluated for the 

design year 2025 by incorporating this future, projected traffic from the JTC facilities 

and take into account the closing of Stuart Street. Each intersection’s level of 

service was determined based upon future background growth plus projected JTC 

traffic. Intersections operating at a projected undesirable level of service require an 

appropriate lane configuration providing an overall acceptable Level of Service 

(LOS) of D or better. Table 4.3.17a summarizes LOS results for existing 2005, 2025 

future background, and 2025 future background plus projected traffic for the 

signalized intersections, which were optimized to operate at an acceptable LOS of D 

or better with the existing lane configuration. 

Impacts 4-39


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

Table 4.3.17a 

Signalized Intersections Level of Service Summary 

Intersection 

2005 

Existing 

Traffic 

Conditions 

2025 Future 

Background 

Traffic 

Conditions 

2025 Future 

Background 

plus Project 

Traffic 

Conditions 

AM (PM) AM (PM) AM (PM) 

Water Street/Park Street C (C) D (C) D (C) 

Bay Street/Myrtle Avenue B (C) B (C) B (C) 

Bay Street/Park Street* C (D) C (D) D (E)* [C (D)] 

Bay Street/Jefferson Street B (C) B (C) B (C) 

Bay Street/Broad Street* B (C) C (E)* C (E)* [C (D)] 

Forsyth Street/Lee Street* C (B) C (C) E* (C) [C (C)] 

Forsyth Street/Jefferson 

D (C) 

Street 

C (C) 

D (C) 

Forsyth Street/Broad Street D (B) C (C) D (C) 

Adams Street/Lee Street B (B) B (C) B (D) 

Adams Street/Jefferson 

Street 

C (C) 

C (C) 

D (C) 

Adams Street/Broad Street B (C) 

C (C) 

C (C) 

* Intersections operating at an undesirable LOS and requiring modifications. 

All the signalized intersections operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS) of 

D or better except for the intersections noted with an asterisk, which operate at 

undesirable LOS during the AM/PM peak hour in the design year 2025. To 

obtain an LOS D at the failing intersections, the following observations were 

made: 

• The intersection of Bay Street / Broad Street has an undesirable LOS of E 

during the PM peak under 2025 future conditions without project traffic. An 

additional westbound exclusive right turn lane will allow the intersection to 

operate at an acceptable LOS of D. This improvement is not associated with 

JTC project traffic and should be addressed as part of area-wide growth in 

traffic. 

• The intersection of Bay and Park Streets operates at LOS E during the PM 

peak hour under the 2025 project traffic conditions, assuming Bay Street has 

two-way traffic with one eastbound and two westbound lanes as in the 

existing lane configuration. This intersection will operate at a desirable LOS 

of D with the provision of three westbound through lanes and one-way 

operation along Bay Street. To achieve this configuration, the eastbound 

movement along Bay Street would be converted to a third westbound lane. 

Existing eastbound traffic will be accommodated by a U-turn loop from Bay 

Street to Forsyth Street. Analysis results with westbound three through 

lanes and one-way Bay Street are shown in parenthesis [X] in Table 4.3.17a 

for Bay Street / Park Street. 

Impacts 4-40


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

• The intersection of Forsyth and Lee Streets operates at LOS E during the 

AM peak hour under 2025 project traffic conditions, assuming two through 

lanes for eastbound traffic as in the existing lane configuration. This 

intersection will operate at a desirable LOS of C with the provision of three 

through lanes. To achieve this configuration, the parallel parking along 

Forsyth Street could be eliminated. Analysis results considering three 

eastbound through lanes are shown in parenthesis [X] in Table 4.3.17a. 

Table 4.3.17b summarizes the levels of service for the unsignalized intersections, 

which are assumed to remain unsignalized in the design year 2025. Some of the 

minor street approaches have an undesirable LOS of E or F during the peak hour 

based on the projected traffic. In highly urbanized areas, having failing levels of 

service at unsignalized intersections is not uncommon. A signal warrants study may 

be conducted after the new facility is functional. 

Table 4.3.17b 

Existing (2005) Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Summary 

Intersection 

Approach/ 

Movement 

2005 

Existing 

Traffic 

Conditions 

2025 Future 

Background 

Traffic 

Conditions 

2025 Future 

Background 

plus Project 

Traffic 

Conditions 

AM (PM) AM (PM) AM (PM) 

Forsyth Street/Johnson Street* 

NB F (B) F (C) F (C) [D (B)] 

SB F (C) F (C) F (D) [D (C)] 

Adams Street/Johnson Street* NBL A (C) B (E) B (C) 

NB B (A) B (A) B (A) 

Monroe Street/Lee Street 

SB C (A) C (B) D (B) 

Adams Street/Cleveland Street* WB - - E (F) 

Forsyth Street/Cleveland Street SB - - B (B) 

Bay Street/Skyway Parking exit 

Rdwy* 

SB - - B (E) 

Cleveland St Parking Garage 

Driveway 

WB - - C (D) 

Skyway Parking Garage 

Driveway 

WB - - B (B) 

* Intersections operating at an undesirable LOS. 

Recommendations are offered to maximize the flow of traffic, safety of passengers 

and pedestrians, and to increase the visibility and orientation of the study area. This 

major infrastructure investment generates additional traffic and presents 

opportunities to serve transportation needs for the whole city. With minor 

modifications to the street system, the JTC’s transportation needs can be met. The 

recommendations are summarized in Table 4.3.17c. 

Impacts 4-41


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

Table 4.3.17c 

Improvements needed in Design Year 2025 

Improvement Needed Impacted by Mitigation 

Addition of exclusive right-turn lane 

storage at Bay Street/Broad Street 

intersection 

One-way operation with 3 westbound 

lanes at Bay Street/Park Street 

intersection 

3 eastbound through lanes at 

Forsyth Street/Lee Street intersection 

Provision of U-turn loop to connect Bay 

Street to Forsyth Street 

Background growth in 

traffic 

JTC facility traffic 



Others 

JTC Project 

JTC Project 

JTC Project 

4.3.18 Energy Requirements 

The purpose of the Jacksonville Transportation Center is to bring together both 

intra- and intercity transportation systems into a common facility offering commuters 

and visitors convenient intermodal transfers and access to Jacksonville’s public 

transportation network. The successful functioning of all the modes within the 

transportation network depends on the linkages between modes, that is, the ability 

of passengers to transfer from one mode to another efficiently and safely with a 

minimum of time, cost, or inconvenience. 

Existing passenger transportation modes serving the Jacksonville area include 

highways, JTA express bus and local bus service, Greyhound intercity bus service, 

Amtrak, Automated Skyway Express (Skyway), taxicab and limousine services, 

bicycles and pedestrians. Currently, these modes operate largely independent of 

each other with little or no linkage or coordination. 

The existing JTA bus terminal is located approximately 1/2 mile, through downtown 

traffic, from the JTA overnight bus storage facility. The proposed JTC location is 

located less than 1,000 feet away just across I-95. This will help reduce the amount 

of fuel and time required for buses to come on-line at the beginning of the shift and 

off-line after the shift had ended. 

The existing Amtrak station is located approximately six miles northwest of the 

downtown area. Although good roadway access is available and JTA local bus 

service is provided, this facility is essentially isolated from all other existing and 

future transportation modes from major developments. 

Impacts 4-42


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

The campus of the Florida Community College of Jacksonville (FCCJ) 

accommodates a Skyway station and a JTA bus transfer station, formerly located at 

Hemming Plaza. Both of these stations are fully utilized, and expansion is not 

possible. 

The existing Greyhound intercity bus terminal is located in the downtown area and 

has convenient access to the Skyway system. However, the terminal site is 

physically constrained and is unable to be expanded. All Greyhound buses enter 

and leave downtown Jacksonville via the interstate system. The existing terminal is 

located approximately 0.7 miles east of I-95. A location closer to I-95 would result in 

both greater efficiency for Greyhound and also less travel on downtown streets by 

large intercity buses. The location of the Greyhound terminal requires arriving and 

departing buses to cross the public sidewalk on Forsyth Street and on Bay Street. 

Due to the orientation of the terminal and the one-way streets, buses are unable to 

approach and depart the terminal in a smooth traffic pattern and are required to 

drive around the block. 

The inefficiencies of the existing transportation network is eliminated by pulling all of 

these multi-modal facilities together in one location and providing safe and seamless 

access between them. This will lead to an overall reduction in the amount of energy 

required for users to access the transportation network as well as resulting in a 

conservation of energy required to operate the network. 

4.3.19 Safety and Security 

The present uncoordinated operation of individual transportation modes requires 

each operator (Amtrak, Greyhound, Skyway) to provide security of its own 

passengers and facilities. Integrating all modes into a single coordinated multimodal 

facility will make more productive use of the investment in security, will result 

in an increased level of overall security, and will reduce the amount of off-peak time 

when individual terminals are empty and may be vulnerable to theft or vandalism. 

Additionally, care will be taken during design to insure the safety of pedestrians and 

other transportation system users. This includes the incorporation of elevated 

pedestrian walkways over areas of high vehicular traffic. Appropriate lighting of 

walkways and parking areas will be included in the final design plans as an extra 

security measure. Surveillance of station platforms and bus loading areas will be 

enhanced through the use of video cameras and monitors. Cameras will also be 

used to monitor ticketing areas for added security. The JTC design plans will 

include coordination with any security requirements of the Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA). 

Impacts 4-43


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

5.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION 

5.1 Introduction 

Public involvement is being carried out as an integral part of this project. The 

purpose of this is to establish and maintain communication with the public at-large 

and individuals and agencies concerned with the project and its potential impacts. 

To ensure open communication and agency and public input, the Florida 

Department of Transportation (FDOT) has provided early in the project process an 

Advance Notification package to State and Federal agencies and other interested 

parties defining the project and, in cursory terms, describing anticipated issues and 

impacts. In an effort to resolve all issues identified, FDOT has conducted an 

extensive interagency coordination and consultation effort, and public participation 

process. This section of the document details FDOT’s program to fully identify, 

address, and resolve all project-related issues identified through the public 

involvement process. 

5.2 Advance Coordination (AN) 

FDOT, through the AN Process, informed a number of Federal, State, and local 

agencies of the existence of this project and its scope. FDOT initiated early project 

coordination on February 24, 2005 by distribution of an AN package to the State 

Clearinghouse. Individual packages were also sent to local government directly. 

Stated below are the pertinent comments from the agencies that responded to the 

Advance Notification. The responses from these agencies are contained in 

Appendix B. 

ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 

COMMENT: The SJRWMD stated that the project will have wetland impacts and 

will greatly increase the amount of impervious surface in the area. It noted that for 

wetland impacts greater than one acre, an Individual Environmental Resource 

Permit (ERP) will be required. However, impacts of less than one acre may only 

require a General ERP. 

RESPONSE: An ERP will be filed during the design phase of the proposed project. 

Additionally, all pertinent codes and regulations will be followed during all phases of 

the proposed project. 

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

COMMENT: Based on the information contained within the AN, the proposed 

project it appears that the SJRWMD will be responsible for processing the ERP. 

THE DEP noted that any activity that crosses over sovereign submerged lands will 

require a letter of consent approval pursuant to Chapter 18-21 F.A.C. 

RESPONSE: No response required. 

Comments and Coordination 5-1


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

CITY OF JACKSONVILLE’S ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY DIVISION 

COMMENT: Notes that the proposed project is located in the Consolidated 

Downtown Development of Regional Impact (DRI), Northside West section, and may 

impact some of the same roadways and intersections impacted by other projects 

within the DRI. Roadways, intersections and structures may be subject to traffic and 

air quality analyses. The proposed project may be required to comply with current 

SJRWMD stormwater management regulations. The applicant will also be required 

to comply with the sediment and erosion control requirements of Chapter 4.12 of the 

Jacksonville Department of Public Works “Procedures and Criteria for Land 

Development” during all construction activities. 

RESPONSE: Coordination will continue with the City of Jacksonville’s 

Environmental Quality Division and the Department of Public Works during this 

phase and continue through permitting and construction to ensure that all 

appropriate rules and regulations are followed. 

NORTHEAST FLORIDA REGIONAL COUNCIL 

COMMENT: Based on the information contained within the AN, the proposed 

project is generally consistent with the Northeast Florida Regional Council’s policies, 

plans and programs. 


HISTORICAL RESOURCES / BUREAU OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION 

COMMENT: No Comment / Consistent 


NATIONAL CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH / CENTER FOR 

DISEASE CONTROL 

COMMENT: While this agency had no project specific comments to offer they did 

supply a list of topics that should be considered during the NEPA process. The list 

provided contained topics ranging from air and water quality to environmental justice 

considerations. 

RESPONSE: By following the guidelines set forth in the Florida Department of 

Transportation’s PD&E Manual, all of the aforementioned topics have been 

evaluated to an appropriate level. Environmental justice will be addressed. 



PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

5.3 Interagency Coordination and Consultation 

In order to better define and address the concerns of Federal and State 

environmental permit and review agencies, numerous contacts were made in the 

form of correspondence, telephone contacts, and informal meetings. Provided 

below is a summation of coordination activities which have taken place on the 

project. 

FLORIDA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER (SHPO) 

The focus of this coordination activity, a series of meetings and written 

communication, was to come to a consensus on the steps that needed to be taken 

to ensure that no significant archeological or historical resources are impacted by 

the construction of the build alternative. This included defining the building specifics 

for alterations to the Jacksonville Terminal Complex and the McDaniel building in 

order to maintain their historically significant elements. This process resulted in a 

December 12, 2005 letter from the State Historical Preservation Officer stating that 

“the proposed project will have no adverse impacts on the historic Jacksonville 

Terminal Complex or other properties listed or eligible for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places.” An additional letter was received on July 20, 2006 

reiterating the “no adverse effect” and requesting additional coordination during the 

design phase. Copies of these letters are located in Appendix B. 

PUBLIC MEETING 

Prime Osborn Convention Center 

(December 10, 1998) 

FDOT held a Public Meeting on an earlier version of the project; Amtrak and 

Greyhound being incorporated into the historic terminal. Public comments were 

received during the informal and formal sessions. A meeting summary is included 

in Appendix C. 

PUBLIC MEETING 

Prime Osborn Convention Center 

(June 29, 2006) 

FDOT held a Public Meeting on the project to obtain citizen comments and ideas 

relating to the project. Notices of both meetings were mailed to all residents within 

300 feet of the project boundaries. Also, the meeting was publicized through 

publication of a notice in the Jacksonville Times Union, a local newspaper having 

general circulation in the project area. The purpose of the public notice was to invite 

the general public and any interested groups to attend the meetings. Approximately 

49 persons attended the meeting. This meeting was held to provide the general 

public with information about the project, the various facilities under consideration, 

project scheduling, the status of the necessary studies and environmental 

documentation, and solicitation of comments from the general public. No 

comments, written or verbal, were received as a result of this meeting. The mailing 

list, an example notification letter, the newspaper ad, the sign-in sheets, handouts, 

and the meeting transcript are located in Appendix D. 



PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

PUBLIC HEARING 


Jacksonville Urban Office 

2198 Edison Street 

(January 10, 2008) 

On January 10, 2008, at the Florida Department of Transportation’s Jacksonville 

Urban Office, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) held a Public 

Hearing to discuss the Project Development and Environment Study’s Preferred 

Alternative for the Jacksonville Transportation Center. 

From 4:30 – 6:30 p.m. personnel were available with maps, drawings, and other 

pertinent information to discuss the preferred alternative and to answer any 

questions about the project. The formal portion of the Public Hearing was held at 

6:30 p.m. and consisted of a project presentation followed by a public comment 

period and then a reading and answering of submitted questions. This hearing was 

being conducted to afford interested parties the opportunity to express their views 

concerning the location, conceptual design, and the social, economic and 

environmental effects of the proposed project. Beginning December 20, 2007, the 

approved Environmental Assessment was available for review during normal 

business hours at the FDOT Jacksonville Urban Office at 2198 Edison Street, 

Jacksonville, Florida, and at the Jacksonville Transportation Authority offices at 110 

North Myrtle Avenue in Jacksonville, Florida. 

An estimated 47 people attended the public hearing. Of the people who attended 

three submitted written questions that were answered at the hearing, six people 

spoke after the formal presentation, and two comments were received via e-mail 

during the 10-day period after the Public Hearing. A copy of the property owners 

mailing list, an example notification letter, the newspaper ad, the sign-in sheets, 

handouts, speaker and question cards and all written comments received either at 

the hearing or within 10 days are included in Appendix F. A copy of the official 

transcript is located in the FONSI. 

COMMENT: Three of speakers gave their support of the project and pushed for it to 

occur as soon as possible. The other three speakers, while also in favor of the 

project, had some questions about changing various aspects of the project. 

RESPONSE: The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) appreciates the 

positive responses and the general support of the project. 

COMMENT: Two of the speakers questioned the aesthetics and design of the JTC 

and felt a more defining design would say more about Jacksonville than the one 

proposed. 

RESPONSE: The architectural design of the JTC buildings had to take into 

consideration the historical Jacksonville Terminal and to keep the aesthetics similar 

in nature. 



PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

COMMENT: Three speakers questioned whether the design couldn’t further 

facilitate users going from one mode of transportation to another by keeping 

everything on the same level or more closely located. 

RESPONSE: The Prime Osborn Convention Center required us to not only maintain 

their facilities but allow room for them to expand. This hampered the ability to 

design a more unified JTC centered on the Jacksonville Terminal. Additionally, due 

to financial constraints, the JTC will be constructed over a number of phases which 

also prohibits bringing all modes of transportation into a single building. The 

proposed design of the JTC allows for safe and easy movement of pedestrians 

between the various modes of transportation. 

COMMENT: Two of the written questions pertained to using property within or 

adjacent to the Prime Osborn Center to further centralize the various JTC 

components. 

RESPONSE: The Prime Osborn Convention Center required us to not only maintain 

their facilities but allow room for them to expand. 

COMMENT: One written question asked about using the old pedestrian subway for 

access instead of constructing a new one. 

RESPONSE: The old abandoned subway has been determined to have been 

removed and filled in with debris during unrelated construction projects. 

COMMENT: One written comment addressed the issue of the Park Street Viaduct 

being to low to accommodate more than two tracks. 

RESPONSE: The preliminary plan is to dig down and place the additional tracks 

deeper underneath Park Street, allowing passage underneath the structure. 

COMMENT: One written question asked about other modes of transportation 

including commuter rails, street cars, etc. 

RESPONSE: Commuter or light were not incorporated into this study as the current 

plan is to use Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) for commuter transport. Street cars and 

other rubber tire forms of transportation, while not initially planned for, can be 

accommodated along with the BRT at the JTA Bus Terminal facility. The JTA is 

currently conducting a commuter rail study for the region. 

COMMENT: One written comment asked for clarification about the total number of 

parking spaces provided for at the JTA bus facility. 

RESPONSE: The parking garages at the JTA bus facility are going to be brought 

online in phases with initial phase having 875 with a possible maximum of 2,000. 

COMMENT: One written comment asked if the leadership of the F.E.C or Amtrak 

committed to supporting this project. 



PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

RESPONSE: Coordination with Amtrak, F.E.C. and CSX has occurred throughout 

the project with Amtrak giving favorable support of the project (letter of support is 

locate din Appendix B). F.E.C. and CSX are not opposed to the project as long as 

their operations are not hampered. Meeting minutes from F.E.C. and CSX 

coordination activity is located in Appendix E. 

COMMENT: One written comment asked about the estimated cost of the rail 

improvements and what are the possible funding sources. 

REPSONSE: The estimated cost is set at approximately $50 million with $20 million 

for the building and $30 million for the tracks. No specific funding sources have 

been identified at this time. 

COMMENT: One written and one spoken question pertained to the timing of the rail 

improvements and the return of passenger rail to the Jacksonville Terminal. 

RESPONSE: While there is interest to speed the timing up as much as possible, it 

is based on when funds become available. 

COMMENT: One e-mailed comment stated that the current bus terminal between 

Union and State Street is unacceptable and creates an unsafe environment for 

pedestrians and drivers. 

RESPONSE: The proposed JTC includes a JTA Bus Terminal between Houston 

and Forsyth. The design allows for safe pedestrian access and will minimize the 

interactions of buses entering and exiting the terminal with general vehicle traffic. 

The proposed JTC will accommodate the operations currently located at the FCCJ 

site. 

COMMENT: The second e-mailed comment was from an attendees and speakers 

at the public hearing who reiterated his desire to see the Amtrak station move to the 

proposed location and added that security at the current facility is lacking. 

REPONSE: While there is interest to speed the timing up as much as possible, it is 

based on when funds become available. Security at the proposed JTC has been 

considered and is an important part of the overall project. The safety of the transit 

users is of paramount importance and an integral part of a successful multi-modal 

facility. Final specific security plans will not be determined until the design phase is 

complete. 

5.4 Public / Local and Regional Agency Coordination 

In order to better define and address the concerns of local and regional agencies as 

well as the public, numerous meetings were held to both supply project related 

information as well as to receive input. Provided below in Table 5.4 is a summation 

of coordination activities which have taken place on the project. Meeting minutes, 

where applicable, are included in Appendix E. 



PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

Table 5.4. List of Meetings 

DATE MEETING PARTICIPANTS PURPOSE OF MEETING 

February 19, 2002 

Jacksonville Downtown Development Present Amtrak Terminal 


Plans and Master Site Plan 


Jacksonville Historic Preservation Present Amtrak Terminal 

Commission 

Plans and Master Site Plan 

April 3, 2002 

Citizens Advisory Committee / Technical 

Advisory Committee 

Presentation 

April 11, 2002 

First Coast Metropolitan Planning 

Organization (MPO) 

Presentation 

May 16, 2002 

MPO Bicycle / Pedestrian Advisory 

Committee 

Presentation 

May 22, 2002 

Jacksonville Downtown Development 


Presentation 

May 22, 2202 

Jacksonville Historic Preservation 

Commission 


First Coast Metropolitan Planning 

Organization 

Presentation 

June 10, 2004 


Authority, Florida Department of 

Transportation, and Jacksonville 

Transportation Authority 

July 16, 2004 Mayor of Jacksonville Presentation 

September 22, Jacksonville Downtown Development 

2004 


Presentation 

September 22, Jacksonville Historic Preservation 

2004 

Commission 

Presentation 

September 23, 

2004 

National Railway Historic Society Presentation 

October 27, 2004 



Presentation – Commission 

approved proposed Amtrak 

design 

Discussion on incorporation of 

La Villa Plan. 

Presentation – Authority 

unanimously approved 

resolution supporting project. 

August 5, 2005 

Jacksonville Historic Preservation Discussion of McDaniel 

Commission 

building 

January 17, 2006 State Historic Preservation Officer Presentation - meeting 


Jacksonville Economic Development Presentation – update on 

Commission 

project status 


Jacksonville City Council members 

Elaine Brown and Reggie Fullwood 

Presentation - meeting 


Jacksonville Historic Preservation 

Commission / Design Review Committee 


June 29, 2006 

December 14, 2006 

Public Meeting 

Jacksonville Economic Development 

Commission 

Public meeting and 

presentation 




PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

FIRST COAST METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 

2030 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 

Through dialogue with State and local government officials, 23 public workshops, 

frequent meetings with civic organizations, distribution of thousands of newsletters, 

and a rigorous traffic projection analysis, a 2030 Needs Plan was developed. This 

report details proposed roadway projects without regard to transportation costs and 

revenues. Based on the goals and objectives, a set of evaluation criteria was 

developed and used to rank each project in the Needs Plan: 

• Provide proactive public involvement 

• Support economic vitality of the region 

• Efficiently meet transportation needs 

• Recognize transportation and land use linkage 

• Expand, enhance, and increase transit use 

• Improve transportation safety and security 

• Protect environmental and historical resources 

• Equitably expand the transportation system 

The JTC is listed in the Adopted 2030 Cost Feasible Plan under “FDOT InterModal 

Funded Projects” with a current program funding of $23.53 million. 



PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

6.0 COMMITMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

6.1 Commitments 

In order to minimize the impacts of this project on the human environment, the 

Florida Department of Transportation is committed to the following measures: 

• Best Management Practices will be incorporated during construction to 

minimize wetland impacts. 

• FDOT will coordinate with the appropriate regulatory agencies as needed 

throughout the project design regarding permitting and mitigation 

requirements, including avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts. 

• In accordance with FDOT’s Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge 

Construction, all Best Management Practices for erosion control and water 

quality considerations will be adhered to during the construction phase of the 

project. 

• Coordination will continue with the State Historical Preservation Officer 

during the design phase of the AMTRAK facility in an effort to minimize and 

avoid potential adverse impacts to the Jacksonville Terminal. 

• Construction of the Greyhound driver’s facility at the McDaniel Building will 

maintain interior and exterior architectural features recognizing the building’s 

contribution to Jacksonville’s early 1920’s design. 

• Any wetland impacts that occur as a result of the proposed project will be 

mitigated for in a fashion deemed acceptable by the state and federal 

permitting agencies. 

• Remediation of groundwater and soil contamination will occur as necessary 

prior to construction. 

6.2 Recommendations 

As a result of the public hearing, environmental studies, and agency coordination, 

the alternative recommended for location design and acceptance is the Build 

Alternative as described in Chapter 3 with the following modifications. The JTA Bus 

Terminal has been reduced from 24 slips to 16 and the associated parking garage 

and the RTMC were shifted accordingly. Additionally, the RTMC was moved from 

the JTA Bus Terminal to the existing surface parking area for the Skyway Terminal 

(Figure 6-2). This parcel is owned by the Florida Department of Transportation and 

will not require any additional right-of-way acquisitions. The parking spaces lost by 

this construction will be replaced by a parking garage located at the Skyway 

Terminal. This move was a result of the funding for the RTMC and Skyway Terminal 

upgrades being available before the funds for the JTA Bust Terminal and associated 

parking garage. The remainder of the Build Alternative, consisting of a Jacksonville 

Transportation Authority (JTA) bus terminal, a JTA Skyway people mover station 

Commitments and Recommendations 6-1


PD&E Study 

Environmental 

Assessment 

(Automated Skyway Express/ASE), bus rapid transit stations, an Amtrak station, a 

Greyhound terminal, two park-and-ride facilities/parking garages, a public plaza, 

retail establishments, an elevated pedestrian concourse, JTA offices, and a regional 

transportation management center (RTMC), remains the same. 

