Policy Framework - Jacksonville Transportation Authority

A Policy Framework for 

Transit-Oriented Development 

Jacksonville Transportation Authority 

Prepared in partnership with 

The City of Jacksonville 

April 22, 2011

A Policy Framework for 

Transit-Oriented Development 

Prepared for:` 

In partnership with: 

April 22, 2011 

Prepared by:

Table of Contents

City of Jacksonville 

Policy Framework for Transit-Oriented Development 

Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

i 

ii 

iii 

Introduction 1 

Why Are We Doing This? 1 

What is Transit-Oriented Development? 1 

What Makes TOD Successful? 2 

What Are the Benefits? 3 

Current Status of Transit and TOD 4 

Jacksonville Transportation Authority Regional Transit Initiatives 4 

City of Jacksonville Documents 5 

Next Steps For Implementation 8 

What is Required to Make TOD Work? 10 

Market Forces 10 

Personal Preferences 10 

Existing Community Contexts 10 

What Other Communities Are Doing to Implement Transit and TOD 11 

Federal Transit Administration 12 

Can TOD Really Be Effective in Jacksonville? 14 

Evaluation of TOD Potential 16 

Transit Technologies 18 

Commuter Rail 18 

Express Bus 18 

Light Rail 19 

Bus Rapid Transit 19 

Monorail “Skyway” 20 

Local Bus 21 

Policy Issues and Opportunities 21 

Multimodal Transportation Plan 21 

Mobility Fee 22 

TOD Incentives 22 

Park and Ride 23 

Summary 24 

Table of Contents | i



List of Figures and Tables 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1 - JTA Transit Initiatives 4 

Figure 2 - 2030 Mobility Plan Development Areas 5 

Figure 3 - City of Jacksonville Comprehensive Plan 2030 - Future Land Use Map 6 

Figure 4 - Sample Graphics - Jacksonville Design Guidelines and Best Practices Handbook 7 

Figure 5 - Federal Transit Administration New Starts Project Justification Rating 12 

Figure 6 - TOD Corridor and Station Allocation Map 17 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1: Federal Transit Administration - New Starts Criteria and Measures 13 

Table 2: TOD Corridor and Station Area Summary 17 

ii | List of Figures and Tables

Acknowledgements



The City of Jacksonville Design Guidelines for Transit-Oriented Development were 

developed through partnership between the Jacksonville Transportation Authority 

(JTA), The City of Jacksonville (COJ), and the consulting team of England-Thims & 

Miller, Inc., and Renaissance Planning Group. 

Jacksonville Transportation Authority 

Michael J. Blaylock, Exec. Dir./CEO 

Brad Thoburn 

James Boyle 

Suraya Teeple, AICP 


Bill Killingsworth, Planning Director 

Kristen Reed, AICP, City Planner Manager 

Susan Cohn, AICP, City Planner II 

Laurie Kattreh, Transportation Specialist 

England-Thims & Miller, Inc. 

Donald R. Smith, AICP 

Karl M. Soderholm, RLA, AICP 

Daniel Sorrow, RLA, Project Manager 

Renaissance Planning Group 

Alan Steinbeck, AICP 

Jason Espie, AICP 

Acknowledgements | iii

Policy Framework for TOD



Introduction 

The JTA and the COJ are working together to 

develop policies and procedures for incentivizing and 

implementing transit-oriented development (TOD) 

within the area of the existing and future transit 

system. Two complementary products resulted from 

this effort, a policy framework and design guidelines. 

This Policy Framework document evaluates the 

context, completeness and effectiveness of current 

policies and regulations in addressing transitsupportive 

developments. The Design Guidelines are 

a land use regulatory tool to support development 

and redevelopment along major transit corridors 

and transit stations. Together these two documents 

outline the context and recommended practices to 

foster efficient, multimodal development patterns. 

Why Are We Doing This? 

For several years, Jacksonville has been exploring 

the benefits of improving coordination among 

transportation and land use plans and analyzing 

strategies to foster an integrated planning approach. 

The JTA Board adopted a TOD policy outlining the 

agency goals on September 10, 2008. The policy 

includes the following goals: 

• Increase and enhance transit ridership, “peak 

hour” transit share and the transit experience on 

the JTA system. 

• Support a variety of transportation modes within 

the JTA system. 

• Establish, encourage and enhance community 

development and planning objectives for 

development at or around transit facilities which 

will support transit use and transit accessibility. 