Commitments and Recommendations 6-2


PD&E STUDY 

UPDATED JTC 

SITE PLAN 

FIGURE 

6.2

Appendix A 

Memorandum of Understanding

Appendix B 

Agency Coordination and Advance Notification

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Glenda E. Hood 

Secretary of State 

DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES 


Mr. Ethan Loubriel, R.A. 

Associate Vice President 

DMJM Harris, Inc. 

1100 Park Central Boulevard South, Suite 1800 

Pompano Beach, Florida 33064 

RE: DHR Project No.: 2005-11625; Received: November 16,2005 

Concept Plans for Jacksonville Transportation Center, Jacksonville, Duval County 

Dear Mr. Loubriel: 

Thank you for your November 14, 2005 transmittal containing responses to our September 20, 2005 

review comments on the concept plans for the Jacksonville Transportation Center. We have 

reviewed the information contained in your transmittal in accordance with Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended and 36 CFR Part 800: Protection of 

Historic Properties. Pursuant to Section 106, the State Historic Preservation Officer is to advise 

Federal agencies as they identify historic properties (listed or eligible for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places), assess effects upon them, and consider alternatives to avoid or 

minimize adverse effects. Our review is based on the recommended approaches to rehabilitation set 

forth in The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. 

As you are aware, the Jacksonville Ternlinal Complex was listed in the National Register of 

Historic Places on October 22, 1976. The complex includes both the 1919 Jacksonville Ternlinal 

and the ruin of the 1897 Jacksonville Union Station. 

We appreciate the clarification and revisions to the concept proposal contained in your responses to 

those of our comments numbered 1 through 7, 10 and 11. The clarification and actions/treatments 

indicated in your responses are considered to adequately address these related preservation 

concerns. 

Your response to our comment number 8 does not address our. concern regarding the manner of 

connection between the new roof construction at the South Lobby and the historic rigid canopy. 

500 S. Bronough Street. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 .http://www.flheritage.com 

[] Director's Office [] Archaeological Research _Historic Preservation [] Historical Museums 

(850) 245-6300. FAX: 245-6436 (850) 245-6444. FAX: 245-6436 (850) 245-6333. FAX: 245-6437 (850) 245-6400. FAX: 245-6433 

[] Southeast Regional Office [] Northeast Regional Office [] Central Florida Regional Office 

(954) 467-4990. FAX: 467-4991 (904) 825-5045. FAX: 825-5044 (813) 272-3843. FAX: 272-2340

Mr. Ethan Loubriel, R.A. 

December 12,2005 

Page Two 

As indicated previously, as more detailed planning progresses, further evaluation of this aspect of 

the design will be required. 

Simplification of the roofing materials used on the new construction south of the Terminal as 

described in your response to our comment numbered 9 addresses

Appendix C 

Prior Project Public Meeting Information

Appendix D 

Public Meeting Information

Appendix D 

Public Meeting Information

Inter-City Bus Module consisting of: 

• Greyhound bus facility to be located between 

Houston Street and Adams Street and the I-95 ROW 

and Johnson Street. 

• Terminal building with a floor area of approximately 

22,000 square feet. 

• Partial demolition and modifications to the McDaniel 

Building, an existing building having historic value. 

• Bus wash facility. 

• Loading and unloading area for 18 buses. 

• Layover and maintenance bus parking for 17 buses. 

• Fuel and dump facilities 

− Street improvements within the street right-ofways 

for the portions of streets directly adjoining 

the Inter-City Bus Module identified herein. 

These streets are portions of Johnson Street and 

Adams Street. 

JTA Office and RTMC Facility Module consisting of: 

• JTA bus and related on-grade transportation facilities 

located below the structured parking facility. 

• Provisions for 12 JTA bus bays. 

• Structured parking facilities for approximately 

2,000 cars. 

• Transport pedestrian concourse within the parking 

structure. 

• Elevated vehicle bridge connection over West 

Forsyth Street. 

• Office building with a floor area of approximately 


• Regional Transportation Management Center 

(RTMC) with a floor area of approximately 40,000 

square feet. 

• A central facility for the security system and public 

announcement system. 

JACKSONVILLE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION CENTER

JACKSONVILLE 

TERMINAL IMPROVEMENTS 

Skyway Module consisting of: 

• Integration of the existing Skyway Terminal with 

related transportation facilities located between West 

Forsyth Street and West Bay Street, and between 

vacant land to the west and Johnson Street. 


200 cars. 

• Skyway Terminal modifications. 

• Provision for two bus rapid transit stations. 

• Shell structures for transit oriented and retail 

development. 

• Pedestrian plaza 



the Skyway Module identified herein. These 

streets are portions of Johnson Street, West Bay 

Street and West Forsyth Street. 

JTA Bus Facility Module consisting of: 


located between West Forsyth Street and Houston 

Street, and between the proposed structured parking 

facility and Johnson Street. 


• Roof structure over bus transfer area. 

• Elevated pedestrian bridge connection over West 



development 

− Street improvements within the street right-of-ways 

for the portions of streets directly adjoining the JTA 

Bus Facility Module identified herein. These 

streets are portions of Johnson Street, West 

Forsyth Street and Houston Street.

Appendix E 

Public / Local and Regional Agency Meeting Minutes

FIRST COAST 

METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 

TECHNICAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE 

MEETING MINUTES 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 3, 2002 10:30 A.M. 

220 EAST BAY STREET – CITY HALL ANNEX – 15 TH FLOOR 

MEMBERS PRESENT: 

Steve Lindorff, Jacksonville Beach Planning Department, Vice-Chair 

Denise Bunnewith, Transportation Planning Division 

Prentis Clayton, III - Commuter Assistance 

Fred Kyle, City of Jacksonville, Traffic Engineer’s Office 

Darrell Smith, Jacksonville Transportation Authority 

Jim Green, Florida Department of Transportation (alternate for Suraya Teeple) 

Janis Fleet, Town of Baldwin 

Roger Sharp, Jacksonville Transportation Authority 

Chip Seymour, Jacksonville Airport Authority 

John Bowles, Town Manager, Town of Orange Park 

Rick Banks, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

A. Shawn Collins, Clay County 

Tim Perkins, Jacksonville Electric Authority 

OTHERS PRESENT: 

Drew DeCandis, St. Johns County 

David Wilkinson, JaxPort 

Pam Freet, Jacksonville Transportation Authority 

Bill Sheen, Florida Community College at Jacksonville 

Debrah Miller, Florida Department of Transportation 

Joel Glenn, Florida Department of Transportation 

Rick Sibley, CSX 

Donna Godfrey, St. Johns County 

Monty Selim, RS & H 

April Baccus, RS & H 

Mary O’Donnell, RS & H 

Aimee Hood, Jacksonville Airport Authority (JAA) 

Richard Heidrick, DMJM Harris 

Ethan Loubriel, DMJM Harris 

A - 1

TCC MEETING SUMMARY 

APRIL 3, 2002 

STAFF PRESENT: 

Bettie Barber, First Coast Metropolitan Planning Organization 

Wanda Forrest, First Coast Metropolitan Planning Organization 

Jeff Sheffield, First Coast Metropolitan Planning Organization 

CALL TO ORDER 

The Vice Chair, Steve Lindorff, called the meeting of the Technical Coordinating 

Committee to order at 10:38 A.M. 

A. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 6, 2002 TCC 

MEETING 

The Chair called for approval of the March 6, 2002 TCC Minutes. 

A motion for APPROVAL of the March 6, 2002 TCC Minutes was 

made by Mr. John Bowles, seconded by Mr. Prentis Clayton, and 

unanimously carried. 

B. APPOINTMENT OF ANDREW DECANDIS AS ST. JOHNS COUNTY’S 

ALTERNATE MEMBER TO THE TECHNICAL COORDINATING 

COMMITTEE 

The Chair called for approval of the Appointment of Mr. Andrew Decandis as St. 

Johns County’s Alternate Member to the Technical Coordinating Committee. 

A motion for APPROVAL of the Appointment of Mr. Andrew 

DeCandis as St. Johns County’s Alternate Member to the 

Technical Committee was made by Ms. Denise Bunnewith, 

seconded by Ms. Janis Fleet, and unanimously carried. 

A – 2


APRIL 3, 2002 

C. AMENDMENT TO THE TCC MEMBERSHIP TO INCLUDE 

REPRESENTATION FROM THE NAVY AND THE COAST GUARD AS 

REQUESTED BY FHWA 

The Chair recognized Ms. Denise Bunnewith to speak to this agenda item. 

Ms. Bunnewith stated at the last Certification Review they suggested because 

we have such a large military presence in this community that we increase our 

representation to include a representative of the Navy as well as a representative 

of the Coast Guard. 

We did at one time have a representative from the Navy on the CAC, but I really 

think it is more appropriate that they be on the Technical Coordinating 

Committee. So, the Chairman of the MPO, Mr. John Meserve, who is a retired 

Captain in the Navy with a close relationship with the Mayport Naval Station has 

agreed to help us in filling these two positions. 

The Chair stated thank you Denise. Is there a motion to approve seeking the 

addition of representation from the Navy and the Coast Guard to the TCC? 

A motion for APPROVAL of the Amendment to the TCC 

Membership to include Representation from the Navy and the 

Coast Guard as Requested by FHWA was made by Ms. Janis 

Fleet, seconded by Mr. Chip Seymour, and unanimously carried. 

D. APPROVAL OF THE CONFORMITY RE-DETERMINATION REPORT 

FOR THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR 

FISCAL YEARS 2001/2002 THROUGH 2005/2006 


Ms. Bunnewith stated this is basically the same document we showed you two 

months ago. Remember, we delayed approval because of the request of USEPA 

and Federal Highway because they needed more time to review. 

The changes are that we added the signature page, table of content, crossreference 

index, and the appendices. We demonstrated that all the projects are 

either exempt or included in the plan, and no further regional emissions analysis 

is required. 

A - 3


APRIL 3, 2002 

The Chair stated thank you Denise. Could I have a motion please to approve 

the Conformity Re-Determination Report? 

A motion for APPROVAL of the Conformity Re-Determination 

Report for the Transportation Improvement Program for Fiscal 

Years 2001/2002 through 2005/2006 was made by Mr. Darrell 

Smith, seconded by Mr. Prentis Clayton, and unanimously 

carried. 

E. REQUEST BY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

TO AMEND THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 

(TIP) FOR FISCAL YEARS 2001/2002 THROUGH 2005/2006 

The Chair recognized Mr. Jim Green, Florida Department of Transportation to 

speak to this agenda item. 

Mr. Green stated thank you Mr. Chair. Now, that the Conformity Re- 

Determination Report has been passed the Department has a request to amend 

several items into the current TIP, the one that goes through 2005/2006. They 

are listed in Section E of the Agenda Package. Several of them are CIGP 

projects, which are County Incentive Grant Program Projects where the affected 

county makes application to the Department for special funding outside of the 

normal transportation funding stream. These projects have been approved. 

They also have to have the local counties demonstrate a local match, and that is 

reflected in the table. 

The CIGP projects are Clay CR 218 from Hibiscus to Blanding, a widening to four 

lanes. Realigning the Cecil Commerce Center. You might recall earlier in the 

TIP it was in, then it was out because it wasn’t in the Conformity Report. Now, 

that Conformity has been Re-Determined it is back. Collins Road. 

Several of these are in cooperation with the Better Jacksonville. I-295 at 

Pritchard Road, for our accounting purposes it is two projects. One is an actual 

grant to the JTA to widen Pritchard within the Interchange. That would 

coordinate with their projects on either side of the Interchange off Pritchard Road. 

The other is a right of way project if it is necessary to acquire land for an off-site 

retention pond. I-295 at St. Augustine is another project we would be providing 

A – 4


APRIL 3, 2002 

money to the City to do some improvements on the ramps. Martin Luther King 

Parkway at 8 th Street, as you know that is kind of an unusually configured 

interchange. We are going to be rebuilding it to make it typical of the current 

standards for a diamond interchange to improve Port access. Old Middleburg 

Road, another Better Jacksonville coordination project. Those are all capacity 

projects. 

We also have some resurfacing enhancement projects. San Jose Boulevard, 

resurface from the Duval County to the county line of I-295. I-295 resurface from 

west of where the current interchange construction is going on to the Buckman 

Bridge. An enhancement project in Windy Hill Park, the construction portion of 

this is already in the TIP and the City has requested funding for engineering. 

I would be happy to try to answer any questions if anybody has any. That is the 

Department’s request for amendments to the current TIP. 

The Chair asked does any member have any questions of Mr. Green on the 

amendments being proposed? The Chair would entertain a motion to 

approve the amendments to the 2001/2002 through 2005/2006 TIP. 

A motion for APPROVAL of the Request by the Florida 

Department of Transportation to Amend the Transportation 

Improvement Program (TIP) for Fiscal Years 2001/2002 through 

2005/2006 was made by Mr. Jim Green, seconded by Mr. John 

Bowles, and unanimously carried. 

F. PRESENTATION ON THE WILLIAM BARTRAM SCENIC AND 

HISTORIC HIGHWAY ELIGIBILITY APPLICATION FOR THE 

FLORIDA SCENIC HIGHWAYS PROGRAM 

The Chair stated the TCC will need to vote today to endorse this project. The 

Chair recognizes Ms. Donna Godfrey, St. Johns County. 

Ms. Godfrey stated hi. Good Morning, can you hear me? I appreciate your 

time this morning to talk to you about the William Bartram Scenic and Historic 

Highway Corridor. I am here on behalf of St. Johns County and the William 

Bartram Scenic and Historic Highway Corridor Group to ask you to recommend 

approval of the proposed Scenic Highway Eligibility Application for SR 13 in St. 

Johns County. 

A - 5


APRIL 3, 2002 

We are scheduled to appear before the MPO Board next week where we would 

request their endorsement of this application, after that we would present the 

package to the Board of County Commissioners on April 23 rd . We hope to return 

the application in its entirety to the Department of Transportation by the end of 

the month. 

SR 13 extends from SR 16 just south of Wards Creek north to the Julington 

Creek Bridge at the county line in Duval County. The MPO boundary takes in 

five to six miles of that area...the intersection of Greenbriar Road. The Corridor 

Group submitted a letter of intent to the DOT in February of 1998 with the 

support of the Board of County Commissioners. 

The Corridor Group has worked diligently over the last several years to formulate 

the vision and to gather information needed for the application. A few months 

ago the County hired a consultant to help organize these materials and to 

accelerate completion of this phase. Accordingly, the Corridor Group met last 

Thursday and endorsed the application. 

I believe you were given a summary package separate from your agenda 

package. In it you will find the story of the scenic highway along with information 

on the vision and goals of the Corridor Group. In addition, there are copies of 

resolutions that the Board of County Commissioners passed over the last couple 

years along with I think the State Legislature 1980 Resolution. Thank you for 

your consideration. I would be glad to answer any question. We gave a full 

copy of the eligibility application to Denise and Wanda. 

The Chair asked does anybody have any questions of Ms. Godfrey? 

Ms. Fleet stated the DOT is currently doing a River Crossing Study that includes 

this area would there be any impacts designated? What impact would that 

have from the Clay County side? 

Mr. Green stated I’m not sure. Joel. Joel Glenn is from our Environmental 

Management Office perhaps he can address that. 

Mr. Glenn stated I am with the Environmental Management Office out of Lake 

City. I work with Kristee Booth, who in turn works with a group called the Scenic 

Highway… Of course, we are very concerned with making sure we get the 

application through on that. 

A – 6


APRIL 3, 2002 

With regard to the River Crossing the study is still ongoing. We have a 

preliminary meeting and would be back before the public relatively soon with 

what would be possible on the river crossing. We would have to consider 

impacts to any of the roadways, this roadway and any of the other roadways 

when we go through the river crossing. So, I would not single this roadway out 

as one that we would not consider. We would consider all of the roads on both 

sides of the river in the River Crossing Study. 

There are more than roads being considered there. There are the environmental 

issues, efficiency of the road, and alignment. Does that answer your 

question? 

Ms. Fleet stated so really there wouldn’t be any impact of whether it is 

designated or not as to how it is going to come out? 

Mr. Glenn stated you are referring to the river crossing? 

Ms. Fleet stated correct. 

Mr. Glenn stated this would be one of the many factors we would have to 

consider in the River Crossing Study. That study is still in front of us. I would not 

predict its outcome at this point. 

Ms. Bunnewith stated I believe that designation as a scenic highway does not 

preclude improvements to that facility or changes to that facility. 

Ms. Godfrey stated if I may, it is my understanding that DOT prohibits billboards 

as a result of the scenic highway designation. That is the only protective devise 

that they actually institute. There is already a band on billboards along that 

section of roadway on the local level. So, that would be the only thing. 

Mr. Glenn stated there is one other commitment that comes with the scenic 

highway designation that the DOT has and that is before we make any 

improvement or whatever is necessary we have to coordinate very closely with 

the community, but again it does not preclude doing whatever is necessary to 

keep an efficient transportation system. 

The Chair stated thank you. Any other questions or comments? Okay, we 

are being requested to make an endorsement of this project in advance of it 

being presented to the MPO at the next meeting. The Chair would entertain a 

motion please to recommend approval of this project. 

A - 7


APRIL 3, 2002 

A motion for APPROVAL of the endorsement of the William 

Bartram Scenic and Historic Highway Eligibility Application for 

the Florida Scenic Highways Program was made by Mr. Prentis 

Clayton, seconded by Mr. Darrell Smith, and unanimously 

carried. 

The Chair stated I know that we have a number of presentations. I know Denise 

has been around asking all of the presenters to keep it as short as possible. 

Whereas I would not cut you off unless you get extremely long winded I do ask 

that you proceed as quickly as possible through your information. 

G. STAFF PRESENTATION ON THE DRAFT TRANSPORTATION 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR FY 2002/03 THROUGH 2006/07 

AND THE CONFORMITY DETERMINATION REPORT 

The Chair recognized Mr. Jeff Sheffield to speak to this agenda item. 

Mr. Sheffield stated thank you Mr. Chairman. Last month you received draft 

project sections from the TIP. This month you have a complete copy with the 

introduction sections. As I indicated last month we would come to you with a little 

more formal presentation just to identify some of the major projects in here and 

take your questions and comments. With that I will go ahead and run through the 

presentation as quickly as possible so that we can move on. 

We are in our public involvement period. By the end of this month we will have 

visited all of the areas of the MPO and shared the information within the TIP. We 

will hold one official public meeting and the date for this is set at April 25 th at the 

DOT Training Center at 6:00 PM. Ultimately, we would come back next month at 

your May 1 st meetings for approval of the TIP and then submittal to the MPO on 

May 9 th ultimately for approval and transmittal to the DOT. 

With that I will go ahead and start highlighting some of the projects in here. Feel 

free to stop me at any point if you have any questions and we can talk about it. 

I will begin in the southeast down in St. Johns County. There is a county 

improvement for Racetrack Road to four lanes from Bishop Estates to Russell 

A – 8


APRIL 3, 2002 

Sampson with construction in 2003/04. Also, a county project on CR 210 west to 

four lanes from I-95 to C. E. Wilson. There is a DOT resurfacing project on CR 

210 from the Palm Valley Bridge to Mickler Road with construction in 2002/03. 

SR A1A, a widening project by DOT to four lanes that facility from Mickler Road 

to the beginning of the four lanes. Currently there is preliminary engineering 

within the TIP. 

There are three projects related to SR 9B. These are Better Jacksonville Plan 

projects. Construction from 9A to US 1, as well as from US 1 to I-95, and the 

segment from I-95 to Racetrack Road. You will also find in here some 

companion projects related to these segments from DOT. So, ultimately 

between the Better Jacksonville Plan projects and the JTA with DOT they would 

coordinate ultimately a scheduling on many of these projects. 

The City of Jacksonville is widening St. Augustine Road to four lanes from Hood 

Landing to I-95 in 2004/05. Another DOT project on Philips Highway is a 

widening from Sunbeam to J. Turner Butler in its current right of way in 2004/05. 

Moving on to the east Arlington area, Butler Boulevard another Better 

Jacksonville project to widen from I-95 to 9A, as well as a DOT project to widen 

from west of Kernan Boulevard to San Pablo Road. The City would be widening 

all of Kernan Boulevard from McCormick Road on the north all the way to J. 

Turner Butler with construction in 2004/05. 

The Beach Boulevard projects, a widening by DOT from FCCJ to San Pablo 

Road with construction in 2004/05. There is also a bridge replacement project 

for the Intercoastal Waterway. DOT has right of way programmed in 2002/03, 

but there is also a companion from the Better Jacksonville Plan. It has 

construction dollars programmed in 2003/04. So, there would still be 

coordination between the two agencies on that project. 

SR 9A, a new road construction from Beach Boulevard to just north of J. Turner 

Butler, as well as the Interchange at J. Turner Butler Boulevard. Moving to the 

northeast there is two Heckscher Drive projects, one by DOT to widen from SR 

9A to August Drive; then, a Better Jacksonville project from JTA to widen 

Heckscher from August Drive to Drummond Point. 

A couple of City road projects, Pulaski Road, a three-lane section from New 

Berlin to Eastport. Starratt Road, another three-lane section from New Berlin to 

Duval Station. 

In the Urban Core there are a couple of City projects. 8 th Street to widen from 

Boulevard to Liberty, and Liberty to Haines Street. They also see the Mathews 

A - 9


APRIL 3, 2002 

Bridge project. The Better Jacksonville Plan has design programmed in 2002/03. 

There is the Riverside Avenue widening from Edison to the Acosta Bridge in 

2002/03. In the northwest there are two projects for Pritchard Road. The DOT 

would be widening from west of I-295 to just east of I-295, and then the City 

under the Better Jacksonville Plan would be widening from Jones Road to that 

segment. 

There is a PD & E/Master Plan project programmed for I-10 from the Nassau 

County Line to I-295. A Beaver Street project under the Better Jacksonville Plan 

to widen from McDuff Avenue to Cahoon Road. As you can see on the map this 

also actually overlaps a segment that is programmed by DOT for resurfacing in 

that facility. A City project for Cahoon Road, a three-lane section from Beaver 

Street to Normandy Boulevard. 

In the southwest, Branan Field/Chaffee Road a Better Jacksonville project to four 

lanes that facility from 103 rd Street north to Argyle Forest. A project by DOT for 

new road construction from 103 rd Street north to Beaver Street, which is not 

shown on this particular map. Currently, there is preliminary engineering in 

2003/04 programmed for that new segment. 

There is another Better Jacksonville project to widen Argyle Forest Boulevard 

from Blanding Boulevard to Westport Road. Two interchange projects on I-295, 

one at Blanding Boulevard with construction in 2002/03 and one at Roosevelt 

Boulevard with construction in 2002/03. 

Moving into Clay County there is a PD & E Study programmed for the Wells 

Road Connector. Those funds are identified in 2003/04. On US 17, there is the 

widening of US 17 from Creighton Road to Milwaukee Avenue with construction 

in 2006/07. On Blanding Boulevard a PD & E Study from Old Jennings Road to 

Knight Boxx. 

A few county projects, a CR 209 Extension from CR 220 to Old Jennings Road, 

and a widening of CR 220 from CR 224 to CR 209. Lastly, CR 218, a project 

widening from Blanding to Hibiscus Avenue. 

Those are some of the projects in here, and as I indicated we will come back one 

more time next month seeking your approval of the document. The final one will 

have the summary table that identifies the total dollars programmed by agency 

and county. 

A – 10


APRIL 3, 2002 

The Chair stated thank you Jeff. 

Ms. Bunnewith stated Mr. Chairman, if I could address the Conformity 

Determination Report. 

The Chair stated you may. 

Ms. Bunnewith stated we are required with the TIP to transmit a copy of the 

Conformity Determination Report demonstrating the air quality impacts to 

projects in the TIP. This TIP is demonstrating that it is a subset of the Long 

Range Transportation Plan therefore no further regional emissions analysis is 

required. 

I have not given you the detailed text. You have just seen the text for the Re- 

Determination. You have just recently seen the text for the Conformity 

Determination Report. If you think you would like a copy of the complete text let 

me know. What I have given you is the list of non-exempt projects. These are 

the projects that are subject to conformity. What we have done with each of the 

projects in there is demonstrated which analysis year they are included in the 

Long Range Transportation Plan, on the far right 2005, 2015, 2025. 

In addition to that I would like to let you know that we have received approval 

from both the FHWA and the EPA of our Conformity Determination Report for the 

Long Range Transportation Plan. They do not have the authority to approve the 

Long Range Transportation Plan itself. The only authority they have is to 

approve the Conformity Determination Report. Along with the final document we 

will have of course the table of content, the text, and the cross-reference index. 

In addition to this appendix we would have a list of exempt projects. These are 

projects, for example, resurfacing or signalization. 

Our model is not detailed enough to allow us to do detail analysis for 

intersections in the Long Range Transportation Plan. Therefore, we cannot 

include those in the list of non-exempt projects. We will also include a list of 

projects that were not subject to conformity. These are projects that are not 

exempt, but are also listed in the TIP. So, I thought we would identify those for 

you. Therefore, all of the projects in the TIP would be identified against the 

Conformity Determination Report. 

The Chair stated thank you Denise. Are there any questions for Jeff or 

Denise with regard to these items? 

A - 11


APRIL 3, 2002 

Mr. Kyle stated yes sir. As mentioned last meeting I still don’t see the 

intersection improvements for Atlantic and University listed. 

Mr. Sheffield stated yeah, I recently received an email from JTA so that project 

will be added back in. So, we will have that in next month’s final document. 

The Chair asked are there any other questions for either of the presenters? 

Okay. 

H. STAFF PRESENTATION ON THE DRAFT UNIFIED PLANNING 

WORK PROGRAM (UPWP) FOR JULY 1, 2002 TO JUNE 30, 2003 

The Chair recognized Ms. Wanda Forrest to speak to this agenda item. 

Ms. Forrest stated included in your mail out was the revised draft of the 

2002/2003 UPWP. Included in this draft are the funding sources for each task 

and in the funding tables that are identified in the back. I would like to briefly go 

over the new tasks. We have quite a few new tasks that were included in the 

UPWP this time. 

Task 1.4, which is for development of a Title VI Plan/Community Impact 

Assessment Process. Task 3.10, which is a Rail Crossing Study. That came out 

of our 2025 Plan. Task 3.13 is 2000 Census Urbanized Boundary Impacts. We 

will be starting it up once we get the Census Urbanized Boundary information 

back. Task 4.15, Transit Infrastructure Standards, this is a JTA task, which will 

study bus stops. Task 4.16, which is the Interstate 10 Master Plan that will be 

prepared by FDOT. Task 4.17, Downtown Mobility Plan, this is a JTA project. 

Task 4.18 is the Mayport Road Access Management Study. Task 4.19 is the 

Town of Baldwin Access Management Study. Task 4.20 is the ITS (Intelligent 

Transportation System) Needs Assessment and Integration Plan. This is being 

prepared by JTA. 

We will be presenting this in May for adoption. If you have any questions or 

would like to offer any information please let me know. Like I said this will be 

presented at the May Meeting. 

The Chair asked are there any questions at this time? 

A – 12


APRIL 3, 2002 

Ms. Bunnewith stated I would like to point out if you have any editorial 

corrections please get them to Wanda within the next two weeks so that we have 

time to make the corrections to the book. If you have additional tasks, questions, 

or items related to that we would take those up as amendments after the May 

Meeting. 

The Chair asked is there any other member with a question for Ms. Forrest 

on this item? Okay, thank you Wanda. 

I. PRESENTATION ON THE JACKSONVILLE TRANSPORTATION 

CENTER 

The Chair recognized Mr. Richard Heidrick, DMJM Harris to speak to this 

agenda item. 

Mr. Heidrick stated I am with DMJM Harris Engineering Firm. We are doing this 

project in association with Reynolds Smith & Hill. I am here today with Ethan 

Loubriel from my office, Monty Selim and Mary O’Donnell from Reynold Smith & 

Hill. 

To give you a little background on this project. We have been here before with 

this project. It is a multimodal facility to be located at the Jacksonville Terminal. 

It is a project that has gone through a site selection study. It has gone through a 

PD & E Study for the Department of Transportation. Now, we are in the design 

phase of this project. 

Phase I of this project is really bringing Amtrak back to this location where it 

originally was. The Amtrak passengers would be able to board Amtrak trains at 

the Jacksonville Terminal and that location would be moved from the Clifton Lane 

location. The…that we have used is we are bringing life back into the grand 

entry hall of the Jacksonville Terminal. That would be the main entrance for 

Amtrak. The Amtrak portion of the historic building would really be the southern 

portion of the building. New platforms would be built along the rail corridor to the 

south of the Prime Osborn Convention Center. There would be two platforms 

constructed and each platform would have tracks on each side for us by Amtrak 

facilities. Near term parking would be provided adjacent to the facility. Actually 

Phase I of the project really is to bring Amtrak and return it back to this facility. 

Phase II is the future potential phase of the project. Future potential phases we 

looked at building a structured parking facility between West Bay Street and 

West Forsyth Street (pointing to map) up here. That structured parking facility 

could actually accommodate a large bus transit facility for the JTA on the lower 

A - 13


APRIL 3, 2002 

level. The structured parking facility could overlap over the existing Skyway 

Station and be incorporated totally within the Skyway Station so there would be 

direct transfer of people from the structured parking into the Skyway Terminal. 

Then, a structured bridge could connect it to the Jacksonville Terminal and 

provide a direct connection between those basic modes of transportation. 

Some of the proposed traffic improvements that we had looked at if this project 

had gotten the go ahead, we would probably look at trying to see if we would add 

another lane through west Forsyth Street. That would be the exit for the parking 

facility. We would recommend making west Bay Street a one-way street, which 

currently the exit comes to the Convention Center (pointing to the map) you 

would be going east here. We would make that one way and have a loop at this 

point that would connect it to turn around. So, those are the type of 

improvements we would be looking at as we go into Phase II. 

I really want to concentrate on our Phase I project and that is really to bring 

Amtrak back into the Terminal where it really started out and really restore 

pedestrian activity life to the Jacksonville Terminal Structure, which is really a 

tremendous asset. With that I am going to let Ethan go ahead and give you a 

little description of where we are in the design of the Amtrak facility. 

Mr. Ethan Loubriel stated I would like to just walk you through briefly what we 

are doing with the existing facility and what we are adding. What you see over 

here is the southern orientation portion of the plan. North is to the right and 

south is to the left. This whole course, Amtrak would like to take the southern 

portion of the existing Union Terminal building. Then, they would also have—this 

line right here is an important line. From this line over is new construction, then 

from this line here just this little portion here, which is more for our baggage 

circulation will be incorporated into the existing head house. The convention 

center, which is not shown here, but all the pre-function space would mostly be 

maintained and then we would create out a secondary exit here from the head 

house. 

The most important features I can point out is within the existing building, the 

area that is in the beige portion is what we have as public space. The purple 

areas would be more the office or private spaces. Currently, the Convention 

Center, there is a three-story space here that utilizes that space for offices. 

Then, over here is the existing, like a boardroom, and this area here is more of a 

banquet area. There is this existing space over here, which is the picture to the 

upper right and it is a glass dome lit ceiling, very nice space. Then, this space 

A – 14


APRIL 3, 2002 

over here is this picture, the banquet hall, large two-story…ceiling, a nice space 

there. This actually, what they are using for the boardroom is another glass oval 

ceiling in that area. 

What we are proposing to do basically is to keep the nice spaces that are 

existing and utilize them for public space. Right now, they aren’t really being 

used for that purpose. This area here, which is more of a foyer/vestibule we will 

use that as kind of the entry point from the grand lobby to get the tickets. This 

area over here, which is in front of the boardroom, this large two-story space 

would all be waiting area, a little café over here. All of this would be the ticketing 

function. Then, there would be a baggage area here and over here would be the 

start of the pedestrian bridge. 

This is the second floor. Again, the upper portions would be used by Amtrak and 

as private secured space. There is the transition point here, which this is the 

start. These are escalators and elevators over here. This picture is actually 

looking at this facade. We would be connecting to this area here, which is really 

existing as a storefront. So, it is not imposing. The existing side of the historic 

building would remain untouched. There is a canopy that goes around the 

building. That would also remain in tact, which is here. 

This next slide is really just showing the bridge connection to the rail platforms 

over here. This is a 225-foot long pedestrian bridge. The ramp below is just 

showing there is going to be a baggage tunnel for an electric cart to take 

baggage back and forth between a platform and the terminal. Then, there would 

be an elevated pedestrian bridge with two platforms. 

We have developed 3-D graphics illustrating how the new portion over here 

would be compatible with the existing historic building. This is really the 

transition point between the new and existing. Over here is the historic facade 

that exists that is facing west Bay Street. As you can see with this overall facade 

here the formality and symmetry of the existing architecture remains. We put a 

glass element here connecting to the existing building, but it is set back it is 

connecting to the head house. 

Then, this is where all the stairs and elevators are, and then there is a pedestrian 

bridge that connects to this area over here. It is all very transparent and very 

open for pedestrians for security. The elements we developed to tie into this 

building and the pediments over here. The half circular windows right here, and 

we sort of incorporated that with the roof structure over the pedestrian bridge. 

Then, the pediments, which match the existing here and over in this area we 

repeated that. You can see the canopies over here for the pedestrian platform, 

A - 15


APRIL 3, 2002 

but we really tried to use the materials of the existing buildings, the proportions of 

the window…and everything to tie into the existing building. 

This is a south view. This is the end of the pedestrian bridge. Here are the 

platforms here. This is the escalator and there is an elevator over here. This is 

another look where we would be using the same limestone that is on the existing 

building, and the red metal roofs. This is the rear portion of the building. To the 

left is the existing convention center. Even the structure here it is the angles, the 

slopes, the structural members are the same slope as the roof pediments of the 

existing building. So, we try to incorporate as much as possible, and also make it 

as light as possible. We didn’t want this large heavy element adjacent to that 

building. 

This is an overall 3-D diagram, and again, it shows how the bridge is set back 

from the historic building. Actually, in this corner over here is all the mechanical 

equipment and the kitchen and everything is for the convention center. So, 

actually what we are putting at front is enhancing the facade. This is just another 

angle in 3-D showing how we are tying in. You can see the half circle elements 

matching the existing historic building. The canopy we really tied that in with – 

there is actually a sun-shaped vice because we have transparent glass here to 

cut down on heat gain. We just sort of incorporated that, and it ties into the 

existing historic building. Right there on this end is the baggage tunnel 

enclosure. 

This is just another angle from the platforms looking up at the pedestrian bridge. 

This is what it would be like inside the pedestrian bridge walking toward the 

platforms. Again, a lot of glass and very open as we tried to make it appear as 

light and security friendly as possible. 

Mr. Heidrick stated in summary Amtrak is looking at this facility as kind of 

a…new Atlantic service that would be going down the FEC Corridor to certain 

cities over on the eastern coast of Florida. They would treat this as a platinum 

station, which is the highest station in its abilities to serve the public. The 

scheme we tried to present here is a scheme that restores life into the 

Jacksonville Terminal. It tries to take the current existing space—there are some 

beautiful spaces inside the building, not the private spaces and bring that to 

public use. The desire of Amtrak is to showcase the mode of transportation, the 

train, as a 21 st Century mode of transportation, but at the same time we wanted 

to be very sensitive to the historic structure itself. We did that through using 

certain elements, the pediments, the window shapes, and colorations, and so on 

A – 16


APRIL 3, 2002 

to relate to the historic building. It is set back from the framework of the historic 

building. So, it has no impact on the historic facade. That is our presentation. 

The Chair stated thank you. Are there any questions? 

Mr. Bowles stated Mr. Chair I have got several questions. First, as it relates to 

the pedestrian walkway from the present terminal area over to the actual place 

where you board the trains has any consideration been given for a moveable 

walkway? 

Mr. Heidrick stated I knew you were going to ask that. The distances are 225 

feet. You would compare the distance when you wait in the Airport Terminal 

when you…the gate. It is far less distance than that. A moveable walkway is 

possible, but it does add considerable costs and it does add considerable height. 

We are trying in some aspects to lower the height of the bridge so it doesn’t 

conflict with the image of the building. We believe that a 225 foot walk, if it has 

waiting areas on both sides that are elevated. What we are doing at the end of 

the bridge above the trains Amtrak has desired and we agree with the concept of 

putting a waiting area so that if the people would like to wait and see the train 

coming in, so there is an elevated waiting area that is an enlargement of the 

bridge itself. We believe 225 feet is a reasonable distance. Other than that it is 

more of a cost consideration. 

We have decided at the request of Amtrak that the bridge and everything, both 

travel distances are within the air-conditioned space as opposed to open area. 

Mr. Bowles stated that is certainly comforting, but where I am coming from it has 

been my observation there are a lot of people using Amtrak that are elderly. 

Mr. Heidrick stated you are correct. 

Mr. Bowles stated and they are somewhat disabled. My preference would be for 

some type of moveable walkway considering a lot of people are now using 

Amtrak. 

Mr. Heidrick stated I think we would take that into consideration. Obviously, this 

design process is still in its schematic stage. We would like to look at it as a 

consensus building process because we are doing things that represents helping 

out the community and the passengers themselves. So, if that is a suggestion 

we would consider that in our design and perhaps make that a recommendation 

to our client, the Department of Transportation. 

A - 17


APRIL 3, 2002 

Mr. Bowles stated Mr. Chairman I would make that a strong recommendation. If 

we could go back to the clip you had showing the loading area again. The 

problem I see here is there is not a lot of protection in the event of a rainstorm; 

especially for those two people standing… 

Mr. Heidrick stated actually the cover is about 22 feet from eave to eave. 

Mr. Bowles stated I must not be seeing something right then. 

Mr. Heidrick stated what you are seeing is that particular view has the approach 

to the tunnel so that the cover at that particular section is smaller. There is a 

tunnel that goes down just to the right of that picture that a…from the platform to 

the terminal. At that point the cover is less. 

Mr. Bowles stated what about there on the right hand side? 

Mr. Heidrick stated actually the canopy cover from this point to the other side 

over here. That is 22 feet. 

Mr. Bowles stated my point is you have got two individuals shown, and that 

looks to be and six to maybe eight feet. 

Mr. Heidrick stated at this point it is considerably less than that because along 

here there is a tunnel that goes down into the baggage area—where the 

baggage carts take below. 

Mr. Bowles stated once again, the two pedestrians, that could be the only 

place they would be able to stand, correct? 

Mr. Heidrick stated that is correct, but the platform itself is 1400 feet long. This 

section occurs in a very limited portion of that 1400 feet. It just so happens that 

this picture is cut right where the baggage tunnel is taken. So, you are correct. 

At the baggage tunnel the platform is reduced to its minimal clearance distance 

required by the train… Beyond that if you would just walk down always it would 

be the end of the tunnel and then you would have a full… 

Mr. Loubriel stated actually there is a section that I would like to show you right 

quick. While, you probably couldn’t see it too well, with the trains next to it, once 

the train comes up there is not as much of an opening. It creates a pretty minor 

opening there. Actually, when we did the 3-D drawings we did the sketches and 

A – 18


APRIL 3, 2002 

have lowered the canopy to be a little less. 

Mr. Bowles stated my recommendation would be to get as much protection to 

your users, customers, and travelers as you could. Two other quick questions, 

does anybody have any statistics of how many passengers are using the 

station out at Clifford Lane daily now? 

Mr. Heidrick stated I don’t have that with me. 

Mr. Bowles stated the second part to that would be how many are anticipated 

to use this location? 

Mr. Loubriel stated this would be a silver station, but I just don’t know the 

numbers. I would have to get that for you. 

Mr. Heidrick stated it is being designed for in excess of 50,000 passengers a 

year. 

Mr. Bowles stated okay. Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

The Chair stated okay. Are there any other questions? 

Mr. Seymour asked when do you anticipate the station being in operation? 

Mr. Heidrick stated a lot of that has to do with funding of the project. Upon 

completion of the…we will seek federal funds to assist in this project. 

The Chair stated thank you. Are there any other questions or comments? 

Thank you gentlemen. 

J. PRESENTATION ON THE PROGRESS OF THE JACKSONVILLE 

TRANSPORTATION’S EASTERN DUVAL TRANSIT STUDY 

The Chair recognized Mr. Darrell Smith to speak to this agenda item. 

Mr. Smith stated thank you Mr. Chair. As you all know in the UPWP we have 

had the task of doing a study for transit on the eastern portion of the county. We 

have completed Tasks 1 and 2. 

A - 19


APRIL 3, 2002 

The goals are to improve service for current riders, attract new riders to the 

existing transit system, and ensure the transit services are matching the 

developmental growth patterns, and extending service areas to those that aren’t 

now being served including the new growth areas. This is just a map of the area. 

You can see essentially the study area just south of the St. Johns River, east to 

the Atlantic Ocean, south to the St. Johns County Line and then over to 

Southside Boulevard. So, that just includes Regency. 

We have had a number of public outreach efforts so far. We have now 

conducted a total of four focus groups. We have had two visioning sessions. We 

have had a number of meetings with community leaders. One of the first tasks 

was to analyze the effectiveness and efficiency of our existing service, develop 

service change proposals, which I am going to go through with you in a second 

here, and then as an interim process come back to the public get their feedback 

and that is the stage that we are now in. 

Initially, before we did any work we polled the public to see what they thought of 

the service to date. The things that came out were they wanted to see reliable 

service, more convenient service, which you can see on the slide encompasses 

several mini themes, better bus stops was a common theme, free transfers 

between buses, right now JTA has a cash fare policy where every time you board 

a bus you pay another fare. We have two fares one is 75¢. The longer one out 

to the Beach is $1.35. So, if you go all the way to the Beach you pay $1.35 from 

downtown and if you want to change to the BH-3 you pay another 75¢ it is not a 

free transfer. Overall, better public information. 

So, the overall service concept of all of this is shown here, essentially coming up 

with two hubs, one at Regency Square, which we already have but expanding 

that. Then, developing one at FCCJ south. You can see the major routes with 

these heavy black lines really focusing on Atlantic Boulevard and the Arlington 

Expressway to Downtown. Beach Boulevard we have our new AR-5 service, 

which uses St. Johns Bluff and cuts over to FCCJ south. Kernan is now known 

as the second highest ridership line in the service area. So, that is a pretty heavy 

duty service, and then up and down A1A on the Beach. 

BH-1 we have a number of proposed changes to that service. The first one would 

be to quicken the ride, which would be to make non-stop express service from 

Regency Square to Downtown. We currently do this with the AR-5. It has been 

enormously successful. You can get from Downtown or FCCJ Station to 

Regency Square in 12 minutes. It works extremely well by integrating the BH-1. 

A – 20


APRIL 3, 2002 

We would have trips every 15 minutes between Downtown and Regency Square. 

The next piece would be to interline it. As many of you are aware we have been 

combining services across Downtown rather than terminating them. We have to 

find a fairly short service to…the BH-1 since it is one of our longer routes. Right 

now it would be out to the Northside to the Grand Park Area. 

We would change the schedules around to offer timed transfers at Regency with 

the other routes that connect there, as well as, transfers between the BH-3 and 

the BH-1 for service into Mayport. 

We have one trip in the morning and one trip in the evening to Ponte Vedra, 

which are extremely underutilized. We are carrying less than five people down 

there a day. So, we are going to be eliminating that because that is costing us 

an extra bus. 

Longer term service would be to actually do an A and B Pattern so that the A 

portion of this route would continue to go down A1A to South Beach Plaza. The 

B portion of the route would travel north up to Mayport. So, it would be a trip on 

this entire line every 15 minutes up to Mayport Road then it would flip flop in each 

direction. 

The BH-2 we will do quite a bit of work at. The first phase, this is the alignment 

that primarily travels along Beach Boulevard. It uses the Hart Bridge to get into 

Downtown after it crosses University Boulevard. The first thing would be to 

eliminate this duplicate piece using Penman Road and when I get to the BH-3 I 

will show you how we are going to replace that. That basically turns at the 

Jacksonville Beach City Hall rather than going all the way down and duplicating 

service on A1A. 

We would eliminate service on this piece and coordinate the schedule between 

BH2 and BH1 for a seamless transfer for anyone needing to continue south. 

Because of this, right now the service only runs once an hour. That travel times 

savings would actually enable us to meet the headway after 30 minutes with only 

having to add one bus to the three buses that are now dedicated to service. 

Then, also we would enter this one across Downtown onto the northside and to 

Avenue B. 

BH3, there is a fight going on with this one. The first one is we are losing a lot of 

time and suffering a lot of delays going onto the Naval Air Station at Mayport. 

So, what we are proposing is to coordinate with the Navy, they have a number of 

shuttles on the base, to have their shuttles pick up passengers at the gate that 

A - 21


APRIL 3, 2002 

want to go onto the base. The buses would just turn at the gate rather than 

going onto the base. 

The second piece is the time transfers with BH1. We would shift the service. If 

you remember the BH2 where we were currently doing the service on Penman 

Road we would use this service, the BH3 to replace the Penman Road segment. 

Then, with the time savings at Mayport this would allow us to extend service on 

the southern end at Butler to get to the Mayo Clinic, which JTA currently does not 

serve at all. We are concerned about that with the new hospital they are going to 

build. 

Longer term improvements, right now this runs about once an hour and we would 

beef it up to every 30 minutes. The AR5 is essentially just coordinating 

connections at Regency and the alternating service are…with BH1. 

The AR20, which is the Arlington Connector would be to again have the timed 

transfers at Regency. The Arlington Flyer would be discontinued and it would be 

replaced. This is only one trip in the morning and one trip in the evening that 

operates express from Downtown to Regency Square, and it goes out Monument 

Road out to McCormick. That would be replaced with the new SS1. 

First, the SS1 currently operates along Atlantic over to the Acosta Bridge to come 

Downtown. We would shift him to come off of Beach Boulevard and follow the 

Hart Bridge Expressway into Downtown to speed him up, and with the time 

saved we would extend him from St. Johns Bluff and Lone Star over here out 

Monument/McCormick in order to pick up that Arlington Flyer piece. This would 

give all day once an hour service throughout the day versus the two trips only on 

the Arlington Flyer. 

Longer term we would look at extending this service out the Wonderwood 

Connector out to Mayport. The Wonderwood Connector already has transit 

stops designed into it. The SS2 – Glynlea currently runs up to Regency up to 

this point at Lone Star and St. Johns Bluff. Right now it runs in combination with 

SS1. We would eliminate that and terminate at FCCJ South to support the hub 

at south FCCJ. 

SS20 is simply to get the schedules down to 30 and 60 minutes instead of 

anywhere from 34 minutes to 74 minutes between when the buses come. That 

supports the time transfers at Regency Square. 

A – 22


APRIL 3, 2002 

The SS21 Regency/Avenues right now is a line that runs essentially from 

Regency Square down Southside Boulevard to the Avenues. We would extend 

this service to Downtown and pick up the service roads along the Arlington 

Expressway, which would be dropped from the BH1 when it is running express. 

Then again we would clean it up to…connections. Those are all of the fixed 

route changes. 

There is a lot of area in this portion of the service area that simply the buses can’t 

operate. The development patterns simply prevent it. The roadways make it a 

real challenge trying to get people off and into the neighborhoods north and 

south of Atlantic Boulevard and it is really difficult with fixed route service. 

Something new to the industry at the moment is something we are calling Rider 

Request, but we will come up with a better name. So, we would be running 

essentially things that look like vans. It is a blending between our para-transit 

service and fixed route transit that would run from a hub into Regency Square 

shoot out to a service area and then opt to do door to door service within that 

service area. 

So, in other words if you live in this Rider Request area we are showing here you 

would call up and make a reservation for the service, it would pick you up at your 

door, drop you off to Regency Square and at the timed connection to a fixed 

route bus. So, in other words this service may run every hour always arriving at 

Regency on the hour, wait for a BH1 to come in, you get off and get on the BH1, 

BH1 people get off and get on this van and then the van drops those folks out in 

this area and pick up the next people for the next trip. 

So, with that we have come up with a total of six Rider Request areas to cover 

essentially this great middle as we call it, which is where most of the rapid growth 

is happening in the county. One, two and three would hub into Regency Square, 

while four, five and six would all come into FCCJ South. Where you see the 

whole is where the fixed route service is already operating to pick up in… 

It all begins with these, the more reliable service. One of the things in redoing 

the schedules would be to build recovery time at the end of the line. It is a 

practice that JTA hasn’t done in the past because of financial considerations. 

We now do it on the Beach. The bus will sit 10 to 15 minutes at the end of the 

line before picking up the next trip so that if he is running late on his way out he 

would at least be able to be on time on his return trip into town. 

To improve passenger facilities at major stops this would be the focus of the next 

task of this study. Also, we would be looking at the possible fares and transfer 

A - 23


APRIL 3, 2002 

policy changes, which we would have to look at the economic impact on JTA. 

With that I would take any questions. 

The Chair stated thank you Darrell. Maybe we could name it the Automated 

Rider Request Express. 

Mr. Smith stated we were actually thinking of something closer to On Demand. 

The Chair asked are there any questions for Darrell? Thank you Darrell. 

K. UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF THE SR 105 HECKSCHER DRIVE 

BRIDGE PROJECT 

The Chair recognized Ms. Debbie Miller, FDOT to speak to this agenda item. 

Mr. Glenn stated while she is setting up I will indicate to you and make you 

aware that we have public meetings scheduled for these two projects coming up 

in April and May, and also, to brief you on the status. 

Ms. Miller stated good morning I am with the Department of Transportation. 

These projects are a brief summary of just where we are getting started during 

the early PD & E Phase. 

The first project is Bridge 720062 over Shad Creek. This is SR 105 commonly 

known as Heckscher Drive. This is a location map of the project. The project 

needs for this particular project, of course, are safety improvements. That is 

what is driving this project. In this particular area, we want to preserve the 

ecological and historical resources. We want to provide for pedestrian and 

fishing facilities. We will also want to incorporate the multi-use Timuquan Nature 

Preserve Route, which also is possible going to be a part of the East Coast 

Greenway Trail, which runs from Key West to Maine. 

This is a Conceptual Typical section for this particular project. If you will notice it 

is the same typical section that is on the Fort George Inlet Bridge. At this 

particular time this is the typical section that we are hoping to incorporate. Shad 

Creek Bridge What’s Next? We are going to be holding a public kick off meeting 

on April 16 th at the Heckscher Drive Community Center. Our preliminary design 

and engineering will be complete in the Year 2003 and actual design for this 

A – 24


APRIL 3, 2002 

project will begin in the Year 2004. That is all for that project. 

L. UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF THE PABLO ROAD BRIDGE 

PROJECT 

The Chair recognized Ms. Debbie Miller, FDOT to speak to this agenda item. 

Ms. Miller stated this is Bridge 784038 over the Ponte Vedra Canal. It is on 

Pablo Road. Again, this is a project kick off. PD & E is just beginning on this 

particular project. This is a location map for this project. 

Again, the project needs for this project are safety improvements. We want to 

increase the lane widths that the project needs crash tested railings. We need to 

consider the use of pedestrian and golf cart facilities on this project. This is a 

timber structure and it is structurally deficient at this time. 

The end of this project, again we will be scheduling a public kick off meeting. At 

this time we are going to look at the middle of May. We want to address what the 

community wants for this particular structure. As I said it is timber. They may 

additionally want to replace the structure with a timber bridge. It is a low line 

bridge. PD & E is due to be completed in the Year 2003 and Design is due to 

begin in the Year 2004. That is the end for this project. Are there any 

questions? 

The Chair stated thank you. Are there questions for Ms. Miller? 

Mr. Bowles stated Mr. Chair really comments more than anything. I am glad to 

see that the Department is really going back and looking at two issues. One 

having to do with fishing and the other having to do with bikes and pedestrians 

and so forth. 

One other comment I think I addressed earlier. Is there any consideration for 

lighting of these facilities? 

Ms. Miller stated at this time we are so early in the PD & E Phase that lighting 

has not been considered at this time. We would work with the Timuquan Nature 

Preserve along Heckscher Drive as to what their needs are for lighting. There is 

no lighting out on this project now. There is random lighting I should say on the 

project, but we can address that certainly during the project. At this time we are 

in the project kick off phase. We want to bring both of these projects to the 

community and find out what the needs and wishes are of the community at a 

A - 25


APRIL 3, 2002 

very early stage in the process and try to incorporate these into the project 

throughout the project. 

Mr. Bowles stated especially in light of the second project there, the Ponte 

Vedra Canal project. Especially, you have got golf carts and other things out 

there late in the evening during the night hours, if you will. 

Ms. Miller stated I understand that. One consideration is that particular bridge is 

in what is essentially a residential community. Lighting may or may not—it 

depends on—again we can address that issue hopefully early in this project kick 

off and find out if they do desire lighting or what their issues are with this project. 

I don’t think they play golf at night over there in Ponte Vedra, but that may be an 

issue they want to address. 

Mr. Bowles stated once again I simply ask that you bring that up and remind 

those in that community—that is something everybody tends to forget about and 

think about later and you have got to come back and retrofit. 

Ms. Miller stated exactly. I am very aware of that, and also aware of lighting 

being too obtrusive also in a community. 

The Chair stated thank you. Any other questions on these two projects. 

M. OLD BUSINESS 


Ms. Bunnewith stated Ed Castellani has been kind enough to provide us with a 

status report. He will continue to do this in the future so that we can track the 

project as well as making the periodic presentations. If you look in Section M of 

the Agenda Book you will see these reports. I think if you have any questions 

Mr. Castellani is here today. 

The Chair stated thank you Denise. The reason Walmart moved to the top of the 

list is that Ed and I were there together on Saturday Afternoon spending some of 

our money at Walmart. 

L. NEW BUSINESS 

A – 26


APRIL 3, 2002 

Mr. Green stated I distributed to all of the members—in a continuing effort to 

save taxpayer dollars we are discontinuing use of our post office boxes at the 

end of the month. So, you will need to use our street address, 2250 Irene. I 

have distributed something to all members on that. 

The Chair stated thank you Jim. Is there anything else? 

M. PUBLIC COMMENT 

None 

N. ADJOURNMENT 

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:50 AM. 

A - 27

FIRST COAST 

METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 

CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE 

MEETING MINUTES 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 3, 2002 

220 EAST BAY STREET – CITY HALL ANNEX 

15 TH FLOOR CHAMBERS – 6:00 P.M. 


Rick Bebout, Chair 

Richard Berry, Vice-Chair 

Sheila Andrews 

Valerie Britt 

Ken Charron 

Mary Cooperman 

Richard Darby 

Branch Davis 

Noble Enge, Jr. 

Jim Lucas 

Stanton Totman 


Suraya Teeple, Florida Department of Transportation 

Pam Freet, Jacksonville Transportation Authority 

Ed Castellani, Jacksonville Transportation Authority 

Michael Raymond 

Pat Greason, Florida Department of Transportation 

Ryan Solis-Rios, Florida Department of Transportation 

April Bacchus, RS & H 

A - 1

Citizens Advisory Committee 

May 1, 2002 


Denise Bunnewith, First Coast Metropolitan Planning Organization 

Bettie Barber, First Coast Metropolitan Planning Organization 

Wanda Forrest, First Coast Metropolitan Planning Organization 

CALL TO ORDER 

The Vice Chair, Dick Berry called the meeting to order at 6:03 P.M. 

A. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 3, 2002 CAC 

MEETING 

A motion for APPROVAL of the April 3, 2002 CAC Minutes was 

made by Mr. Richard Darby, seconded by Mr. Richard Berry, and 


B. APPOINTMENT OF MICHAEL RAYMOND AS ST. JOHNS 

COUNTY’S REPRESENTATIVE TO THE CITIZENS ADVISORY 

COMMITTEE 

The Chair called for approval of the appointment of Michael Raymond as 

the representative for St. Johns County to the Citizens Advisory 

Committee. 

A motion for APPROVAL of the Appointment of Michael Raymond 

as the Representative for St. Johns County to the Citizens 

Advisory Committee was made by Mr. Richard Darby, and 

seconded by Mr. Richard Berry. 

A - 2 

The floor was opened to discussion. 

Mr. Raymond stated thanks for allowing me to come. I am very 

interested in learning what you do. Thank you. 

The Chair invited Mr. Raymond to come and be seated with the 

Committee.


May 1, 2002 

After discussion the motion to Appoint Michael Raymond as the 

Representative for St. Johns County to the Citizens Advisory 

Committee was unanimously carried. 

C. APPROVAL OF THE UNIFIED PLANNIGN WORK PROGRAM 

(UPWP) FOR JULY 1, 2002 TO JUNE 30, 2003 


Ms. Forrest stated the Unified Planning Work Program for 2002/2003 is 

being submitted to you tonight for approval. This is the third time that 

the UPWP has been before you. This time we included the DOT and 

FHWA comments most of which were editorial changes with the 

exception of the DOT adding a new task, Task 3.14, the Northeast 

Florida Regional Model. The object of the task is to calibrate the 

modeling of the 2000 Census Data, household survey data, and origin 

destination survey. This task does not involve any more PL funds it is 

FDOT funded. 

Another task that we added was recommended to us through the FHWA 

comments, Task 1.10 - Continuity of Operations Plan, which is to 

develop an operations plan to address what MPOs would do and how 

they would continue to function in case of a natural or manmade 

disaster. We added $5,000 for that task. What we did was to reduce 

Task 4.3, which is the purchase of microcomputers. 

Those are really the only changes between this UPWP and the one that 

you saw in April. So, we are asking for your approval today. Are there 

any questions? 

Ms. Bunnewith asked may I say something? 

The Chair stated yes. 

Ms. Bunnewith stated I would just like to add the reason for the 

Continuity of Operations Plan is the MPO for the New York Area was in 

the World Trade Center Towers. So, I guess that made them think 

something like this could happen again, and what would we do? 

A - 3


May 1, 2002 

Also, this morning at the Technical Coordinating Committee Meeting the 

Clay County Representative requested the addition of a task to pursue 

FIHS designation of some roads in Clay County that are not presently on 

the FIHS System. So, he attached an estimate of cost to be $40,000 to 

$45,000. I told him that at this point we are ready to move and adopt 

this month. We are due to adopt this month. 

We would be happy to look at that as an amendment, and maybe come 

back in June with an amendment to that task. I will involve shifting 

money to cover the tasks. So, that is why we aren’t going to rush into it 

right now. We need to take some time to look at the budget to see how 

we can afford that task. 

Mr. Berry stated on the bicycle pedestrian facility, I am looking back at 

last year’s and noticed that you were suppose to develop a Greenway 

Master Plan. Has that been done? 

Ms. Forrest stated I am going to defer that to Denise because that was 

Jeff’s program. 

Ms. Bunnewith stated Jeff is not here, but yes that is being done. Jeff 

Sheffield is working on that. 

Mr. Berry asked could you bring us one and let’s see what it looks--? 

Ms. Bunnewith stated I don’t know if there is a finished document at 

this point, but I will have Jeff give you a call and let you know what we 

do have on that task. It is an ongoing task. 

Mr. Berry stated I noticed that your money is going down. 

Ms. Bunnewith stated yes. 

Ms. Forrest stated I would like to address that. We set a very realistic 

approach for funding. What we did was look back on how we were 

spending our money and we actually reduced tasks to try to be more in 

line with how we were spending. We had 8 new tasks this year and we 

were trying to figure out how we were going to fund them. 

A - 4


May 1, 2002 

A motion for APPROVAL of the Unified Planning Work Program 

(UPWP) for July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003 was made by Ms. Janis 

Fleet, and seconded by Mr. Thad Crowe. 

D. PRESENTATION ON THE WILLIAM BARTRAM SCENIC AND 

HISTORIC HIGHWAY ELIGIBILITY APPLICATION FOR THE 

FLORIDA SCENIC HIGHWAYS PROGRAM 

The Chair recognized Ms. Donna Godfrey to speak to this agenda item. 

Ms. Godfrey stated the William Bartram Scenic and Historic Highway is 

located in St. Johns County starting just south of Ward’s Creek at the 

intersection of SR 16 and moving northward to the Duval County Line at 

Julington Creek Bridge. It runs for a little over 17 miles. 

The MPO District encompasses approximately five or six of those miles 

down to Greenbriar Road. I might say that we are scheduled to appear 

before the MPO Board next week on April 11 th and we are going to be 

asking them for their endorsement. So, we are here tonight to ask you to 

recommend approval of that endorsement. 

The William Bartram Scenic Highway Corridor Group has been working 

with the Citizen Group that has been working essentially since 1997. It 

submitted a Letter of Intent back in 1998 along with the Board of County 

Commissioner’s support. The group has been working diligently over the 

last several years to formulate a vision and to gather information needed 

for the eligibility application, which is the first three pages. Assuming 

that this is approved and we have good reason to believe that it will be 

then we would move into the Corridor Management Plan Phase. 

We need to clear this hurdle. Following the MPO’s review next week we 

hope to go to the Board of County Commissioners and ask for their 

approval on the 23 rd of April. Our aim is to submit the final application 

to DOT by the end of the month. 

A - 5


May 1, 2002 

I believe you all were given a summary package of the entire eligibility 

application. We have turned in a full copy to Denise and Wanda so if you 

want more details after tonight they can make it available. I can answer 

any questions that you might have. 

We appreciate your consideration on this really worthy project. 

The Chair asked are there any questions? 

Mr. Burnett stated this effort to make this a scenic highway is it 

partially to allay some of the controversy in St. Johns County 

about the density of planned development in that area or 

attempted plan developments in that area? 

Ms. Godfrey stated no sir. I wouldn’t say that is what it is for at all. 

This would give us an edge in obtaining federal dollars for enhancement 

projects. It would enable us to put together a comprehensive 

management plan to identify opportunities for increasing public 

awareness of the unique attributes along the highway and to capitalize 

on some of the monies that are out here to make park improvements for 

instance. The county has some pieces of property that is out there one of 

which is a historic site that we hope to—don’t know if it is durable. We 

are looking into restoring the structure that is there and that would be 

maybe turned into a museum, a small museum to maybe display some of 

the orange packing equipment that was discovered in another building 

down the road. 

Mr. Burnett stated it would though make it virtually impossible to make 

it a four lane road or to— 

Ms. Godfrey stated no sir; it is under construction right now to four lane 

it. It is four lanes from the Julington Creek Bridge down to…Road where 

the Julington Creek Plantation entrance to the Library is. 

Mr. Lowe stated it is under construction now down to Robert’s Road. 

Ms. Godfrey stated yes sir that is correct. That is what is under 

construction now. 

A - 6


May 1, 2002 

Ms. Bunnewith stated Mr. Chairman if I could just add. This does not 

prevent further construction or improvements to SR 13. 

The Chair asked are you through Steve? 

Mr. Enge stated I have been following this. I live down in St. Johns 

County. In fact, I live on a part of this road. They are four laning down 

to Roberts Road, which is a part of the area. The other part…said they 

would not four lane for various reasons. You might also know if you 

have driven down that road you can go all the way down and follow the 

river almost to Hastings down to SR 207. The whole length of this is 

really the scenic road and it could be the rest of this could come under 

this program too, but where they are four laning doesn’t look very scenic 

at all right now, but there is more of it left. I think it is a good program. 

The Chair asked are there any other questions? I have a question if I 

may Ms. Godfrey. In reading this I got the impression that in 1980 this 

was designated a scenic highway. Is that true? 

Ms. Godfrey stated that is correct. This was a state enabling—excuse me 

it was…by the legislature. That doesn’t carry with it any management 

plan or assistance. The one that we are asking for now is under the wing 

of the Florida Department of Transportation. It is a full blown program 

that is offered to anyone in the state for designating— 

The Chair asked is this like a grant or something? Does this permit 

granting of funds et cetera? Is that what you are looking to do? 

Ms. Godfrey stated yes sir it will eventually permit us to apply for grant 

funds, which the 1980 Act does not. 

The Chair stated so basically you are asking us to endorse your 

application. Am I correct in that assumption? 

Ms. Godfrey stated we are asking you to recommend approval to your 

MPO Board so that we may apply for the designation, which would then 

in turn allow for the next stage, which would then in turn allow for 

applying for grants. 

The Chair asked what is the designation you are looking for? 

A - 7


May 1, 2002 

Ms. Godfrey stated scenic highway designation. 

The Chair stated I misread the—if I read the cover sheet it says here SR 

13 also designated the William Bartram Scenic Highway by the Florida 

State Legislature in 1980. 

Ms. Godfrey stated yes sir. 

The Chair stated so it has already been designated by the State with this 

name as a scenic highway. 

Ms. Godfrey stated yes sir, but in order to apply for the grant funds and 

to obtain the technical assistance that DOT will provide we have to apply 

for their designation. They have a program in which the Legislature does 

not— 

The Chair stated okay. It is another hoop you have got to jump through. 

Ms. Godfrey stated yes sir. 

The Chair stated we have been requested to take action on this item. 

Ladies and gentlemen what is your pleasure. 

A motion for APPROVAL of the Eligibility Application for the 

William Bartram Scenic and Historic Highway was made by Mr. 

Ron Lowe, seconded by Ms. Mary Cooperman, and unanimously 

carried. 

The Chair stated thank you Ms. Godfrey we appreciate you. 

Ms. Godfrey stated thank you very much. 

E. STAFF PRESENTATION ON THE DRAFT TRANSPORTATION 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR FY 2002/03 THROUGH 2006/07 

AND THE CONFORMITY DETERMINATION REPORT 

A - 8


May 1, 2002 

The Chair recognized Mr. Jeff Sheffield to speak to this agenda item. 

Mr. Sheffield stated thank you Mr. Chairman. Last month you received 

the draft project sections of the TIP. This month you have a complete 

copy with the introduction sections. Tonight I wanted to take some time 

to do a formal presentation highlighting some of the projects in there and 

then I would be happy to take any questions or comments that you have. 

As I stated last month we are in the public involvement period. By the 

end of this month we will have attended all of the areas within the MPO 

to share this information with them. We will hold one formal public 

meeting on April 25 th at 6:00 PM at the DOT Training Center. Then, we 

will bring this back one more time next month to this Committee as well 

as the TCC and MPO for approval and transmittal to the DOT. 

I will take a few minutes to go through some of the projects throughout 

the area just to share with you. If you have any questions feel free to 

interrupt at any time. 

Starting down in the southeast in St. Johns County we have a widening 

of Racetrack Road by the County to four lanes from Bishop Estates to 

Russell Sampson Road. We also have a County project for CR 210 to 

four lanes from I-95 to C. E. Wilson Road. There is a DOT resurfacing 

project on CR 210 from the Palm Valley Bridge to Mickler Road as well as 

a widening project on SR A1A from Mickler Road to the beginning of the 

four-lanes. This project currently has just preliminary engineering 

programmed in the TIP. 

There are three Better Jacksonville Plan projects for the SR 9B 

Extension. One from SR 9A to US 1, one from US 1 to I-95, and I-95 to 

Racetrack Road. There is also some companion projects for SR 9B by the 

Florida Department of Transportation. The DOT as well as JTA will 

continue to coordinate those two funding elements to work out the 

scheduling of those ultimate improvements of this project. 

The City of Jacksonville is widening St. Augustine Road to four lanes 

from Hood Landing to I-95. The state will also be widening Philips 

Highway from Sunbeam Road to JTB. There is currently right of way 

programmed at this point. 

A - 9


May 1, 2002 

A - 10 

Moving into the Arlington area for Butler Boulevard there is a Better 

Jacksonville project to widen Butler from I-95 to 9A, and a project by 

DOT to widen from west of Kernan Boulevard to San Pablo Road. The 

City would be widening all of Kernan Boulevard from McCormick Road 

south all the way to J. Turner Butler. 

The Beach Boulevard projects, a widening by DOT from FCCJ to San 

Pablo Road as well as a bridge replacement project for the Intercoastal 

Waterway. The DOT project for this has right of way currently 

programmed. There is also a companion project from the Better 

Jacksonville Plan that has construction dollars programmed in 2003/04. 

Completion of SR 9A, this is construction from Beach Boulevard to 

north of J. Turner Butler, and an Interchange at J. Turner Butler 

Boulevard. 

Moving to the northeast there are two projects on Heckscher Drive, one 

by DOT to widen from SR 9A to August Drive; then, a Better Jacksonville 

project to widen Heckscher from August Drive to Drummond Point. 

Two City projects, one is to three-lane Pulaski Road from New Berlin to 

Eastport; and Starratt Road, a three-lane section from New Berlin to 

Duval Station Road. 

In the Urban Core the City has two projects for 8 th Street to widen from 

Boulevard to Liberty, and Liberty to Haines Street. Also, the Mathews 

Bridge is programmed. The Better Jacksonville Plan has funding for 

design of this project. 

There is the Riverside Avenue widening from Edison Street to the Acosta 

Bridge by the DOT. In the northwest there are two projects for Pritchard 

Road. The DOT will be widening from west of I-295 to east of I-295, and 

then a Better Jacksonville project to widen from Jones Road to I-295. 

There is Master Plan programmed in 2002/03 for I-10 from the Nassau 

County Line to I-295. A Beaver Street project under the Better 

Jacksonville Plan to widen from McDuff Avenue to Cahoon Road. This 

project overlap as you can see with a resurfacing project by DOT. The 

City will be widening Cahoon Road to a three-lane section from Beaver 

Street to Normandy Boulevard.


May 1, 2002 

In the southwest, there is a Better Jacksonville project to widen Branan 

Field/Chaffee Road to a four-lane facility from 103 rd Street to Argyle 

Forest Boulevard. There is also a DOT project for new road construction 

extending from 103 rd Street to Beaver Street, which is out of the northern 

limits of this map. 

There is another Better Jacksonville project to widen Argyle Forest 

Boulevard from Blanding Boulevard to Westport Road. Two interchange 

projects on I-295, the major interchange at Blanding Boulevard and 

Roosevelt Boulevard. 

There is new funding for a PD & E Study for a Wells Road Connector in 

Clay County, PD & E funding in 2003/04. Widening of US 17 from 

Creighton Road to Milwaukee Avenue, and a PD & E Study for Blanding 

Boulevard from Old Jennings Road to Knight Boxx Road. 

In conclusion three county projects for Clay County, a CR 209 Extension 

from CR 220 to Old Jennings Road, a widening of CR 220 from CR 224 to 

CR 209, and widening of CR 218 from Blanding Boulevard to Hibiscus 

Avenue. 

That covers a number of projects that are in the TIP. Again, we will bring 

this back next month for your approval. If there are questions I would be 

happy to address them. 

Mr. Burnett stated I want to commend Jeff. In my three years on here 

that is the best improvement program brief that I have had. A great job. 

I do have question though, and that is on the I-295 Interchanges at 

Blanding and Roosevelt Boulevard. Those interchanges especially at 

Blanding have already had lots of improvements done over the years to 

the point where I don’t know what else you are going to do. So, educate 

me. Is it a flyover or what in the world are they going to do to 

improve traffic flow on those interchanges? 

Mr. Sheffield stated in previous months we have seen PD & E’s come 

forward to this group for both those interchanges. It is the safety office, I 

believe, that is doing these improvements. Ultimately, it is increasing the 

number of stacking lanes at the interchanges to try to get the traffic off of 

A - 11


May 1, 2002 

A - 12 

I-295. So, it is not overall construction of the entire interchange, but in 

both instances it is expanding the stacking areas, the off ramps. 

Ms. Bunnewith stated if I could take a minute to address the conformity 

for the TIP. We have given you a table that says non-exempt projects. I 

didn’t give you all of the text for the Conformity Determination Report. 

You will see that next month, but you have just seen the Re- 

Determination Report and just in summary you saw the Conformity 

Determination Report for the Long Range Plan. 

The most important part of this Conformity Determination Report is to 

demonstrate that the new TIP is a subset of the Long Range 

Transportation Plan. I just want to remind you that for a project to be in 

the TIP it has to be in the Long Range Transportation Plan. If project 

construction crosses an analysis year, for example, if we had 

construction occurring between 2015/2025 and now it is programmed 

for construction within the timeframe of the TIP we would have to do a 

regional emissions analysis. 

We would actually have to do the model to demonstrate that we are not 

going to exceed the emissions budget for 2005. In this case we have just 

done the Long Range Transportation Plan and based it on the TIP. We 

don’t have to do that. What we have to do in this case we have 

demonstrated that every project in the TIP is within the Long Range 

Transportation Plan. 

What you see here is the table of the projects. Non-Exempt projects 

mean they are subject to conformity. What we have done is shown in 

the far right hand corner the relationship to the Long Range Plan. You 

will notice for example that some projects are identified that they are in 

the 2015 or 2025 analysis years. That is okay as long as construction 

does not cross the analysis year. So, basically you have seen this table. 

The final document would have a table that identifies the projects that 

are exempt. An example would be a re-paving project. 

We will also have a table that identifies the projects that are exempt, but 

are not subject to conformity. What I would like to do is identify in the 

Conformity Determination Report every project within the TIP so that 

when you look at the document one way or another we have accounted 

for every project.


May 1, 2002 

The final document will have the text that is very similar to what is in the 

Re-Determination Report. I think you have been conformitied to death 

recently. So, I didn’t want to bore you with all the details. We will come 

back for approval next month along with approval for the TIP. Like we 

did tonight we have to approve the Conformity Determination Report 

before we approve the TIP. 

We received a notice in March that the Federal Highway, FTA, and 

USEPA approved the Conformity Determination Report for the Long- 

Range Transportation Plan. Those agencies do not get to approve the 

Long Range Transportation Plan, but they are required to approve the 

Conformity Determination Report. So, at this point we are all set for the 

Long Range Transportation Plan. We don’t need any further approvals. 

Mr. Burnett stated in the non-exempt projects handout sheet. How 

does this tie into everything? 

Ms. Bunnewith stated this is the list of projects that are non-exempt. 

They are capacity projects so they do have to be addressed in the 

Conformity Determination Report. To the right you see FIN number if it 

is a DOT and you have the name of the facility and the description of the 

project as well as the limits of the projects. Then, you have the agency 

that is doing it. In the far right corner you see the analysis year on the 

Long Range Transportation Plan that the project is included. That is 

where you see the 2005, 2015, and 2025. So, if everything is in the Long 

Range Transportation Plan and we can identify where that is we don’t 

have to do the modeling for the regional emissions analysis. 

Mr. Burnett stated maybe I missed this. I don’t make every meeting, but 

have we ever figured out whether the Better Jacksonville projects 

that are on the state highways whether the City is going to get 

reimbursed or whether we are in a losing proposition on those as 

the City of Jacksonville? 

Ms. Bunnewith stated I don’t think we are on the losing side those funds 

are just being programmed for other projects. So, I think as far as dollar 

wise I don’t think we are losing anything. 

A - 13


May 1, 2002 

A - 14 

Mr. Sheffield stated the only reimbursements that would occur is if 

there are actual dollars already in the five year work program. Then, the 

rest is like Denise has talked about. 

The Chair stated I have something I would like to hand out to the 

members and I would like to make it a part of the record. Basically, 

what it amounts to is several years ago there was a discussion by a 

number of the members of the advisory group that when we get this list 

of TIP there is no reference to the current classifications of the roads. 

You will note in this memorandum I had an opportunity to print out the 

road link over the weekend and do a count. Currently, there are 46 road 

links that are identified in the road link as being classified with an “F” 

classification, which means they are currently or at least 100% 

utilization or planned for. 

When we do the TIP we never know, unless you want to sit down and 

look up everyone of these jobs to see what the current road link 

classification is, there is no comparing. So, in this memorandum what I 

am suggesting, if we can Denise and her group to look at these 46, and 

see how many of them are in fact in the Five Year Plan. If there are some 

that are not, obviously I think it would be advantageous for us to know 

that. 

I like Steve want to congratulate Jeff for a fantastic presentation. I want 

to congratulate Denise on finally getting the City to give you a list of their 

road projects, which in itself is almost a miraculous thing. So, you guys 

are taking giant steps forward and overcoming a lot of—I don’t want to 

say handicaps, but I think we know what the project problems are, but 

just for my own peace of mind I would like to know that we don’t have a 

road out there that is classified or currently evaluated as being 100% 

utilization today and find out that there is not going to be anything done 

to it for the next five years. Is this an insurmountable task? 

Ms. Bunnewith stated it is not, but I would point out that we are fiscally 

constrained. A project to be in the TIP has to be in the Long Range 

Transportation Plan. When we do the Long Range Transportation Plan, 

as I said we are fiscally constrained and we have shortfalls, the difference 

between the Needs and the Cost Feasible. When we are programming 

funds we are not only dealing with the MPO or the City of Jacksonville, 

but we are doing the Beaches, the Town of Baldwin and Clay and St.


May 1, 2002 

Johns Counties. It would be difficult to do something for one and not for 

all. 

I would be happy to show you on the links that are in—the projects that 

are in what the level of service is however there are a lot of links out 

there that we cannot address within the constraints that we have. That 

doesn’t stop the City of Jacksonville from doing projects on those 

facilities, however, for the next ten years there program is going to be the 

Better Jacksonville Plan. 

The only other opportunity I foresee to do some of these improvements is 

with the dollars that go into the fair share. Those of you who are not 

familiar with the fair share program, when a road is failing—we look at 

roads for concurrency in the City of Jacksonville for a two mile radius, if 

they roadways are failing and given a threshold of the impact on a 

particular roadway and the number of trips that it is putting out, the 

project would fail. 

To give an opportunity for people to overcome that obstacle we allow 

them to pay a fair share based on the cost of the improvement and the 

level of impact they have on a particular roadway. We can’t always make 

an improvement to the road that fails. Sometimes there are constraints 

and they can’t be further widened. Those funds go into the fair share 

account for that sector, and they can be spent to do improvements either 

on that roadway or a facility in that area. Sometimes we can’t do a road 

widening. We can do a parallel facility or we can do an intersection 

improvement that would improve the traffic flow on a failing roadway. 

The Chair stated I think all of us are aware of the circumstances that 

you point out. I don’t think this is an insurmountable task, but you are 

a better judge of that than I. We all that have been here for some time 

know that there are certain links that there are not ready answers to 

resolve. I guess the Roosevelt Intersection with I-10 unless you want to 

build another connection between those two there is really no immediate 

cure for that type of problem, but you hope with other projects around it 

like Branan Chaffee is suppose to be—hopefully going to relieve pressure 

on Blanding Boulevard, et cetera, if we just take those …steps. 

Being an advisory group on occasion I have the frustration, I’m sure 

none of the other people have had the frustration, but you feel like all 

A - 15


May 1, 2002 

that you are asked to do is approve what is set before you and don’t ask 

questions. It is like my mother use to tell me about supper. Eat what 

sits before you and say nothing. 

I have an interest that there might be some roads out there that are in 

dire need that are already classified “F”, but are not on the Five Year 

Program. If you could confirm or may be prove me wrong? I would 

be happy if you prove me wrong. I realize that some of them are going to 

be state highways and there are fund problems et cetera, but once we 

identify that are already classified “F” and we are not doing anything I 

think we need to ask somebody why. 

Mr. Sheffield stated we do parts of this already under your 

recommendations identify those links either federal, state, city or county. 

We do it at a state level in our Congestion Management System. We 

identify every road at 90% or greater not just 100. We do that with 90% 

or greater list every state road that meets that threshold. We then 

identify with this program and any plan, Long Range Plan or TIP, and 

that serves as the tool for when we ultimately rank projects for the 

Congestion Management Plan because we then forward those projects for 

potential Congestion Management studies. These are roads that 

ultimately can’t be widened and need to look at other means to 

improving. 

So, at the state level we already can do what you recommend because it 

is a part of our plan. The system itself at this point has not been 

expanded to included local roads. So, it would not be a problem to go 

through the exercise to provide the information, but as far as our control 

over local roads it is not there. 

Ms. Bunnewith stated I could add one thing. In the Needs Plan we 

probably have identified a lot of these facilities, but of course, we are 

looking further out. It is possible with other improvements that we have 

made in the area that…is at “E” or “F” now would improve in the long 

term, but I think we can go through and check the ones that are in the 

Needs Plan. Then, on the others look to see if there is some improvement 

that we could recommend. I think we can do that. Given the number we 

may not be able to do it for the next month. We will try, if not we will try 

to get back to you the following month. 

A - 16


May 1, 2002 

The Chair asked does any other member of the Advisory Committee 

share my thoughts or have any other comments they want to 

make? 

Mr. Burnett stated I do share you concerns there because I believe it has 

been proven that it is a moving target as far as getting a project on the 

Five Year or Long Range Plan. I mean there is no set criteria. You are 

always told the condition of the roads is the biggest factor. I would be 

interested to see how many of the failing roads are not on a project. 

Even if nothing could be done about it at least it kind of tells me the 

validity of some of the decisions that were made especially during the 

Better Jacksonville Plan planning process as far as stuff was shuffled in 

and out for reasons to get it approved more so than from the standpoint 

of road building. 

Ms. Bunnewith stated again, from our perspective the TIP is fiscally 

constrained, and for a project to be in the TIP it has to be in the Long 

Range Plan. So, there is some limitation in that perspective. 

The Chair stated I might be missing it in the last four years now, but in 

my estimation it would appear that the squeaky wheel principle is very 

applicable to road project. Depending on your political position you can 

sort of move things up and give them a higher priority than when looking 

at all the roads it might not get that higher priority. I don’t think we 

would be able to change anything, but I think if we were able to get that 

information—and by the way I started to have “E’s” and “F’s”, but “E’s” 

and “F’s” total would be in excess of 150 and I didn’t want to overload the 

wagon. So, “F” is a good place to start. Are there any other comments 

from any of the members? Seeing none, I appreciate the presentation 

Jeff it was outstanding. I am glad to see you have become one of those 

power players. I’m looking forward to your next presentation. 

F. STAFF PRESENTATION ON THE DRAFT UNIFIED PLANNING 

WORK PROGRAM (UPWP) FOR JULY 1, 2002 TO JUNE 30, 2003 


A - 17


May 1, 2002 

Ms. Forrest stated the draft UPWP was presented to you at your last 

meeting with just the tasks only. This time around we the funding 

sources for each task and the funding tables that are in the back. 

We have nine new tasks that I would like to go over very briefly. We 

added into the UPWP Task 1.4, which is for development of a Title VI 

Plan/Community Impact Assessment Process. Task 3.10, which is a Rail 

Crossing Study. In our Long Range Transportation Plan we identified 

funding for a grade-separated rail crossing. This study would look at atgrade 

rail crossings and the criteria to rank them to determine how to 

use those funds. Task 3.13 is 2000 Census Urbanized Boundary 

Impacts. When we get the Census Urbanized Boundary Map we will be 

reviewing our boundaries to see what kind of impact this would have. 

Task 4.15, Transit Infrastructure Standards, this is a JTA task, which 

will study bus stops. Task 4.15, which is the Interstate 10 Master Plan 

that will be prepared by FDOT. Task 4.17, Downtown Mobility Plan, this 

is a JTA project. Task 4.18 is the Mayport Road Access Management 

Study. Task 4.19 is the Town of Baldwin Access Management Study. 

Task 4.20 is the ITS (Intelligent Transportation System) Needs 

Assessment and Integration Plan. This is a JTA task. 

You will see this again for adoption for May. If you have any questions or 

any comments or you see anything that needs to be changed please 

contact me so that we can get those comments into the plan. Do you 

have any questions? 

The Chair asked anyone? I think you have got all the answers Wanda. 

We appreciate your presentation. 

G. PRESENTATION ON THE JACKSONVILLE TRANSPORTATION 

CENTER. 

A - 18 

The Chair recognized Mr. Richard Heidrick, DMJM Harris to speak to 

this agenda item. 

Mr. Heidrick stated good evening and thank you for allowing us to 

present you with an update of the Jacksonville Transportation Center 

Project. My firm DMJM Harris in association with Reynold Smith & Hills 

are designing Phase I of the Jacksonville Transportation Center. The


May 1, 2002 

Center itself is a multimodal facility and a previous study and a PD & E 

Study located the facility at the Prime Osborn Convention Center as the 

Jacksonville Terminal. 

We are going to first take you through Phase I and perhaps some future 

phases of the project. Right now in Phase I we are designing the Amtrak 

Terminal, which would make this location, the Prime Osborn Convention 

Center, the Amtrak Terminal for Jacksonville. The passengers boarding 

Amtrak would be arriving here and that function would be relocated from 

Clifton Lane. 

Amtrak would be using the grand entry hall in conjunction with the 

Convention Center functions. The actual…spaces and the office spaces 

would be located on the south portion and there would be a connection 

by overhead bridge to the rail platform. The rail platforms would be two 

platforms and would accommodate up to four tracks for Amtrak. 

Baggage would be handled through an underground baggage tunnel 

where they take the baggage from the platform through the terminal 

itself. 

The next slide shows the future phases, which we are not designing at 

this time, but we have put in kind of a Master Plan in scope. What that 

does is locates a potential location for a parking structure between West 

Bay Street and West Forsyth Street that would be integrated with the 

Skyway Terminal so that you can go right from the parking structure to 

the Skyway Terminal. It has the potential on the lower level of an 

expanded bus transit facility at-grade level. 

Getting back to the Phase that is under design now is really the design of 

the Amtrak facility itself. Ethan Loubriel from our office will go into that 

discussion of the Amtrak Terminal. 

Mr. Loubriel stated thank you. I would like to just briefly walk you 

through what we have done integrating Amtrak within the existing 

historic building as well the new addition from the historic building to 

the new rail platforms. 

Over here is the plan, it is orientated a little differently. North is over 

here. Basically, Amtrak wants to occupy just the southern portion of the 

Terminal. Amtrak would occupy this portion. Over here in the yellow 

A - 19


May 1, 2002 

A - 20 

area is the grand lobby of the convention center. We also put some 

photos here. You can see basically the areas in beige are public areas. 

The purple area is private Amtrak space, offices et cetera. Then, this 

area over here is the baggage transfers tunnel. This area here, which we 

are using as kind of a grand vestibule is an existing vestibule, there is a 

glass lit ceiling, we are looking at taking this and making it into the 

ticket purchase area, like a queue area, and really maintaining the glass 

lit ceiling here. 

This area over here and this area over here are two very nice spaces, 

which we are basically leaving alone. This is a photo of this sort of grand 

ballroom area. It is a large two-story with coffered ceilings. Then over 

here, right now that is a conference area with a glass lit oval ceiling in 

this space. So, in the existing building we are keeping all of this nice 

space and using it as public space. 

Then, there is a transition vestibule between—then in this space would 

be the waiting area and then you get into the new area. This dotted line 

is the separation between the—this is the head house, which is carried 

under the pre-function area of the Convention Center, which is all left 

alone. Then, we are taking a small portion here. This is the baggage car 

to go down into the tunnels and a ramp over here. This is really the 

transition point going up to the pedestrian bridge. 

This is the second floor of Amtrak. We are looking at occupying the 

second floor. This is a three-story space. We would occupy this entire 

second floor here. Here is the beginning of the pedestrian bridge. This 

photo shows where we are connecting to the south facade. Really, the 

head house is set back so that the existing historic building is kept 

untouched. 

This slide shows the entire pedestrian bridge. This area here is the 

transition point with the elevators and stairs, and a pedestrian bridge 

that goes over to the platforms. Again, these are the elevators, 

escalators, and stairs going down to the two platform areas. This is just 

a diagram showing where we are going to have a pedestrian bridge and 

then a baggage tunnel. 

This is a 3-D concept of the front facade. As you can see the existing 

terminal building maintains its formality and strong symmetry. There is


May 1, 2002 

kind of a transition point over here, which is a glass space with the slope 

ceiling. We didn’t want to have a large mass right up against the existing 

facade, but it is set back. The new addition has a series that took 

elements from the existing building such as the pediments, and the half 

round windows that we repeated in the roof structure. The overall bridge 

is very open with clear glass for security and also make it a very inviting 

space. 

This is the south side, as you can see the existing tunnel, there is 

nothing here to conflict with the existing—we incorporated the canopy 

into various elements of the design. Then, this is just a baggage tunnel, 

and here is the canopy and the escalator going up to the pedestrian 

bridge. 

This is a 3-D drawing showing you how it blends in with the existing 

building. The existing building has limestone on the exterior and we 

would also incorporate that in here. Even the glass and all the angles of 

the structure is relating to these pediments. Again, half circles are 

repeated all along the roof structure. This is translucent glass mixed in 

with a solid surface for the roof. 

This is just another angle from the platforms looking up at the 

pedestrian bridge. This is just a shot from inside the pedestrian bridge. 

That is basically it. 

Mr. Heidrick stated what we tried to do is really respect the asset of the 

existing historic building itself. With Amtrak’s direction in new stations 

they want to portray the mode of transportation of the train as the 21 st 

century mode of transportation. So, what we tried to create in the 

architectural imagery here is a 21 st century design, but still respecting 

and reflecting the historical coordinates at the Terminal Building. 

Amtrak and the Florida East Coast Railroad have joined into an 

agreement that would permit Amtrak to go south and provide an Atlantic 

service on the Florida East Coast Railroad. Through some funding 

arrangements with the Department of Transportation there would be 

additional Amtrak stations constructed along the Florida East Coast 

Railroad in Daytona Beach, Stuart, and Cocoa. This would be the 

northern most terminal providing that service along the eastern coast in 

A - 21


May 1, 2002 

A - 22 

addition to the existing Amtrak service they normally provide. That is 

basically our presentation. I would be happy to entertain questions. 

The Chair asked are there any questions? 

Mr. Totman stated Mr. Chairman I have got a couple of quick questions. 

I am kind of excited about this. I think it is a beautiful design. My 

question is what about the train traffic and what is that going to do 

to our automobile traffic? Jacksonville is one of those towns that we 

built the town around the trains and now it is the automobiles that get 

you across town. Is this train traffic going to affect our auto-traffic 

downtown? Two more quick little questions, I know a lot of the tourist 

that come down now, and this is probably a question for Amtrak, but do 

they take the auto train? I know that it unloads in Orlando I believe. 

Mr. Burnett stated Sanford. 

Mr. Totman asked would we be able to have an auto-train here in 

Jacksonville and get some of those tourist to unload here in 

Jacksonville? The third question was will we coordinate this with 

our City bus system? 

Mr. Heidrick stated I will try to answer those questions in the order that 

you have them to me. Would you repeat the first question again? 

Mr. Totman stated would that increase the train traffic through 

Jacksonville? 

Mr. Heidrick stated this project probably have a way with the facility 

that we are building versus the track work we are doing, there is 

probably more effort in the track work because we do have the Beaver 

Street Track Yard to the west here. So, in doing the track work it should 

help the grade crossings for truck traffic due to the track work. I think it 

is going to have more of a positive than a negative. The biggest grade 

crossing problems you can have is from freight trains and not from 

Amtrak passenger trains. Freight trains historically are longer trains. I 

think the experience that you are having from a traffic point of view is 

probably more indicative of the freight. 

Mr. Totman stated and the auto-train?


May 1, 2002 

Mr. Heidrick stated okay the auto-train, I don’t have any knowledge of 

Amtrak—Amtrak is going through a change of nameplate, and they are 

also going through a change of services and services they offer. I think 

they are really trying to do that to address the train as a mode of 

transportation in the 21 st Century and how they sell train service. I have 

no knowledge of them changing the current auto-train or adding autotrain 

services in Jacksonville. I do know there is something to provide 

commuter type service on this line as it goes south to hit the east coast 

cities. I think there is some discussion of that. There is some discussion 

I heard about going to a double decker train that you see in the tri-rail in 

southeast Florida as a commuter service train. That is all thinking in the 

future I have heard nothing about the auto service. 

Mr. Totman stated I guess I would for instead of somebody coming down 

and having to go all the way to Sanford, and also we talked on this 

committee too about having cruise lines coming eventually out to the 

Port. It would be great for somebody to come down, be able to unload 

their car here travel Florida, go to the cruise line and coordinate it with 

our own city bus. Maybe that is asking too much. 

Mr. Heidrick stated I think what is going to be helpful is the use of the 

FEC line connecting the other cities. You could come to Jacksonville or 

take a day trip down to some place and come back by train. So, the train 

would be a part of the experience itself. I think that is going to be a plus. 

Mr. Totman stated as a young boy I can remember leaving out of that 

terminal. This is a great project. 

Mr. Heidrick stated right. What we are trying to do really is return the 

train to as much of its existing facility as possible. Actually, Amtrak use 

to come to the back of the head house where the Convention Center is, 

but putting it to the exact location would be virtually impossible this 

time. I didn’t answer that third question did I? 

Mr. Totman stated that was pretty much it. In other words would 

somebody be able to get off the train in Jacksonville and use our 

bus system? 

Mr. Heidrick stated we are in discussions with the JTA and looking to 

see if we can, in that space between west Forsyth and west Bay Street 

A - 23


May 1, 2002 

A - 24 

where they have the bus transit facility now, expand that bus facility. 

We are kind of looking at that space to do that. 

Mr. Totman stated thank you Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Burnett stated it looks like you are not the right person, but I share 

the concern. It seems to me that the past facility was moved out to 

where it is now because you didn’t want—you wanted to decrease some 

of the train traffic through Downtown. I have some real concerns about 

what is going to happen along Hendricks and some of the other arteries 

that we have that is the entryway for the trains to and from the station. 

Mr. Heidrick stated I don’t know if I can answer that question exactly, 

but I think the decision to move out to Clifford Lane was Amtrak’s 

decision, and they based it on how they were marketing their service at 

that time. I think it was their decision to move out of this facility at the 

time. They will still retain some services at Clifford Lane, such as the 

mail service and so on, but I don’t think it was due to the fact of 

congestion. 

Mr. Burnett stated another thing is who owns the Prime Osborn? 

The Chair stated the City. 

Mr. Burnett asked is Amtrak paying the City rent or buying some of 

this back or how is that transaction working? 

Mr. Heidrick stated I think eventually we would be seeking federal 

funding assistance on this project with some local matches. The 

Department of Transportation has indicated they view the use of the 

facility that is owned by the City as if they are taking, a land taking, as if 

they were building a road. So, they would view that portion of the project 

that would be used by Amtrak, the Department of Transportation would 

make compensation to the City for that amount of area, both sight area 

and building area that was being used. 

The City in its match could either use that money for compensation or 

they could use another portion of the building to be used as a match, but 

it is envisioned that Amtrak would lease this property from the City as a 

tenant. There would be a payment from Amtrak to the City.


May 1, 2002 

Ms. Cooperman stated my knowledge is that Amtrak has never operated 

in the black ever. Thy have been funded by the federal government at all 

times. It is now going to be—the government has said they are not going 

to do this anymore and they are offering either to break it up, or asking 

for other railroads to make an offer so I don’t understand the need for 

this really. I know this is a visual aid, but I can’t grasp. It is just too 

small for me to grasp at all. I remember the Prime Osborn and the 

railroad station and I see this as a little addition to the back. My big 

concern is parking, long term parking. This is in an area that is 

congested. I don’t know why. I guess there has to be future plans, but 

is some thought being given to there may not be an Amtrak? 

Mr. Heidrick stated let me answer that to the best of my knowledge and 

it is only a personal opinion that I have. I don’t know Amtrak’s financial 

standing or what the government is trying to do with Amtrak. I believe 

the federal government is probably always going to support rail travel 

whether Amtrak owns that rail system or another company owns that 

rail system. In the past…either the state government or federal 

government has supported or subsidized Amtrak or the rail use in this 

country. Particularly, most recently they are now paying for the new 

stations to be built along the east coast service and they are also 

assisting the FEC Railroad in upgrading its rail system in order for it to 

carry Amtrak. So, if Amtrak personally, that company has financial 

problems and ceases to exist I am certain other companies will take over 

the rail service and the federal government will continue to assist in that 

rail service. 

Ms. Cooperman stated the federal government is asking others to take 

over Amtrak or Ramtrak because they are not going to support it any 

longer. It has been a lose lose… 

Mr. Heidrick stated I am not disputing that, but any transit system are 

self-supporting financially whether it is commuter rail or light rail 

systems. It is always a government subsidy to support it. I think the 

Department of Transportation would look at Amtrak and if they don’t 

look at Amtrak there is another transit system. 

Ms. Cooperman stated I think they are seriously looking at it, very 

seriously. 

A - 25


May 1, 2002 

The Chair asked are there any other questions? I have two for you if I 

may. Who is funding this project? Is it JTA? 

Mr. Heidrick stated our client is the Florida Department of 

Transportation, District II. 

The Chair stated so it is a federally funded project. 

Mr. Heidrick stated it is a state funded project. Our client is the Florida 

Department of Transportation. Let me say the funding for our service is 

the state. 

The Chair stated yeah, who is paying you guys? 

Mr. Heidrick stated the Florida Department of Transportation. 

The Chair stated thank you. The other question is, of course, these 

tracks are used by freight haulers too, should I assume from the last 

picture because you have a large opening space on the—there 

appears to be four tracks in there, that the freight will be on the 

inside track? 

Mr. Heidrick stated that is correct. 

The Chair stated and the outside tracks would be used for 

passengers? 

Mr. Heidrick stated that is correct. Let me explain, the reason for that 

is because of the need for the freight to store the long trains coming into 

Jacksonville. A unit train could be between a mile and two miles long, 

and because of their schedule we would be running the passenger train 

in their train corridor in order to coordinate schedules the only possible 

way of locating a passenger line now in conjunction to freight lines is to 

have passenger lines on the south side of the platform. 

The Chair stated I understand. Are there any other questions? Mr. 

Heidrick we appreciate your presentation any time, very good. 

A - 26


May 1, 2002 

H. PRESENTATION ON THE PROGRESS OF THE JACKSONVILLE 

TRANSPORTATION’S EASTERN DUVAL TRANSIT STUDY 

The Chair recognized Mr. Darrell Smith to speak to this agenda item. 

Mr. Smith stated thank you Mr. Chair. As you all know in the Unified 

Planning Work Program is an Eastern Duval Transit Study. This is an 

update. We are now complete through the first two tasks to that study. 

It is a five task study. 

Overall our objectives have been to look at the future design of mass 

transit in the eastern half of the county to improve service for current 

riders, attract new riders to the existing services, ensure our transit 

services matches the oncoming development and growth, and also to look 

at extending service to areas that are not now served, but where we are 

expecting high levels of growth. 

This is a map of the current service in the service area. I want to point 

out here that the service area that we are studying is essentially south of 

the St. Johns River, east of Southside Boulevard, north of the St. Johns 

County Line and all the way out to the Atlantic Ocean. You can see that 

most of these bus lines today date back to decades from old development 

patterns. Essentially, everything is focused that is running on Atlantic 

and Beach to get out to the Beach and provide services. That population 

center there, [pointing to graphic) when these services were designed 

there really wasn’t anything in this area and that is one of the higher 

growth areas as you will see. 

We have had a number of public outreach efforts so far. We have now 

conducted a total of four focus groups. We have had two visioning 

sessions. We have had a number of meetings with community leaders. 

One of the first tasks was to analyze the effectiveness and efficiency of 

our existing service, develop service change proposals, which I am going 

to go through with you in a second here, and then as an interim process 

come back to the public get their feedback and that is the stage that we 

are now in. 

Initially, before we did any work we polled the public to see what they 

saw the service today. The things that came out were they wanted to see 

reliable service, more convenient service, which you can see on the slide 

A - 27


May 1, 2002 

encompasses several mini themes, better bus stops was a common 

theme, free transfers between buses, right now JTA has a cash fare 

policy where every time you board a bus you pay another fare. We have 

two fares one is 75¢. The longer one out to the Beach is $1.35. So, if 

you go all the way to the Beach you pay $1.35 from downtown and if you 

want to change to the BH-3 you pay another 75¢ it is not a free transfer. 

Overall, better public information. 

So, the overall service concept that we came up with is two hubs, one at 

Regency and one at FCCJ south to try to bring services in and out that 

would collect you and send you on your way. Looking at the primary 

corridors of Beach Boulevard, Atlantic Boulevard, and up and down A1A. 

We started a relatively new service the AR-5, which runs using St. Johns 

Bluff to FCCJ South then over to Kernan and to UNF. That is now the 

second highest ridership line in the service area. So, that is another 

good candidate for a primary corridor. Then we have feeder services that 

come into these hubs that you see here. 

After we took all the public comments we came up with the following. 

The first is the BH-1, this is our heaviest ridership line in the corridor. 

Right now we run on the service roads on the Arlington Expressway into 

Downtown. This would change it to non-stop service. This would take 

the travel time down from half-hour to 12 minutes from the Regency Hub 

to the FCCJ Station Downtown. 

The next thing we do is to interline it. We have been doing this across 

the system. Rather than terminating buses Downtown keep them 

running through to another side. So, we have been looking at putting 

this to the North side to the Grand Park Area. 

We would change the schedules around to make timed transfers at 

Regency. So, in other words when this bus gets here the Southside 1, 

the Southside 20, and the Southside 21 would be coming behind it so 

that you can get off the bus wait a couple of minutes and jump on the 

next one. 

Again, timed transfers here at Mayport Road and Atlantic to support the 

BH-1 and BH-3 together. Actually, this is a little further down Atlantic 

because of the flyover. 

A - 28


May 1, 2002 

We have one trip in the morning and one trip in the evening to Ponte 

Vedra. They are old maid runs actually. There are only about five 

people a day using this service. It costs us an extra bus, so you will see 

in a minute we are going to trade off and put more service somewhere 

else. So, this is the one that right now is being sacrificed. 

Longer term improvements would be to do service every 15 minutes 

between Atlantic, Mayport and Downtown. Then, have alternating trips. 

One trip would go up to Mayport directly from Downtown and then the 

next trip would extend down to south Beach. 

The next is the BH-2. This one has some pretty significant changes. 

What we aim to do is streamline the route so that we can run it more 

often. Right now, the service only runs once an hour. First, would be to 

replace this Penman section here with the BH-3, which I will get to next. 

Next would be to eliminate this extension on down to Sand Castle Plaza 

because the BH-1 and BH-3 already do that. So, this service would 

basically end at Jacksonville Beach City Hall. Then, with that right now 

it only runs once an hour and we have three buses dedicated to this 

service, but adding this one, which I told you that comes from Ponte 

Vedra, we can make this service run every 30 minutes. So, it becomes a 

dramatically better service. Then, we would also interline this one to the 

northside to the Avenue B Area. 

The Chair asked would any of that be non-stop? 

Mr. Smith stated right now when it hits, after it crosses University 

Boulevard, which is one of the highest ridership stops, we jump on 1A to 

get to the Hart Bridge Expressway then he is non-stop into Downtown. 

The Chair asked would there be any stops in between? 

Mr. Smith stated absolutely, all along the way. 

BH3, this has a lot going on. We lose a lot of time right now and it is 

harder with the enhanced security measures at Mayport Naval Air 

Station to run the bus all the way on the base. The Naval Air Station 

runs vans around the base and we would like to coordinate with NAS so 

that the bus would come to the gate. The people would get off walk 

A - 29


May 1, 2002 

through security and take the van to where they want to go on bus 

rather than the bus trying to do all of that. 

Again, time transfers with BH1. Then, we would shift. Instead of 

mimicking the BH-1 he would come over on Penman then come across 

on Beach back over to A1A. So, this service would pick that up. Then, 

because of the time savings here we would be able to extend the service 

to the Mayo Clinic where currently JTA does not offer any service. We are 

concerned about that especially with the new hospital that is planned at 

Mayo. 

Longer term improvements, right now this runs about once an hour and 

we would add more equipment to get to every 30 minutes. The AR5 the 

only thing that has changed here is to coordinate this schedule with the 

BH-1 so that at Regency Square you would have a trip to Downtown 

every 15 minutes as a non-stop express and also do time transfers at 

Regency. 

AR20, again this is simply the Arlington Connector, which serves most of 

old Arlington. It would just be coordinating connections at Regency. The 

Arlington Flyer we propose eliminating it. This is one express trip in the 

morning and one in the afternoon that goes out Monument and 

McCormick and then comes back and runs non-stop express Downtown. 

That would be replaced with the SS-1, which would change. 

This was to operate once an hour. We would extend it out to that same 

loop in east Arlington here, but we would speed him up when he comes 

out Atlantic. Rather than following Atlantic to the Acosta to get into 

Downtown like he does now we would jump him on the Hart Bridge and 

get him Downtown, which would speed him up dramatically. Then, 

again we would extend the service up there and timed transfers. 

Longer term we would extend this service out Wonderwood to Mayport. 

The Wonderwood Connector already includes pull off lanes for bus stops 

in the design. Soutside 2 – Glynlea currently comes up to St. Johns 

Bluff to Lone Star and is actually integrated with the SS1. We would 

eliminate this service, which is provided by the AR-5 and bring them into 

FCCJ South to support building the hub at FCCJ. 

A - 30


May 1, 2002 

SS20 is simply changing schedules. So, instead of being non-convenient, 

the bus shows up somewhere between every 34 and 74 minutes it would 

now run every 30 to 60 minutes. Then, again, the time transfers. 

The SS21 Regency/Avenues right now is a line that runs essentially from 

Regency Square down Southside Boulevard to the Avenues Mall. We 

would extend this service to Downtown and use the service roads to put 

that coverage in. Again, we would move this to a service running every 

60 minutes instead of the non-convenient 36 to 84 minutes. Again, the 

time transfers. 

Longer term would be to alternate trips. Instead of all of them going 

down to the Avenues Mall running every 30 minutes with one trip going 

to Deerwood Center over on Baymeadows, but then the next trip would 

go on down to the Avenues. 

The next piece is a new service launch. This is a relatively new type of 

service nationwide in the industry. We are terming it Rider Request here. 

This is a sort of blend of the community transportation of JTA Connexion 

with the fixed route service. There would be a published schedule for a 

van of when he would arrive in the park, a hub such as Regency Square, 

but when he leaves here he would go and pick up in some service area at 

your door and bring you into this hub where you could connect to a 

fixed route bus. So, it is sort of a blending of two service types. 

You would have to make reservation in advance. Raleigh has done this. 

Charlotte has it. Forth Worth is probably the furthest along, but no body 

has really used this type of service to cover a unified area. They have one 

or two in their system. So, what we would look at is to use these vans to 

comb these areas. We have six of them, three feeding into Regency and 

three feeding into FCCJ South to sort of fill in these areas. 

Fixed route service in these areas especially doesn’t work very well 

because the roads are not designed to accommodate a regular bus. A lot 

of them don’t even have sidewalks at this point. So, we are opening 

ourselves up to a lot of additional paratransit expense on JTA Connexion. 

This is a way to bridge the gap and be a little more affordable than other 

alternatives. 

The Chair stated Darrell can we ask questions now? 

A - 31


May 1, 2002 

Mr. Smith stated yeah. 

The Chair asked is there an additional charge for this service, door 

to door? 

Mr. Smith stated well I will ask you. This has been an interesting 

discussion. What would you think that type of service would be 

worth then I will tell you what the public has told us so far? 

The Chair stated twice the bus ride. 

Mr. Smith stated okay, anyone else? 

Mr. Burnett stated that is exactly the figure that I had in my mind. 

Mr. Totman stated three. 

The Chair stated there needs to be a response time. 

Mr. Smith stated exactly. 

The Chair stated you drive up in the driveway and five minutes I’m gone. 

Mr. Smith stated that is what it would be. If you are not there then he is 

out of there. He can’t wait. Believe it or not in the Focus Group they 

actually suggest a fare of $3.00 and our base bus fare is 75¢. How they 

thought of it was well you have a taxi here, you have a bus here, so there 

should be something in the middle. So, where we are going forward now 

is looking at a fare of $2.00, which would include a transfer to the bus. 

It was interesting the public is valuing it as a very high level—it is worth 

paying more for. 

The Chair stated I would keep it even dollars. We don’t want to get into 

the change business. 

Mr. Sheffield stated I don’t know how you would evaluate it at this 

point, but you talk about paratransit and I guess given the criteria for 

what allows someone to ride paratransit and what you cover do you see 

A - 32


May 1, 2002 

it significantly reducing the number of people that need 

paratransit? It is going to be a cost savings obviously. 

Mr. Smith stated absolutely. One of the things that we would hope and 

this has come up with some of our other efforts with the paratransit 

changes and that is some people are capable of using a fixed route bus, 

but because of lack of sidewalks, wheelchair ramps, or other things they 

can’t get from their house to the bus stop. This would be a way to bridge 

that gap, which is to have a van take them to a hub that is all fully 

accessible. Then, they can change to a fixed route bus to get to where 

they want to go from there. So, it would have a savings. 

The Chair asked does that mean your vehicle will have wheelchair 

capability? 

Mr. Smith stated absolutely. JTA actually does not have a choice. Any 

vehicle that we buy has to accommodate anyone. 

So, just to wrap up with this and try to get to answer some of the overall 

comments that came from the public, this would actually provide more 

reliable service. Part of it is the connection thing to make sure all the 

connections flow correctly. Also, one of the things JTA hasn’t done in the 

past because of financial constraints is to allow what other transit 

systems do, end of the line recovery time. So, in other words when the 

bus gets to the end of the line he has 10 to 15 minutes to kill before he 

starts his next trip. That way if he gets late his next trip would be on 

time leaving. 

We have done this on the Beach, actually with the BH-1 and BH-2 and 

we have had a 20% improvement in on time performance when we did 

that. So, that would make sense to continue to duplicate. 

To improve passenger facilities at major stops and transfer points, this is 

going to be the next phase of the study to look at the design of what 

those things should look like. Then, there is a marketing and 

implementation component where we would also look at what the 

possible fare and transfer policy changes could be. Unfortunately for 

JTA right now we can’t do something that is going to give more service 

away. We need to get more money out of the fare box not less. So, we 

have to be creative on how we might like to implement. With that I return 

it to the Chair. 

A - 33


May 1, 2002 

The Chair stated very educational. Steve. 

Mr. Burnett stated there are a couple of technology questions that I have 

wanted to ask Mike and JTA. I would like to ask if you could give a brief, 

but for one Gator City Cab when Frankie Braddock owned it before he 

sold it to Coach, he implemented GPS Technology for tracking his cabs 

very successfully. Seems to me JTA should be doing that and also to do 

it with some sort of phone system, call them or something to allow people 

to know where the bus is in relation to a stop if they want to get on to 

help expedite their decision making. 

Mr. Smith stated we actually just got into the automatic vehicle location 

business with paratransit. We started when we took over JTA 

Connexion we added automobile vehicle location on that. It has proved 

greatly successful, but for fixed route there are a few things that have to 

be done a little differently in order to make it work. 

One of the things that I find amusing looking at paratransit is we have 

approximately 100 vehicles on the street. The way you see it on the 

screen is a big map of Duval County with all of these little dots. So, if 

you are a dispatcher looking at this thing it is not very helpful. So, the 

technology that has been emerging is diagrams where you can pull up an 

individual bus route to see where the buses are along that route. 

We are pursuing funding in our next congressional earmark to move that 

along for the regular buses. The costs are all over the map depending on 

how many…it is that you want. The more expensive ones, of course, are 

the neatest ones and include access over the Internet. There is one 

system that is being tested in Seattle where you can code your specific 

trip that you want into your computer. So, you say I want 10 minutes 

before I walk down to catch the bus. The computer would actually set a 

little alarm for you when the bus is 10 minutes away so that you know 

when to start walking down to catch it. So, the technology is there. 

Mr. Burnett stated there is actually three things I want to discuss. That 

is a good answer I like that. The next is fare cards. It seems to me that 

in this debit card era we ought to be using more fare cards than cash or 

other means of payment. 

A - 34


May 1, 2002 

Mr. Smith stated well, we have swipe cards for weekly and monthly 

passage. It is a magnetic swipe. We would like to pursue some other 

different fare collection system. The problem is our current fare box per 

bus is $15,000. So, a new technology would actually require out right 

replacement of those boxes. 

Mr. Burnett stated it would be much cheaper I would think. 

Mr. Smith stated unfortunately they are all in the $10,000 to $15,000 

range. So, it is an expensive proposition. Actually, one thing we just 

saw a presentation on is there is now a smart ticket, which is like a 

smart card except you don’t want to develop a ticket—a smart card right 

now costs about $1.00 or so to produce. Our fare is only 75¢. We don’t 

want to spend more money producing a card than it costs to ride the 

bus. There is now a smart ticket that is rechargeable that only costs 15¢ 

to produce. So, that technology makes a lot more sense, and we are 

looking into that, but it would be a major acquisition for us to pursue 

that. 

Mr. Burnett stated the last thing. The Wonderwood thing about pull offs 

factored into that. I just want to add another vote. I would really love to 

see more pull offs at bus stops anywhere they can be done. It is horrible 

sometimes what the buses do to the other traffic flow in the area. 

Mr. Smith stated there are a number of different types of bus stop 

designs. Wanda mentioned in the UPWP we want to do a study for what 

we call transit infrastructure standards, but that is to set some 

standards of what bus stops should be like as these roads are built or as 

ones are the ones that are reconfigured. Beach for example is going to 

have bus pull off lanes installed on it in the widening project. 

However, there are some other designs—on higher speed roads that 

make sense. On lower speed roads it actually makes more sense for the 

bus not to have to pull off. There have been studies done, especially in 

Portland, where it is shown that if it is a 30 or 35 mph road the conflict 

of the bus trying to merge back into traffic catches traffic up more than if 

you could just stop right there. 

So, we are actually working with Springfield on their Main Street project 

now to include what is a bus stop bump out where the stop actually 

would be extended through the parking lanes so the bus instead of trying 

A - 35


May 1, 2002 

to weave in between parked cars would just stop in traffic. People would 

just get off right there and then it would take off. Of course, there is 

another lane there for traffic to get around and you wouldn’t be stopping 

behind the bus. 

The Chair asked are there any other questions? Thank you Darrell, 

an excellent presentation. 

Ms. Cooperman stated Darrell you make me want to ride a bus. 

I. UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF THE SR 105 HECKSCHER DRIVE 

BRIDGE PROJECT 

A - 36 

The Chair recognized Ms. Debrah Miller, Florida Department of 

Transportation to speak to this agenda item. 

Ms. Miller stated I actually have two projects to talk to you about. The 

first project is Bridge 720062 over Shad Creek. We are going to look at 

replacing this bridge. We are in the very early stages of the PD & E 

Study. We are going to bring this to the public at a public kick-off 

meeting to try and get some concerns from the public and their issues 

early in the project process. 

The Chair stated you might want to tell them where Shad’s Creek is. 

Ms. Miller stated here it is, it is just close to the Mayport Ferry and just 

north of Sister’s Creek Bridge, and just south of Fort George Inlet. The 

project needs that are driving this particular project are safety 

improvements. There are some ecological and historical resources in this 

area that we would need to look at and preserve. We need to consider 

facilities for pedestrians and fishing. Also, the multi-used Timuquan 

Nature Preserve Route is going to go through this project and we want to 

look at addressing that, which in conjunction is a part of the East Coast 

Greenway Trail, which runs from Key West to Maine. 

This is a Conceptual Typical section. Nothing is firm at this point in the 

project because like I said it is early. This is the same typical that they 

are using on the Fort George Inlet Bridge. It provides two six foot lanes 

for fishing or sidewalks and also a 10-foot non-motorized lane that is a


May 1, 2002 

part of the multi-use trail. It would be on the east side of the project, two 

10 foot shoulders and two 12 foot travel lanes. 

The Chair stated so you are replacing a two-lane bridge with a twolane 

bridge? 

Ms. Miller stated exactly. We are not going to increase capacity at all, 

but we are going to provide more pedestrian and fishing room. 

The Chair stated and emergency lanes. 

Ms. Miller stated and shoulders. There are only two-foot shoulders on 

the existing bridge. What’s Next? Like I said community involvement. 

We will be holding a kick-off meeting, which is scheduled for April 16 th at 

the Heckscher Drive Community Center. Our preliminary design and 

engineering is due to be completed in the Year 2003 and final design is to 

begin in the Year 2004. Are there any questions on this project? 

Mr. Burnett stated and build would be? 

Ms. Miller stated build is in 2006. The funds are gaming at this point, 

but there are no construction funds at this time. Are there any other 

questions on this project? 

The Chair asked are you going to have bike paths on both sides or 

just one side? 

Ms. Miller stated just one side. Actually, the 10-foot multi-use trail 

would be for bicyclists, skateboarders, and people with strollers, and it 

would be separated. It would have an actual barrier so that people who 

are fishing would not interfere with the others. 

The Chair stated so the bicyclists and fisherman are in the same 

area? 

Ms. Miller stated the same area. Now, we have six foot sidewalks on 

both sides of the bridge so you can fish from either side, but the trails is 

just on the east side of the project. 

The Chair stated thank you. We appreciate it. 

A - 37


May 1, 2002 

Ms. Miller stated, well I have one more. 

J. UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF THE PABLO ROAD BRIDGE 

PROJECT 

The Chair recognized Ms. Deborah Miller, Florida Department of 

Transportation to speak to this agenda item. 

Ms. Miller stated this next project is Bridge 784038 over the Ponte Vedra 

Canal. Again, the project is in the same time frame. We are in a very 

early PD & E process. We are going to do a kick-off to get concerns and 

find out what the community issues are about this project. This is a 

location of the area. This is in the Ponte Vedra area. 

The project needs for this project are safety improvements. We need to 

increase the lane widths, provide some crash tested railings, provide 

pedestrian facilities and golf cart facilities in this area. This bridge is 

timber and is structurally deficient at this time. 

Here are some conceptual typical sections. This is an urban section, this 

is a rural section, again we will be taking these to the community and 

looking for their input and seeing if they have a preference for these 

typicals or any other ideas they might have that we could incorporate. 

What’s next? Community involvement, we haven’t scheduled a date yet, 

but we are looking at the middle of May for a kick-off for this project. 

The same time frame preliminary engineering and design is to be 

completed in 2003 and design begins in the Year 2004. Are there any 

questions? Okay, thank you. 

The Chair stated Debbie I apologize. My agenda says that Jeff was going 

to give this presentation. I appreciate you filling in for Jeff. Are there 

any questions from the group? Thanks again, I appreciate that. 

K. OLD BUSINESS 

The Chair recognized Ms. Denise Bunnewith to speak to this agenda 

item. 

A - 38


May 1, 2002 

Ms. Bunnewith stated we included in your agenda books a status report 

on the JTA North Southeast and East/Southwest Corridor Study. Ed 

Castellani has been here a number of times at different stages of the 

study and he will be back. This is sort of an interim thing so that you 

can know how the study progresses. At the last meeting Mr. Castellani 

agreed to bring a model for the bus rapid transit vehicle that is 

envisioned and that is over here on the table. We encourage you after 

the meeting to take a look at it. It is very different than the typical bus. 

Mr. Castellani is here if you have any questions for him or if you have 

anything to add. 

Mr. Castellani stated this is a bus that is now currently being utilized in 

France. It is an electric bus. Each wheel has its own electric motor. It is 

the kind of vehicle that we would use in our system. The model shown is 

actually being assembled in the United States and is going to be used in 

Las Vegas. 

The Chair asked is it made in the United States or is it assembled 

here? 

Mr. Castellani stated it is being assembled here. The parts are being 

made all over the world. The guidance system is German, the body is 

Belgium, and the system itself is French. 

The Chair asked who do you talk to about getting bus stop shelters? 

Mr. Castellani stated you can talk to any one of us. 

The Chair asked is it based on volume? 

Mr. Smith stated right now we have funding to install approximately 40 

new shelters a year in a system that has over 7,000 bus stops. So you 

can tell at that pace we will all be dead by the time the shelters are at the 

stops. 

The Chair asked how do you pick a location? 

Mr. Smith stated the locations right now are based on a couple of 

factors. Mainly the ridership level as well as things like is it near a 

senior center or may be an apartment complex, which could generate 

more ridership if there was something better than a whole in the ground. 

A - 39


May 1, 2002 

The Chair asked if you find someone that is willing to go 50% on 

the cost does that increase their chances of getting one? 

Mr. Smith stated yeah, actually Citibank in Deerwood Center agreed to 

put in the concrete pad and do all of that work so we provided the 

shelter. 

The Chair stated great. Thank you very much. 

L. NEW BUSINESS 

Ms. Bunnewith stated I will let Jeff do this one. 

Mr. Sheffield stated passed out at your space was our first official 

application under our new CAC Bylaws for member. Mr. Branch Davis, 

he is out in the audience tonight, was recommended by Councilwoman 

Suzanne Jenkins. Included is the endorsement letter as required by our 

new Bylaws as well as a resume of previous work. I would note 

particular attention to the last two pages, his community and 

professional affiliations for all of his involvement. If approved Mr. Davis 

would fill one of two vacant at-large positions on the committee. We 

already have a CPAC Member representing that CPAC from this 

particular district. 

The Chair stated okay, we appreciate having you here Mr. Davis. We 

need to get a motion. 

A motion for APPROVAL to accept the appointment of Mr. Branch 

Davis to one of the at-large positions on the CAC was made by 

Mr. Steve Burnett, seconded by Mr. Bernie O’Connor, and 


Ms. Bunnewith stated I would add that it still has to go to the MPO for 

final approval. Also, we had a second nomination we didn’t pass out 

copies, and that was submitted by Cynthia Austin, Chairman of the JTA 

Board. She nominated Ms. Sheila Andrews. I will let Darrell tell us 

about Ms. Andrews. 

A - 40


May 1, 2002 

Mr. Smith stated Sheila has done a lot of work with the JTA. She was 

formally a regular user of the paratransit service. She is in a wheelchair, 

and one day she called up and said I am sick of the van service. What 

do I have to do to use the regular bus? So, we took a bus out there 

and showed her how to use the lift and since then she has never hopped 

on paratransit again. She takes the bus whereever she goes. She is 

extremely interested in serving here because she has a unique 

perspective of there is no sidewalks, there are no curb cuts, and for her 

mobility to get around it is really hindered by that. So, she is extremely 

interested in participating. I also believe that Councilman Lake Ray is 

going to be doing a letter of endorsement as well. 

The Chair asked did everybody get a copy of the endorsement from 

JTA? Well, I will read it to you if you would let me impose on you for a 

few minutes. It is to Denise from Cynthia Austin who is Chairman of the 

Board the Jacksonville Transportation Authority. It reads as follows: 

I would like to nominate Ms. Sheila Andrews, 8534 Haverhill Street, 

Jacksonville, to the First Coast Metropolitan Planning Organization 

Citizens Advisory Committee. Ms. Andrews has worked extensively with 

the Jacksonville Transportation Authority by regularly attending 

Jacksonville Transportation Advisory Committee meetings and serving on 

a customer focus group to assist us in developing our current Transit 

Development Plan. 

Ms. Andrews has been a regular user of the community transportation 

system, JTA Connexion and has now become a regular user of the JTA 

bus lines and Skyway. I believe that these experiences, in addition to 

successfully overcoming a mobility impairment and her travels around 

our community will help provide a new and often overlooked perspective 

to the CAC. 

Again, please accept my nomination of Ms. Andrews. Sincerely, Cynthia 

B. Austin, Chairman. Do I hear a motion? 

A motion for APPROVAL to accept the appointment of Ms. Sheila 

Andrews to the remaining at-large position on the CAC was 

made by Mr. Bernie O’Connor, and seconded by Ms. Mary 

Cooperman. 

A - 41


May 1, 2002 

The floor was opened to discussion. 

Mr. O’Connor stated we use to have a mobility-impaired member. I can’t 

remember his name, I’m sorry. 

Ms. Bunnewith stated Mr. Striglers. 

Mr. O’Connor stated he is no longer with us. 

Ms. Bunnewith stated he could not get here on a regular basis. Part of 

that was that he was a community transportation user and I think he 

had trouble on the return trips. They wouldn’t pick him up. This was 

before JTA Connexion. 

Mr. O’Connor stated I do think it is important for us to hear that 

perspective, and so I was just curious. 

After discussion the motion to accept Ms. Sheila Andrews in the 

remaining at-large position on the CAC was unanimously carried. 

M. PUBLIC COMMENT 

The Chair recognized Mr. Jim Green to speak to this agenda item. 

Mr. Green stated I put this at everybody’s place we are dropping our Post 

Office Box. So, you will need to use our street address, 2250 Irene 

Street. 

N. ADJOURNMENT 

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 PM. 

A - 42

MEETING SUMMARY 

FIRST COAST METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 

BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE 

Thursday, May 16, 2002 - 5:00 PM 


Chris Burns 

Rick Ball 

Richard Coffman 

Candy LeCompte 

Jeff Beck 

Elizabeth Gill 

Darrell Smith 

Shawn Collins 

Doug Ridgway 

Stan Sanford 

James Reed 

Barbara Vitsky (Alternate for Jeanne Hargrave) 


Monty Selim 

Barney Roberts 

Mary O’Donnell 

Pat Greason 


Jeff Sheffield, First Coast Metropolitan Planning Organization 

Elizabeth De Jesus, First Coast Metropolitan Planning Organization 

Kathy Crawford, First Coast Metropolitan Planning Organization 

A - 1

CALL TO ORDER: 

In the absence of Michael Cape, Chairman, the meeting was called to order by Chris 

Burns, Vice-chairman at 5:00 PM on the seventh floor of the Florida Theatre Building in 

the studio. 

A. Approval of the Minutes of the March 21, 2002 Meeting 

The Vice-chairman called for a motion to approve the minutes of the March 21, 

2002 B/PAC meeting. 

A MOTION for approval of the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee Meeting 

Summary of March 21, 2002 was made by Rick Ball, properly seconded by 

Richard Coffman, and unanimously approved. 

B. Presentation on the Jacksonville Multimodal Center 

Mr. Monty Selim, who is with Reynolds, Smith, and Hills, Inc., gave a 

presentation that included a slide show of the Jacksonville Multimodal Center. 

The project is to develop a multimodal center at the Prime Osborne Convention 

Center. The concept is to bring Amtrak back through the Union Terminal that 

will be serving the east coast communities along the FEC corridor. 

They are going to have four trains operating at the Union Terminal and at the 

Multimodal Center to the east coast. Amtrak platform and the main tracks will be 

coming from the left of the Prime Osborne Convention Center. Amtrak is going 

to occupy a portion of the building, and the landmark is going to be opened in the 

public access. 

The first phase will be to bring Amtrak to the Union Terminal and the second 

phase will be to incorporate all other modes in the area. It will incorporate the 

ASE people mover of the JTA people mover station within the Multimodal Center 

and expand JTA parking lot closer to the bus terminal. The plan is to have 26 bus 

bays in the area across and the parking garage is going to sit on top of that. 

Bay Street runs two-ways in front of the Prime Osborne Convention Center, 

which will be converted into a one-way street. The movement that was going in 

the eastside direction will include the loop under I-95 overpass, which may 

convert into Forsyth Street. Traffic coming from the parking structure is going to 

exit along Forsyth Street that will make Bay Street one-way westbound and 

Forsyth Street eastbound. 

The goals of the projects is to convert the terminal back to historic use that is the 

rail station, then preserve as a historic terminal. So, Amtrak is looking at that as a 

silver level, as far as, changes to the nature of all the buildings. 

A - 2

Mr. Ball asked Mr. Selim which facility is going to replace the existing Amtrak 

Station on the westside? Mr. Selim replied that the Amtrak Station is going to 

replace the Clifford Lane Station, so the parcel service will be the only thing that 

will remain at the Clifford Lane Station. 

Mr. Collins asked about the long-term parking. Mr. Selim explained they have 65 

parking spaces for the existing employees and they will need 160 parking spaces 

for long-term parking. There is not going to be enough parking at the building 

itself, but they will be working with the JTA to develop an agreement to reserve 

150 spaces across the street to preserve it just for Amtrak. 

The Vice-chairman asked how was the project originated and its status? Mr. 

Selim said they started the design phase and agreed to the old systematic how 

Amtrak was. They had to go through the presentation for the First Coast 

Metropolitan Planning Organization (FCMPO), the Technical Coordinating 

Committee (TCC), the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), and this Committee 

then the project will move into the design phase. 

Mr. Sheffield mentioned that the Technical Coordinating Committee 

recommended a moving walkway through the pedestrian facility. 

C. Presentation on the Baymeadows Road Mobility Improvement Project 

Ms. Pat Greason distributed handouts and reported on the Baymeadows Road 

Mobility Improvement Project. From April 2001 through April 2002, they spent 

$150,000 trying to find an evaluation just in the mobility so they know the 

corridor from San Jose to State Road 9A is six lanes to a mile. 

There is some process news in the handout to develop a recommended option that 

is including mobility, so it will take a multimodal approach to eliminate some of 

the congestions. The FDOT is contributing approximately $25,000 to establish a 

community base public/private planning partnership and they hope to do it by July 

1. It is going to focus strictly on Baymeadows Road corridor. They are going to 

take into account commuters coming into the corridor, but the solution is focus 

primary on corridor of business. 

The Florida Board of Interest met with their consultants for the second time 

several weeks ago and chose the name Better Baymeadows, Inc., for their nonprofit 

organization. During the next several months they will be developing bylaws, 

development of a plan, and prepare applications for Commuter Assistance 

Program dollars from the FDOT Public Transportation Office. They will hire two 

part-time staff to work 24 hours per week. 

Mr. Smith wanted the Committee to be aware that one of the things they have 

done is considered the Deerwood Center in a merging. Right now Southside 6, 7, 

A - 3

8, and 9 all connects with Deerwood Center. On July 1, the Southside 8 that runs 

to the Avenue Mall (originally makes up on the northside) will be moving from 

every hour to every 30 minutes, which is going to be a major improvement. So, 

between Southside 8 and Southside 9 from downtown to the Deerwood Center the 

bus will run every 15 minutes throughout the day. If you are in Mandarin you do 

not need to go downtown first to get to the Deerwood Center, because Southside 9 

goes there. So, if you live on Arlington to University you can get on the AR-1 

that becomes the Southside 9. You will still continue to go by downtown, but you 

do not have to switch buses because you are on the same one. 

D. Discussion on the Main Street Bike Lane Project 

Mr. Coffman reported on the Main Street Bike Lane Project and he had received a 

set of plans on March for Main Street Downtown. They are from 1 st Street to 12 

Street, which is approximately one mile. The City is doing the project, but it is a 

FDOT road. They are in the process of removing the curb lanes, so once he 

reviewed the plans there were no bike lanes on the project. Main Street showed 

up as Duval County second highest pedestrian crash area and probably the third 

highest bike crash area. 

They had several meetings with the City. Their envision is to have 17 or 18 foot 

wide sidewalks, parallel parking, and lots of trees in the median. He is not sure if 

they are going to get bike lanes. It is their road and they have pursued it at this 

time. Mr. Coffman called attention of the B/PAC to see if they may want to write 

a letter of recommendation to the program manager, to the City, and a copy to 

their District Secretary. 

Mr. Smith also mentioned since JTA was asked to get involved on the project 

from a transit prospective since they have been involved with them over the last 

two months. He asked the B/PAC to consider before they go far on pushing bike 

lanes and understand what the project is. The reason why the sidewalks are very 

wide is because they are doing curb extension. The intersection from the curb is 

going to be extended in the travel lane, so there will be a specially design transit 

shelter and transit stop. A low speed road is more efficient for a bus to actually 

stop in the travel lane, so that is why sidewalks are being widened at those 

intersects. It meets ADA requirements so that you can still have parallel parking 

along the street, which is there now. They have applied for a Service 

Development Grant with FDOT to include bike racks at each of stops, so they are 

not trying to exclude bikes. 

Mr. Reed led the group in a discussion of an important issue to consider inviting 

someone to show the proposal from 1 st Street to 12 th Street because if you see the 

entire proposal it represents something that will change the environment that the 

bicycle was in. 

A - 4

The Vice-chairman suggested that a sub-committee should be developed since 

several Committee members had difficulty visualizing what is being asked and 

would prefer to review the proposal before voting on purposing it or not. So, Stan 

Sanford agreed to chair the sub-committee. 

Mr. Sanford called for a motion that they write a letter to support including bike 

lanes on the Main Street Project as they do other projects. 

A MOTION for approval that the Sub-committee of the Bicycle/Pedestrian 

Advisory Committee write a letter recommending that all consideration be given 

to explore bike lanes on the Main Street Project was made, properly seconded, 

and approved by a seven to three votes. 

The Vice-chairman revealed that the discussion had a positive because it helps 

them to look at the other side of an issue. They are here for the same goal to 

make it user friendly and much safer for everyone. Therefore, he hopes there is 

no hard feeling about difference of opinions. 

Mr. Reed volunteered to give a brief presentation on the Main Street Bike Lane 

Project. So, the Vice-chairman requested that Mr. Reed be placed on the agenda 

for a presentation and also discussion of the Bicycle Master Plan at the next 

B/PAC meeting. 

E. Staff Report on the May 7, 2002 FCMPO Meeting 

Mr. Sheffield asked that the Staff Report be deferred because they previously 

addressed everything discussed at the May 7 FCMPO meeting. 

F. Old Business (Bike Racks on Riverwalk) 

Mr. Smith announced most of the bike racks are installed on the buses and there 

are only a few buses left without bike racks at the present time. They will have to 

get through their major service change that becomes effect July 1, this summer, 

and then they will do their bike campaign. 

Mr. Reed reported on the bike racks on Riverwalk. Mr. Sheffield and Mr. Reed 

met with Jason Theil of JEDC to review the plan, which was impressive. There is 

a symbol for a bike rack and the key, but there is not a rack in the plan. They 

decided after reviewing the plan to make a recommendation about where bike 

racks will best be served in the plan. So, take into account the idea that now bikes 

are not allowed on the Riverwalk and assuming that they might actually be able to 

remove that rule. The benefit bike racks will best be served at the intersection as 

stated in the letter (agenda item “F”). Therefore, any streets the entrance point to 

the river off Bay Street to the Riverwalk development and any intersecting streets 

A - 5

within that shipyard they recommended a bike rack. If two streets intersect there, 

then there should be a rack down the Riverwalk. 

Mr. Sanford asked if they installing racks there so that cyclists will not have to 

ride there, stop, and get rid of their bike right then. Mr. Sheffield explained by 

doing that if they continue this effort further down the riverwalk you will 

establish a pattern of knowledge so you will always know where a rack is located. 

You will not have to know that there is a rack next to the oak tree etc., but you 

will expect a rack wherever there is a roadway intersection of the Riverwalk. 

The Vice-chairman asked Mr. Sheffield who makes the decision about people 

being on the Riverwalk. Mr. Sheffield explained there is an ordinance that 

applies to the central business district not permitting them on any sidewalks 

within the central business district. The Vice-chairman asked that the ordinance 

be placed on the agenda to be discussed under New Business to definitely 

accomplish getting bikes on the Riverwalk. 

G. New Business (The Jacksonville-Baldwin Rail Trail Bike Rodeo) 

Mr. Sanford announced he received a telephone call that they are having the 

Jacksonville-Baldwin Rail Trail Bike Rodeo and nothing further. So, they may 

have more people showing at their normal ride. It is not an official grand opening 

and there is nothing behind it on advertising. 

The Vice-chairman recommended that they should have everyone’s e-mail so if 

anything comes up urgently in the future they can get information that way rather 

than making numerous telephone calls. Therefore, he requested to put that on the 

agenda for the next meeting to make sure that they have a list. 

Mr. Coffman talked about the Timquana Bike Trail. Ms. De Jesus and Mr. 

Coffman attended a meeting in the Mayor’s Office on Friday, May 10 at 4:00 PM. 

There were clear zone issues where FDOT said they could not have the Timquana 

Bike Trial close to the roadway. They are going to focus on Little Talbot Island 

that is going to tie into Hannah Park. 

They also went to the Beaches Bike Lane meeting. Mr. Coffman revealed after 

attending that meeting he agreed with Mr. Collins’ idea that the Committee 

should have in place a Bicycle Master Plan. So, there is a need from the B/PAC 

to request the FCMPO to develop a Bicycle Master Plan for the MPO District. A 

professional group is needed to come in and work with them, which he agreed 

that the Bicycle Master Plan should be included on the agenda to discuss funding 

from the MPO at the next B/PAC meeting. 

The Vice-chairman explained he was approached through another committee 

through the Sport Entertainment that the Leukemia Foundation will like to put on 

A - 6

central rides in Jacksonville. They will like to know where would be a good 

location to have that event. Also, they will like for the City to fund the necessary 

police to secure the event. Mr. Sheffield volunteered to prepare a letter for the 

Vice-chairman’s signature and forwarded to the Sheriff’s Office to seek funding 

to do traffic control. 

H. Public Comment 

There were no comments from the public. 

I. Adjournment 

The meeting was adjourned at 7:25 PM. 

The next Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee meeting is scheduled for 

Thursday, July 18, 2002 at 5:00 PM. 

A - 7



Meeting Date and Time: 

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 at 10:00 am. 

Location: 

Purpose: 

FTA Offices 

Atlanta, Georgia 

Present an overview of the JTC project to the FTA 

Attendees: 

Name Representing Telephone 

Craig Teal FDOT 386-961-7703 

Philip Worth FDOT 904-360-5650 

Steve Arrington JTA 904-630-3108 

Jamie Durham FTA 404-562-3485 

Doug Frate FTA 404-562-3514 

Roger Krahl FTA 404-562-3507 

Tom Thompson FTA 404-562-3529 

Monty Selim RS&H 904-256-2147 

Ron Sill RS&H 813-289-5550 

Richard Heidrich DMJM+HARRIS 305-648-9937 

Ethan Loubriel DMJM+HARRIS 305-648-9974 

On November 16 th a meeting took place with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in 

their Atlanta office to provide a project summary of the Jacksonville Transportation 

Center (JTC). Below are the highlights of the meeting: 

• A brief presentation by the Consultant Team provided the concept and history of the 

project. 

• FTA expressed concerns for using 5311 funds designated for rural transportation for 

Greyhound. FTA will research the applicability of funding. 

• FTA stated that Amtrak would not be eligible for FTA funding. 

• FTA views this project as an EA (Environmental Assessment)/Fonsi (Finding of no 

significant impact) and not an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement). 

• FTA agreed that FHWA should continue as the lead agency during the environmental 

documentation. 

1

• Sources of funds includes formula money 5307, discretionary funds 5309 

(congressional earmarks), Flex Funds (diverting Hwy funds to Transit). 

• Applicable JTA/FDOT owned property could be used as a local match for federal 

funds. 

• A source of funding should be identified for operating and maintenance cost for the 

project to ensure a steady (dedicated) funding stream. 

• FTA funds can only be used for transit related or displaced parking. Additional 

parking should be the responsibility of others including FHWA. 

• FTA encourages transit oriented development and would participate in funding the 

retail building shell without tenant improvements. 

• FTA would participate in funding aesthetic building treatments as required to meet 

the design guidelines mandated by the Downtown Development Authority. 

• Doug Frate will be the contact person at FTA. 

Meeting Summary Prepared By: 

Ethan M. Loubriel, R.A. 

DMJM + HARRIS 

800 Douglas Road, Suite 770 

Coral Gables, Florida 33134 

Tel: 305-444-8241 

Fax: 305-444-4168 

E-mail: ethan.loubriel@dmjmharris.com 

Date: 

1/2/05 

Distribution: 

Attendees 

2

Memorandum 

Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc. 

Architectural, Engineering, Planning and Environmental Services 

Date: November 18, 2004 

Project: 

To: 

From: 

Copies: 


File 

Ronald R. Sill, RLA 

Monty Selim, RS&H 

DRAFT 

Subject: 

Presentation to Jacksonville Historic Commission 

On Wednesday, September 22, 2004, DMJM+HARRIS and Reynolds, Smith and Hills presented the plan 

for the Jacksonville Transportation Center (JTC) to the Jacksonville Historic Commission. The 

presentation was made by Ethan Loubriel (DMJM+HARRIS) and Ron Sill (RS&H) on behalf of the Florida 

Department of Transportation and the Jacksonville Transportation Authority. The Historic Commission 

had been introduced to Amtrak component of the project at an earlier phase, and had already granted a 

Certificate of Appropriateness for the new Amtrak Station. 

The presentation provided an update to the Historic Commission, and showed the current plans for the 

Skyway station, JTA bus facility, Amtrak station, rapid transit interfaces, parking, intercity bus facility, ITS 

transportation management center, and transit concourse. An emphasis was placed on demonstrating 

how each component of the JTC was scaled and arranged to compliment historic, pedestrian nature of 

the district. Architectural details and building materials were shown to be responsive to nearby historic 

structures. 

At the conclusion of the presentation, Commissioners expressed their appreciation for the effort that had 

gone into the design process, and were pleased that historic considerations had been addressed. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Ronald R. Sill, RLA 

File: 

X:\P\1016873000_JTC\PDE\Reports\EA\Appendices\Appendix E\D.4 10-06-04 Historic Commission Memo.doc

FDOT 


CONTACT MEMORANDUM 

PROJECT NAME: 

CONTRACT NO.: 

FDOT - Jacksonville Transportation Center 

046103759 

JOB NO. 

FILE NO. 

3759.0002 

310 

SUBJECT: 

December 17, 2004 CSXT / DMJM Meeting 

Proposed Conceptual Track Configuration 

DATE: 01/05/05 

( ) Record of Telephone Conversation 

Participants: 

( X ) Record of Meeting/Conversation 

Attendees: 

Gray Chandler CSXT 

Robert Humbert DMJM+HARRIS 

Purpose: 

The purpose of this meeting was to present CSXT with Amtrak’s comments regarding their 

operational requirements associated with the initiation of future passenger service using the Florida 

East Coast Railroad’s (FEC) mainline south of Jacksonville and to discuss potential alternate 

approaches to the envisioned operation and track configuration to accommodate such an operation. 

Background: 

On December 17, 2004, a meeting was held in Jacksonville, Fla. with CSXT to discuss Amtrak’s 

concern regarding the proposed track configuration shown as Exhibit A dated 01/04/05. This 

concept was previously presented to and discussed with CSXT on November 3, 2004 and Amtrak 

on November 23, 2004. 

This meeting was held between Gray Chandler (GC), assigned as the primary railroad contact from 

CSXT for this project and Robert Humbert (RH), Track Task leader from the consulting firm of 

DMJM+HARRIS (DH) representing the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). 

Discussions: 

RJH indicated that as a result of a November 23, 2004 meeting, Amtrak personnel clearly stated 

that the conceptual track configuration as presented to address the relocation of the Clifford Lane 

Station to the Prime Osborne Center in downtown Jacksonville did not accommodate the train 

movements necessary to properly handle the potential passenger service using the FEC mainline 

south of Jacksonville. Amtrak’s primary concern focused on the inability of the current track 

configuration to handle the splitting and properly combining train segments coming off the FEC 

and the CSXT lines so that the consolidated train had all of its seats facing in the forward direction 

toward the destination. 

Amtrak noted that although this service was not currently offered by Amtrak, it was considered part 

of their strategic plan. Consequently, Amtrak stated that it would be necessary to investigate 

alternate track configurations that would accommodate Amtrak’s plan to use the FEC. 

PAGE 1 OF 1



PAGE 2 OF 3 

Given CSXT’s position that it was not acceptable for Amtrak to use CSXT’s mainline to switch 

trains, GC and RH discussed the possibility of establishing a third mainline track between NS’s 

turnout north of Beaver Street and the connection to the proposed terminal track lead to the planned 

station. 

The track configuration considered for further study involved constructing a third mainline track 

west of the existing CSXT ML Track 1. (Reference Exhibit B dated 01/04/05). Based on RH’s 

conversation with GC, this concept was not considered in 2000 when the Beaver Street Roadway 

Project was underway because the previous Beaver Street bridge piers and abutments were still inplace 

and the track alignment had to be configured around these obstructions. Since that time, the 

former bridge piers and abutments have been removed and there appears to be an opportunity to 

utilize some additional room under the existing Beaver Street Bridge to construct another mainline 

track. 

The proposed third main would begin south of the NS track turnout using a No. 15 turnout 

positioned between the turnouts of the universal crossover connecting CSXT ML 1 & 2 and would 

extend to CSXT ML track 1 north of the Dennis Street at-grade crossing. The new mainline track 

would be operated as CSXT’s ML track 1 between the universal crossover and Dennis Street. 

Between those limits, a segment of CSXT ML track 2 would be shifted over to connect to ML track 

1 with the remaining segment of ML track 2. As a result of this track change, Amtrak would be 

able to utilize the former CSXT ML track 2 segment south of where FEC track 31 connects into 

CSXT ML track 2 as its switching lead for the planned station. 

While the track configuration noted above appears to provide for the train movements envisioned 

by Amtrak, it will be necessary to pursue, on a conceptual level, investigating the feasibility of such 

an alignment from a geometric standpoint. Once this alignment is considered feasible from a 

geometric standpoint, it will be necessary to discuss the “working concept” with Amtrak and 

CSXT. 

This working concept is intended to illustrate a feasible track layout based on the discussions held 

during the meeting with Amtrak and CSXT noted above. It is DH’s understanding that this concept 

will need to be presented to all the railroad stakeholders for their review and consideration and that 

these changes if acceptable will be subject to future negotiations when and if Amtrak is successful 

in commencing FEC passenger operations. 

At the request of RH, GC agreed to forward an electronic copy of the drawing listed below 

associated with the Beaver Street Project for work performed in 2000. This drawing will be used as 

the base reference plan for laying out the track concept and for determining the feasibility of the 

track geometry.



PAGE 3 OF 3 

CSX Transportation 

Jacksonville Terminal 

From Station 3371+06.3 (A.C.L.) to St. Johns River 

(0+00 Jacksonville Terminal to St. Johns River) 

Dwg. Revised 7/10/98 

GC noted that it was his understanding that the next step in the project was to execute a PE 

Agreement and a Memorandum Of Understanding with CSXT and the other Railroad stakeholders. 

GC confirmed that the example copies had been forwarded to Lillian Porter at FDOT on November 

5, 2004 at the request of Gary Kujala from CSXT. At the request of RH, GC agreed to forward the 

electronic copies of Memorandum of Understanding and PE Agreement examples previously sent 

to FDOT by CSXT. 

Follow-Up Required Person: Date: 

1. Secure electronic copies of CSXT’s Beaver Street Plan 

2. Secure electronic copies of CSXT’s MOU and PE 

Agreement examples 

Copies to: 

Ethan Loubriel 

Alan Kearns 

Document Management Control 

R. Humbert 

R. Humbert 

1/07/05 

1/07/05

Memorandum 



Date: October 25, 2005 

To: 

From: 

Subject: 


Monty Selim 

Jacksonville Transportation Center (JTC) 

Meeting Summary 

On October 24, 2005 a meeting between JTA, AA&D, JEDC, and RS&H took place to 

discuss the JTC project. The attendees included Mike Miller (JTA), Jim Gilmore (AA&D); 

Ron Barton (JEDC), and Monty Selim (RS&H). 

The purpose of the meeting was to introduce the JTC project to the new JEDC 

Executive Director (Ron Barton) and discuss various phasing options for the JTC, also 

how to better integrate the JTC with JEDC future development for their block they 

currently own in the area. 

• RS&H introduced the project, described the functions of each building 

component and current project status 

• RS&H also provided a brief history of the project and the site selection study that 

resulted in the site we are currently working on. 

• RS&H summarized the development of the LaVilla plan and the coordination 

between the JEDC staff and JTA and the Consultant Team to come to the 

current plan under design. 

• Mr. Barton was interested in the current funding status and when the project is 

expected to be constructed 

• He was interested in the Greyhound site since the parcel at the corner of Stuart 

and Adams Street is owned by the City (JEDC) 

• Discussed the relocation of Greyhound and how the city would benefit from their 

existing site at Bay street 

• Expressed concern over the visual effects of the Greyhound buses from JEDC 

Blocks and if buses will be in clear view of residents and/or businesses that 

would locate there, would like to see the Greyhound Buses screened since the 

view would affect the marketability of the site. 

• Favored the ground floor retail space, and integrating the residential with the 

retail, retail should focus on residential needs not just transit users 

• Favored Johnson Street being a pedestrian corridor with wide sidewalks and 

parallel parking enhancing the residential development 

• Favored additional residential parking be reserved in the primary parking 

structure to reduce surface parking needs

• Expressed concern over the heavy JTA bus traffic traversing Houston Street and 

their impact on the adjacent JEDC residential blocks 

• Expressed desire to merge both lots north of Forsyth (by closing Houston) to 

create a larger building block for future development allowing for courtyards to be 

developed in the interior space 

• Asked if during the Master Plan phase if the JTC modules were planned in a 

North/South direction instead of an East/West direction 

• Questioned leaving the Hotel Site vacant instead of incorporating the JTA and/or 

RTMC at that location with the existing ASE Station 

• Expressed concern on the viability of the Hotel Site as a convention hotel site, 

expect any future convention center expansion would incorporate a hotel on their 

site. 

• JTA agreed to provide a cursory review to overall Master Plan to evaluate a 

North/South orientation, however it was emphasized the amount of time it took to 

build consensus for the current plan before it was approved by city council 

• JTA agreed to review bus traffic along Houston street in the model attempt to 

minimize and/or eliminate bus traffic to allow JEDC to combine lots if possible 

• JTA agreed that the Hotel site is a good location for the JTA/RTMC office 

building integrated with the ASE Station and parking, however JTA will NOT 

promote this location as an office building until instructed by the JEDC that the 

site will not be developed as a hotel. 

cc: 

Craig Teal, FDOT 

Steve Arrington, JTA

Memorandum 



Date: November 21, 2005 

To: 

From: 

Subject: 


Monty Selim 

Jacksonville Transportation Center (JTC) 

Meeting Summary 

On November 15, 2005 a meeting between City Councilwoman Elaine Brown, JEDC; 

City of Jacksonville Planning and Development; JTA, AA&D, FDOT, and RS&H took 

place at City Hall to discuss the JTC project. The attendees included City 

Councilwoman Elaine Brown; Ron Barton JEDC Executive Director; Mike Saylor 

Planning Director, Larry Kiefer (Planning & Development) Steve Arrington (JTA), and 

Mike Miller (JTA), Jim Gilmore (AA&D); Larry Parks (FDOT); James Bennett (FDOT), 

Philip Worth (FDOT), Craig Teal (FDOT), and Monty Selim (RS&H). 

The purpose of the meeting was to provide a project update to City Councilwoman 

Elaine Brown, and to discuss the FDOT SIS funding for the JTC project, and its impact 

on the project schedule. 

• Provided the City Councilwoman Elaine Brown a project update 

• Shared the JEDC Executive Director’s concerns as it relates to the future 

development plans for the JTC 

• Discussed the JEDC interest in having the JTC become the retail hub for the 

area, and that the demand for retail in the area far exceed the current available 

supply 

• Discussed critical elements in the project to ensure Cat X document instead of an 

EA. In particularly addressing the Historic issues as it relates to the Union 

Terminal and the McDaniel Building 

• The JEDC have a desire to close Houston street between Johnson and Park 

Street and consolidate the developable parcels this will require several traffic 

model iterations to ensure adequate traffic circulation 

• JEDC expressed interest in screening the Greyhound buses from adjacent multistory 

development 

• Recently the FDOT received $9.0 Million in SIS funding for the construction of 

RTMC building. The FDOT expressed concerns having the RTMC on top of 

parking structure that is not currently funded 

• FDOT shared with attendees the current programmed funds which includes $2.0 

Million for design and right of way

• FDOT shared with attendees available funds to be programmed for the project a 

total of $ 12.7 Million available from various funding sources plus additional funds 

beyond FY 2010 

• JTA shared a White Paper for JTC Project Elements and the availability of $10 

Million for JTC construction as the local match from the City and JTA 

• Discussed the overall project funding level at $86.0 Million (excluding AMTRAK) 

the goal is to leverage every local and state dollar to match federal funding 

participation 

• Critical issues to be resolved prior to pursuing Federal funds is the completion of 

the PD&E phase as a CAT X then we can coordinate the project with the Federal 

Agencies 

• Discussed Federal funding and grant application, it is expected that a grant 

application for Federal funds would take about 90 days to complete by the JTA 

staff this effort can begin while the Cat X is being completed 

• In an effort to maximize federal funding participation it was agreed that JTA 

submit grant request for the entire project, and after receiving a Letter of No 

Prejudice the project can move forward based on available funding 

• The design team need to work closely with the JEDC staff as the JTC design 

moves forward, Jeanne Miller (JEDC) should be contacted and updated once 

issues related to traffic and historic are resolved 

• Planning and Development need to work closely with Design Team to resolve the 

traffic related issues 

• Goal to unveil the JTC project to the Mayor in January followed by another 

meeting with North Florida Congressional delegation 

• JTA’s 50th Anniversary is planned for mid December and Congressman Mica is 

confirmed to attend, he is a Transit proponent and it would be a great opportunity 

to share the JTC project with him 

cc: 

Craig Teal, FDOT 

Steve Arrington, JTA



Meeting Date and Time: 

Tuesday, January 17 at 10:30 am. 

Location: 

Purpose: 

First Coast Metropolitan Planning Organization Board Room 

1022 Prudential Drive, Jacksonville, Florida 

Update for State of Florida Division of Historical Resources 

Attendees: 


Craig Teal FDOT-D2 386-961-7703 

Terri Newman FDOT-D2 386-961-7713 

Brian Yates Division of Historical Resources 850-245-6333 

Sherry Anderson Division of Historical Resources 850-245-6432 

David Ferro Division of Historical Resources 850-245-6363 

Laura Kammerer Division of Historical Resources 850-245-6333 

Jeff Sheffield First Coast Metropolitan Planning Organization 904-306-7512 

Richard Estabrook SEARCH 352-333-0049 

Lisa Sheppard City of Jacksonville/PDD/Historic 904-630-7281 

Ethan Loubriel DMJM Harris 954-972-0895 

Richard Heidrich DMJM Harris 954-972-0895 

Robert Burghardt DMJM Harris 305-648-9984 


David Stroud RS&H 904-256-2306 

Paul Schmidt RS&H 904-256-2258 

Project Overview: 

• The purpose of the meeting was to update State of Florida Division of Historical 

Resources (DHR) on the progression of the JTC project. The following are the issues 

discussed related to the project. 

Revised items that addressed DHR comments on addition of Amtrak to the 

Jacksonville Terminal: 

• Existing brick walls between head-house and Main Hall/ Baggage Pick-up/ ticketing 

offices to remain. 

• Head-house circulation area would still be used by the convention center. The design 

would strive to preserve the open feeling and character of the space. Further 

development of the design of baggage area is necessary and approval from Historical 

Agencies would be sought. 

• The roof transition from the existing historic canopy to the sloped roof addition 

leading to the pedestrian bridge will need to be further developed and approved by 

Historical Agencies. 

• Approved DHR images were shown. 

• DHR “No Adverse Effect Letter” was shown.

McDaniel Building within Greyhound Site: 

• The original historic structure would be maintained; while, the non-historic structure 

would be removed. There is a clear indication of historic and non-historic. 

• The proposed use of the McDaniel Building is slated for driver dormitories and the 

interior layout was shown. The proposed use and interior layout was accepted in 

general, based on further analysis of the interior to preserve historic interior elements 

(if any). 

• DMJM Harris emphasized the need to gain access into the historic structure and to 

determine the level of historic elements. Minor elements such as some ceiling tile and 

(3) +/- partitions are believed to be existing. These elements may not have significant 

historical value. Action Item: DMJM Harris to contact building owner to gain 

access into building. 

• The bus wash building was shown and how the elements relate contextually was 

shown. 

Pedestrian Concourse connection to Jacksonville Terminal: 

• The pedestrian concourse connection from the Skyway Station to Jacksonville 

Terminal was discussed. Two concourse configurations were presented. The first 

configuration showed the pedestrian concourse crossing W. Bay Street at the western 

end of the convention center with an on-grade covered walkway in the east/west 

direction connecting the elevator/stair tower to Jacksonville Terminal. The covered 

walkway would connect and continue through the existing Union Terminal tower. 

The second configuration showed the pedestrian concourse wrapping around the 

south side of the existing Skyway station and crossing W. Bay Street just west of the 

north head-house entrance (no on-grade walkway). The connection shown adjacent 

to the head-house was not accepted. The on-grade covered walkway through the 

historic Union Terminal tower was favored. The location of the elevator/stair tower is 

not under private ownership. Action Item: DMJM Harris to continue development 

of connection with favored scheme and submit to DHR for approval. 

Archaeological: 

• Artifacts such as Civil War buttons found just south of the McDaniel Building. Early 

evidence of disposal of bottles found: it in not known if these are from the Civil War 

period. An encampment is known to be in the area northwest of the building at the 

location of the ramps to Interstate-95. 

• Foundations and tiled floor features of historical houses that once lined Adams Street 

showed an alley way and contained evidence of discarded items. The Lavilla District 

was once an African-American neighborhood after the war. 

• The rail corridor that continues to be used for rail is historical; even though the rails, 

etc. have been updated and are not original.

• Part of the ramp system that is connected to the current Interstate-95 is the original 

interstate system built in 1959. The arched bridge was built before the interstate 

system in 1954-1955. A teleconference with the Federal Highway Administration is 

scheduled for next week. 

• Not enough information has been collected to determine significance of found 

objects. It is projected to take two weeks to complete. 

• Emphasis on the need to create exhibits/ signage to reflect on the past character of the 

neighborhood. 

Traffic Engineering: 

• Showed updated traffic patterns and geometry. Projected for year 2025. 

• Exclusive lane to Bay Street from the Skyway Parking Structure to improve 

circulation exiting: accepted by FDOT. 

• Suggested that Cleveland Street become reserved for bus only. This would separate 

vehicular circulation from bus circulation and provide improved access/exiting to the 

parking structure. Queuing would be improved for buses for special events/game 

days. Action Item: DMJM Harris to present revised ramp scheme to JTA. 

Action Item: RSH to send DMJM Harris email explaining why the access/exiting 

of the main parking structure does not work on Cleveland Street. 

• The use of a hotel or similar use of the site slated for hotel shown in the conceptual 

imagery would not work. The circulation would be too congested. 

• If Cleveland Street becomes exclusive for bus circulation, the internal turn lane in the 

JTA terminal would not be needed. Action Item: DMJM Harris to revise western 

end of terminal to improve bus circulation. 

Environmental: 

• Type 2 Categorical Exclusion document should be used and presented to the Federal 

Highway Administration after review and approval from Bill Henderson District 2 . 

• An intensive Level 1 contamination evaluation has to occur before the public 

hearing. This additional contamination work has been approved and is 

underway. The public hearing has to occur before the application for the FTA. 

Public Meeting is planned for May. 

Items handed out during meeting: 

• Meeting Agenda from DMJM Harris. 

• Traffic forecasting methodology for JTC from RSH. 

• Letter from David Ferro regarding concept plans for JTC. 

• Project Update presentation from DMJM Harris. 

• 11x17” set of Progress Drawings by DMJM Harris.



Date: 

02/01/06 

800 Douglas Road, Suite 770 

Coral Gables, Florida 33134 

Tel: 305-648-9974 

Fax: 305-444-4168 


Distribution: Attendees


Potential Federal Reserve Property Encroachment 

Issue Statement Summary 

November 11, 2006 

On September 29, 2006, Rick Cantwell and I met with the FEC’s Charles Stone, Charles 

Lynch and Tommy Roundtree in their office to discuss the Jacksonville Transportation 

Center (JTC) Project. This was our second meeting with the FEC regarding this project 

with a focus on the proposed relocated alignment of the FEC’s tracks #30 and #31 at the 

south end of the JTC project limit. The JTC project requires the relocation of the FEC 

tracks in order to position the proposed Amtrak station platforms and future Amtrak 

connection to the FEC. 

DH arranged this meeting at the request of their client, the Florida Department of 

Transportation (FDOT). FDOT asked DH to investigate the possibility of minimizing if not 

avoiding the encroachment onto the Federal Reserve property necessitated by the 

relocation of the FEC tracks. DH presented a number of different track configuration 

options beginning with the current proposed FEC track configuration titled “Preliminary 

Alignment” requiring an encroachment of 6,000 SF to a track configuration which 

avoided any encroachment onto the Federal Reserve property shown as “Alignment F 

Alternative”. Both these drawings are attached. Each of the options presented included 

curves of varying degrees with transition spirals but all designs presented were based on 

a maximum operating speed of 20 mph. 

As a result of our conversations with the FEC, Charles Stone indicated that given the 

use of the FEC tracks #30 and #31, FEC would not require the use of transition spirals 

but directed DH to use curves no sharper than 8°. 

Based on that direction, DH developed a conceptual plan titled “Alignment G Alternative” 

reflecting the comments of Charles Stone noted above. A copy of this is also attached. 

As can be seen, this revised alignment still requires an encroachment of 2,340 SF onto 

the Federal Reserve property. On October 18, 2006, this plan was forwarded to Charles 

Stone for his review and comment. 

On October 30, 2006 Charles Stone responded to our conceptual plan titled “Alignment 

G Alternative” submission stating that the only thing he would change would be the No. 8 

turnout to leading into the new Amtrak Station off the FEC. He indicated he would like to 

see a No. 10 turnout instead. 

Based on the recommended change in the size of the turnout, DH developed the 

“Alignment H Alternative” which reflects the change in turnout size but necessitates an 

increase in the FEC’s requirement to use a maximum of degree of curve of eight 

degrees. In order to preserve the alignment of the station platform tracks and incorporate 

a No. 10 turnout the degree of curve would need to increase to eight degrees and forty 

five minutes and the encroachment onto the Federal Reserve property would be 

increased to 3,920 SF as shown on the attached conceptual plan titled “Alignment H 

Alternative”. 

1 of 2


Potential Federal Reserve Property Encroachment 

Issue Statement Summary 

November 11, 2006 

The following table summarizes the alternative configurations reviewed by DH based on 

input by the FEC. 

Alignment Federal Reserve Property Comment 

Preliminary Alignment 6,000 SF Original Conceptual Plan 

Alignment F Alternative 0 SF No Encroachment Plan 

Alignment G Alternative 2,340 SF FEC – 8° Curve 

Alignment H Alternative 3,920 SF FEC – No 10 Turnout 

& 8° 45’ Curve 

It should be noted that DH has not presented the FEC with the Alignment H Alternative 

as the preliminary design envisioned the use of a No. 8 turnout. This conceptual plan 

was developed to illustrate the sensitive of the changes in alignment to the property 

encroachment. If the FEC insists on the use of a No 10 turnout while maintaining their 

design criteria for the use of an 8° curve, it will be necessary to perform a more in-depth 

analysis to determine the resulting impact on the proposed Amtrak platform tracks. 

2 of 2

JACKSONVILLE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION CENTER 


Meeting Date: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 

Location: 

Purpose: 


61 Forsyth St., S.W. 

Atlanta, GA 

Update FTA on the Jacksonville Regional Transportation Center Project and 

Receive FTA Direction for EA Submittal and Grant Request 

Attendees: 


Craig Teal FDOT 386-961-7703 

Steve Arrington JTA 904-630-3119 

Jamie Pfister FTA 404-562-3485 

Tajsha LaShore FTA 404-562-3500 

Tom Thompson FTA 404-562-3500 

Alex McNeil FTA 404-562-3500 

Paul Jensen FTA 404-562-3500 

Paul Marx FTA 202-366-1675 

Keith Melton FTA 404-562-3500 


Paul Schmidt RS&H 904-256-2258 

Ethan Loubriel DMJM Harris 954-945-7265 

Meeting Summary: 

• The meeting began with a PowerPoint presentation given by Steve Arrington, Craig Teal 

and Paul Schmidt 

• A new separate circular addressing joint development should be signed in the next few 

weeks. The September 12 th edition currently out for comments should not change 

substantially from the final version. 

o This new guidance encourages funding multimodal/intermodal projects 

o Offers simple grant application 

o Facilitates FTA oversight through the certification process 

• New guidance 5302 for funding will focus on 3 factors 

o Involve eligible users such as Amtrak, Greyhound and others 

o Disposition of surplus property for joint development 

o Shared parking 

• FTA is developing a certification process for joint use of property and allowing 

development on properties that JTA owns 

• FTA will not interfere between the JTA and its developing partner on terms of sale or 

lease, as long as they follow the certification process

• JRTC project fits the intent of the 5302 in bringing the modes together such as Amtrak 

and Greyhound to other transit services 

• FTA 5302 will encourage transit agencies to act as a landlord/developer rather than 

dispose of their properties 

• EA should document the public involvement process 

o FTA and FHWA will be joint lead agencies on EA 

o Environmental Justice is a concern 

o Emphasize the job creation that the JRTC brings to the area. Include information 

such as employment data, etc. on the Brooklyn redevelopment. 

o Need summary of public meetings 

o Any letters of support for the project 

o MOU should remain in force, however we need to provide copy of MOU 

between FHWA/FTA/FRA 

o Add any ETDM input 

• Skyway Module and Transport Complex Module are mostly eligible for FTA funding 

with the exception of the retail parking 

• JTA to use the TEAM (sp?) software to input the project to evaluate FTA participation 

level 

• FTA prefers projects to be phased allowing for the grant to be amended rather than one 

large grant. Grant request can include funding for design. 

• One draft copy of the EA document was given to FTA at the meeting for preliminary 

review. FTA requested one copy of the final EA document when completed. 



Date: 

12/20/06 

13450 Sunrise Boulevard, Suite 200 

Sunrise, Florida 33323 

Tel: 954-745-7265 

Fax: 954-745-7294 


Distribution: 

Attendees



Meeting Date: Thursday, December 14, 2006 

Location: 

Purpose: 

Jacksonville Economic Development Commission 

220 East Bay Street, Jacksonville, Florida 

Conceptual design of parking structure adjacent to Johnson Street 

Attendees: 

Name Representing Telephone Email 

Craig Teal FDOT 386-961-7703 craig.teal@dot.state.fl.us 

Ron Barton JEDC 904-630-7115 barton@coj.net 

Karen Nasrallah JEDC 904-630-2272 karenn@coj.net 

Paul Crawford JEDC 904-630-7063 paulc@coj.net 

Eric Lindstrom JEDC 904-630-7114 ericl@coj.net 

Ethan Loubriel DMJM Harris 954-745-7265 ethan.loubriel@dmjmharris.com 

Robert Burghardt DMJM Harris 305-648-9974 robert.burghardt@dmjmharris.com 

Project Overview: 

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the conceptual design of the parking structure over the 

JTA bus terminal adjacent to Johnson Street. The new design depicts a 16 bus bay terminal, 

16,000sf of retail, 970 space parking structure, 58,000sf of office space, and a 42,000sf Regional 

Transportation Management Center (RTMC). 

Items that were discussed: 

Zoning and parking requirements: 

• An overview of the number of parking spaces required per the 

zoning code was discussed for the Jacksonville Transportation 

Center (JTC). DMJM Harris’ interpretation of the zoning code 

resulted in a 700 space parking requirement for the JTC excluding 

Amtrak parking and parking to replace JTA on-grade parking. 

• The JEDC has the authority to interpret and make exceptions to the 

code. JEDC would allow reductions in parking based on actual 

need verses a zoning code requirement. DMJM Harris will prepare 

an analysis for parking based on the projected parking needs for 

the employees and visitors for the offices and RTMC, retail 

parking, and JTA’s minimum parking requirements for transit 

users. 

• Ron Barton stated that he would meet with Mike Blaylock to 

discuss the relocation of the parking structure and discuss the 

amount of parking the JEDC would need.

Conceptual Design: 

• The design concept incorporates retail along Johnson Street and W. 

Forsyth Street. To maintain the original retail design along W. 

Forsyth Street with approximately 29 feet of retail depth and a 

continuous covered walkway in front of the retail (within the 

property line), transfer beams would be required which would add 

approximately 4 million in construction cost to the project. JEDC 

felt that the retail space could be difficult to lease initially without 

the area being fully developed thus the elimination of retail along 

W. Forsyth would be acceptable, considering the potential market 

for retail space and the additional expense of the transfer beams. 

After further evaluation by DMJM Harris since the meeting, it 

appears that it would be possible to eliminate the transfer beams 

while allowing retail along W. Forsyth Street. The change from 

the original design would be the elimination of the continuous 

covered walkway in front of the retail and the reduction of two bus 

bays from 16 bus bays to 14 bus bays (refer to attached PDF file). 

JTA will determine if retail along W. Forsyth Street is preferred. 

• The large vaulted roof over the bus terminal is the character and 

imagery preferred by JTA. The current design incorporates a large 

vaulted roof over the retail space along Johnson Street with a 

central formal entrance located at the center of the arc. Paul 

Crawford stated that the main entrance to the bus terminal should 

be placed at the NE corner or SE corner of the site to be in line 

with the Johnson Street pedestrian crossings from the potential 

development to the east of Johnson Street. Paul Crawford would 

also prefer to see a building façade lower in height without the 

curved vaulted roof. 

Impact on Development: 

• Based on JEDC’s preference to reduce the travel distance from the 

potential development on the east side of Johnson Street to the 

proposed parking structure, JEDC prefers the relocated parking 

structure design. The original design of the JTC showing the 

parking structure on the west side of the transport concourse would 

be too far to be utilized for the development. 

• Based on the initial concept drawings, Ethan Loubriel stated that 

the new concept is feasible and it follows the same logic and ideas 

of the original design. 

• JEDC is concerned about the movement of buses along Houston 

Street as a secondary access/egress point to the bus terminal. It was 

DMJM Harris’ understanding that JTA wants Houston Street 

available in the event W. Forsyth Street or Adams Street is 

severely congested or blocked. JTA buses will primarily enter the 

bus terminal from Adams Street and exit onto W. Forsyth Street.

JTA did not want to route buses through Johnson Street. which is 

planned as a main pedestrian corridor. JEDC is concerned that 

keeping Houston Street open would limit the options for 

development of the city owned sites on the east side of Johnson. 

City Contribution: 

Schedule: 

• Ron Barton stated that the City’s 5 million contribution to the 

project, as administered thru JEDC would be partially 

compensated by construction of parking spaces within the parking 

structure for the development of the three city blocks east of 

Johnson Street. 

• The first phase of construction documents is for the Skyway 

Parking Structure. Construction is planned for FY 09/10. 

• FDOT has design and construction funds allocated for the 

Regional Transportation Management Center to begin construction 

in 2009. Since the RTMC is located on the top level of the parking 

structure, the urgency to finalize the design and build the parking 

structure was emphasized. 

Items handed out during meeting: 

Action Item: JEDC to meet with JTA to determine minimum 

parking requirements in order for DMJM Harris to progress with 

the design. 

• 11”x17” progress drawing set of parking structure adjacent to Johnson Street by 

DMJM Harris dated December 14, 2006. 

• 11”x17” images of an aerial view and ground level perspective of the new scheme by 

DMJM Harris. 



Date: 

12/19/06 

13450 Sunrise Boulevard, Suite 200 

Sunrise, Florida 33323 

Tel: 954-745-7265 

Fax: 954-745-7294 


Distribution: 

Attendees, Monty Selim, Steve Arrington

Appendix F 

Public Hearing Information

The Honorable John Peyton 

Mayor, City of Jacksonville / MPO 

117 W. Duval Street, Suite 400 

Jacksonville, FL 32202 

Dear Mayor Peyton: 


Subject: 

PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION 


Financial Project ID: 217417-1 

Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida 

You are invited to a subsequent public hearing to discuss proposed 

transportation improvements for a future Jacksonville Transportation Center 

(JTC). The hearing will be held Thursday, January 10, 2008, at the Florida 

Department of Transportation’s Jacksonville Urban Office, Training Facility, 

2198 Edison Street, Jacksonville, FL 32204. 

Doors will open at 4:30 p.m., to allow you time to review and discuss the exhibits 

and have your questions answered by one of our staff. The formal portion of the 

public hearing will begin at 6:30 p.m., with an audio/visual presentation followed 

by an opportunity for public comment. 

It is the policy of the Florida Department of Transportation to prohibit materials 

and/or exhibits in our public workshops, meetings or hearings that are not the 

property of the Department. Therefore, no outside party will be allowed to 

display or hand out materials in any of these events. 

The purpose of the Jacksonville Transportation Center is to provide one central 

location for the different forms of transportation in the area. JTA Bus, JTA 

Skyway, Greyhound and Amtrak will be located at the Center. This will give 

passengers a way to safely and easily move between each terminal. Also 

proposed for the Center is an office complex for transportation agencies, a 

parking facility, retail space and a regional transportation management center. 

The purpose of this public hearing is to discuss the Department’s 

recommendations for the Center and to receive your input.

As of December 20, 2007, project information will be available for inspection and 

review during normal business hours at the Florida Department of Transportation 

Urban Office, 2198 Edison Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida 32204, and the 

Jacksonville Transportation Authority, 100 North Myrtle Avenue, Jacksonville, 

Florida 32204. 

This hearing is being conducted to inform the public of the project and afford the 

public the opportunity to express views concerning the location, conceptual 

design and social, economic and environmental effects of the proposed 

improvements. The Department is required by Florida Statutes to give notice to 

those persons whose property lies in whole or in part within 300 feet of either 

side of the centerline of any alternative considered (even though they may not be 

directly affected). 

Those who wish to submit written statements may do so at the hearing or mail 

them to the address below no later than January 21, 2008. All comments 

received by this date will become part of the public hearing record. 

This hearing will be held in compliance with Chapter 339, F.S., Chapter 120, 

F.S., 23 CFR 771 and 23 USC 128. Public participation is solicited without 

regard to race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, disability or family status. 

Persons who require special accommodations under the Americans with 

Disabilities Act or persons who require translation services (free of charge) 

should contact Craig Teal at the number below at least seven (7) days before the 

public hearing. 

Your attendance at this public hearing is encouraged and any comments made 

are appreciated. If you have any questions or comments please do not hesitate 

to contact me or the Project Manager, Mr. Craig Teal at (800) 749-2967. 

Sincerely, 

Charles W. Baldwin, Jr., P.E. 

District Secretary

!"# 

 

$ %& '( 

 

) 

)* ++" 

 

 

,- . 

 

 

++- / "! 

 

+ 

 

'+- 

)* ++ ! 

 

 

0+1- 

 

""+%- 2% 

)* ++! 

 

+++'( 

 

#/ 3 

)* ++! 

 

4 ,8. 

 

" 

)* ++ ! 

 

 

 

++4 5 + 

66 +/ + 

7 + %(! 

+7 ! # 

 

/ ++)- - 9' 

 

" : 2% 

)* ++! 

 

& 

 

; 

)* ++ 

 

'%& %)- .5++ 

 

8= >"# 

)* ++!"# 

 

 

 

< 

/ 

) 

)* ++! 

 

55+%, 

 

 

)* ++ !

+0+% 

 

#"*& %2% 

)* ++# 

 

 

9)* ++ 

 

#+/ " 

)* ++!# 

 

9)* ++ 

 

' 

)* ++! 

 

9)* ++ 

 

' 

)* ++! 

 

.) 

/ 

)* ++! 

 

 

8. - %- . 

 

3 

)* ++! 

 

 

 

 

 

9)* ++ 

62+' 

2- " 

)* ++! 

 

9)* ++ 

6.> +% 9)>, 

1 

)* ++ ! 

 

'++4 

 

. 

)* ++ ! 

 

)- )'( 

 

8= > 

5 "! 

 

+ 

 

8= > 

)* ++! 

 

 

)'++2 

 

'+- 

)* ++ ! 

 

55? - ' 

 

. 

)* ++ ! 

 

 

'22 

 

8= & " 

"! "

%+2* 

"/ 

8= > 

)* ++! 

 

*+ 

 

. 

)* ++ 

 

- 5/ 7 

 

8= > 

> $@ ""! 

 

 

 

 

- ++7 % 

 

8= 99 > 

)* ++! 

 

2 %7 ++ 

6+ - . 

8= > 

)* ++! 

 

7 ,- ( 

 

.. 

> $@ ! 

 

(%7++ * 

 

"4 A2% 

)* ++!# 

 

 

0B0 *0, 

 

8= >" 

)* ++!" 

 

0'( 

 

" %= * 

)* ++!" 

 

 

) 0 

 

"7%& 

)* ++ ! 

 

,+1++, 

 

' 

)* ++!# 

 

 

,+%, 

 

> 

)* ++ ! 

 

)( 

 

14 + 

)* ++ ! 

 

 

)* ++0 

 

% 

)* ++!

)* ++(. 

 

8= > 

)* ++ #! 

 

)% - 8. ,38'( 

 

' 

)* ++! 

 

 

 

)* ++: '- .+ 

%+% : 

8= ># 

)* ++! 

 

)- ? / ) 

 

8= ># 

+ 

 

2+%) 

 

"= / 

+ ! " 

 

 

8+64 )? %) 

 

'+- 

)* ++ ! 

 

)( 

14 + 

8= > 

)* ++ 

 

(+- 

 

+ 

)* ++ ! 

 

 

 

254 $ 

 

"= 

)* ++!" 

 

5+, 

 

 

)* ++ ! 

 

4 +, 

 

: +%1 " 

)* ++##! 

 

 

'4 ,+ 

 

*& %2% 

)* ++#! 

 

4 $C '( 

 

2%,+% 

)* ++ 

 

 

4 8+* 

 

>2% " 

+7

4 +4 . 

 

. 

)* ++ !# 

 

1- 

 

"& % 

)* ++" 

 

 

 

+4 ++'( 

6$ 2 

'+- 

)* ++ ! 

 

18. 

 

* 

)* ++ ! 

 

8.+7 - , 

((1D(>. 

8= > 

(- .! 

 

+28+'( 

( / 

 

)* ++"!" 

 

 

 

8+- 5 8. 

 

2& ++: 

+1"#!# 

 

8 ++25 

 

"( - A2% 

)* ++ 

 

0& %7 9'( 

 

#8 + 

1 ++(1# 

 

,+C- '( 

 

#= 

)* ++! 

 

5%+2 +% 

 

/ (>. 

)* ++! 

 

 

 

 

).89( 

6+ - . 

8= > 

)* ++! 

 

% 9,- 

6+ *E ? +- 

 

)* ++ !" 

 

9: - '+0FF5%+ 

 

#'+- 

)* ++ !

%++ + 

 

,/ 

85#! 

 

 

4 +- 

 

'+- 

)* ++ ! 

 

- 4 ++'( 

 

'%& % 

)* ++!## 

 

 

7 - ( 

 

## " ++& ++2% 

)* ++! 

 

'%& %? & & . 

 

'+- 

)* ++9 

 

 

(. 

 

#"/ 

)* ++! " 

 

2.'( 

 

'+- 

)* ++ ! 

 

 

*? (( 

 

# ; 

+(#! 

 

(+8. 

 

$+. 

)* ++# 

 

 

(+8. 

 

$+. 

)* ++# 

 

0C+'(- 

 

'+- 

)* ++ ! 

 

/ 0+, 

 

: +% 

)* ++!## 

 

 

 

((. 

1/ * 

,!#" 

 

7 + / ++- 

 

0. 

)* ++ !

'+ / ++- ''( 

6( - - / ++- 

+ 

)* ++ ! 

 

 

 

 

 

/ ++/ + 

 

/ 

)* ++

Inter-City Bus Module consisting of: 

• Greyhound bus facility to be located between 

Houston Street and Adams Street and the I-95 ROW 

and Johnson Street. 

• Terminal building with a floor area of approximately 


• Partial demolition and modifications to the McDaniel 

Building, an existing building having historic value. 

• Bus wash facility. 

• Loading and unloading area for 18 buses. 

• Layover and maintenance bus parking for 17 buses. 

• Fuel and dump facilities 



the Inter-City Bus Module identified herein. 

These streets are portions of Johnson Street and 

Adams Street. 

JTA Office and Regional Transportation 

Management Center Facility Module 

consisting of: 

• Office building with a floor area of 

approximately 60,000 square feet. 

• Regional Transportation Management Center 

(RTMC) with a floor area of approximately 


• A central facility for the security system and 

public announcement system. 

JACKSONVILLE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION CENTER

JTA BUS TERMINAL 

PRIME OSBORNE 

CONVENTION CENTER 

SKYWAY STATION 

PARKING STRUCTURE 

GREYHOUND 

TERMINAL 

RETAIL 

AMTRAK / 

COMMUTER RAIL 

JACKSONVILLE 

TERMINAL 

PUBLIC 

PLAZA 

PARKING 

STRUCTURE 

JACKSONVILLE 

TERMINAL IMPROVEMENTS 

Skyway Module consisting of: 

• Integration of the existing Skyway Terminal with 

related transportation facilities located between West 

Forsyth Street and West Bay Street, and between 

vacant land to the west and Johnson Street. 


200 cars. 

• Skyway Terminal modifications. 

• Provision for two bus rapid transit stations. 


development. 

• Pedestrian plaza 



the Skyway Module identified herein. These 

streets are portions of Johnson Street, West Bay 

Street and West Forsyth Street. 

JTA Bus Facility Module consisting of: 


located between West Forsyth Street and Houston 

Street and Johnson Street. 


• Structured parking facilities for approximately 875 cars. 

• Transport pedestrian concourse within the parking 

structure. 

• Elevated pedestrian bridge connection over West 



development 

− Street improvements within the street right-of-ways 

for the portions of streets directly adjoining the JTA 

Bus Facility Module.

JRTC-Full Package EA-FONSI - Jacksonville Transportation Authority

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?