• Promote a reduction in auto dependency and 

Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) per capita. 

• Provide a variety of services and uses within 

walking distance of residences. 

• Promote safe and attractive pedestrian-oriented 

public infrastructure 

• Facilitate an appropriate interface between street 

design and building frontage. 

The purpose of this Policy Framework, and the 

accompanying Design Guidelines for TOD, are 

Streetcar, Downtown Jacksonville (1935) 

to provide information, analysis and tools to help 

achieve the JTA goals. These documents recommend 

specific policies and implementation strategies to 

spur development patterns and urban design that 

complements bus and rail transit investments, and 

supports a high-quality, efficient and sustainable 

living and working environment in the City of 

Jacksonville. 

What is Transit-Oriented 

Development? 

Reconnecting America, the only national non-profit 

organization devoted to promoting best practices 

in transit-oriented development, defines TOD as 

“more compact development within easy walking 

distance of transit stations (typically a half mile) 

that contains a mix of uses such as housing, jobs, 

shops, restaurants and entertainment. TOD is really 

about creating walkable, sustainable communities 

for people of all ages and incomes and providing 

more transportation and housing choices (including 

townhomes, apartments, live-work spaces, and lofts). 

These neighborhoods provide for a lifestyle that’s 

convenient, affordable and active, and create places 

where our children can play and our parents can 

grow old comfortably.” 

TOD is a tool to help manage growth and improve 

the quality of life in areas served by transit. TOD 

provides communities with an alternative to low- 

Introduction | 1



density suburban sprawl and auto-dependent land 

use patterns by creating active places with a mix of 

uses and destinations located within an easy walk to 

transit – places that allow people to live, work and 

play without having to drive everywhere. 

TOD is not just development that is near transit, it’s 

development that also: 

• Increases “location efficiency” so people can walk, 

bike and take transit; 

• Boosts transit ridership and minimizes the 

impacts of traffic; 

• Provides a rich mix of housing, jobs, shopping 

and recreational choices; 

• Provides value for the public and private sectors, 

and for both new and existing residents; 

• Creates a sense of community and of place. 

What Makes TOD Successful? 

Places with high activity levels, a rich diversity of 

destinations, and multiple uses assembled in an 

environment designed with walkablity in mind will 

increase transit ridership. Successful TODs combine 

compact communities, a diverse mix of uses, a highquality 

pedestrian environment, and a defined center 

to create great places at transit stations. 

Compact Communities 

A key ingredient for walkable communities 

and support for transit is having more compact 

communities that create shorter walking distances 

between residences and other destinations, including 

commercial services, schools, parks and transit. 

Mix of Uses 

A transit-supportive environment includes a mixture 

of residential, commercial, service, employment, and 

public uses with active frontages, such as restaurants 

and retail, on the first floor. Mixed-use development 

helps to create vibrant activity throughout the day 

and night and makes it easier for people to live, work 

and play in the same area without having to travel 

great distances. 

Quality Pedestrian Environment 

Vibrant communities, with or without transit, 

are always convenient and comfortable places for 

pedestrians. Streets that have wide sidewalks, 

landscaping, and active uses such as storefront 

windows create inviting places where people want to 

walk, window shop and people watch. 

A Defined Center 

Transit is particularly successful in communities and 

neighborhoods that have defined centers, offering 

multiple attractions and reasons for pedestrians to 

frequent the area. 

Quality pedestrian environment 

Compact communities, higher densities 

2 | Introduction



What Are the Benefits? 

TOD conveys a number of benefits to local 

communities and the larger metropolitan region: 

Provide Mobility Choices 

Places linked by transit create more mobility options, 

especially for young people, the elderly and people 

who do not own cars or prefer not to drive. 

Increase Public Safety 

Active places that are busy through the day and 

evening provide “eyes on the street” and help to 

improve safety. 

Reduce the Need to Drive 

TOD allows people to walk or take transit to the 

destinations and services that they need without 

having to get in their car. 

Increase Disposable 

Household Income 

Housing and transportation are the first and second 

largest household expenses, respectively. TOD can 

reduce driving costs and the need for more than one 

car per household, saving households $3,000-$4,000 

per year. 

Reduce Air Pollution and 

Energy Consumption Rates 

By providing safe and easy pedestrian access to 

transit, TOD can lower rates of air pollution, energy 

consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and the 

overall carbon footprint. 

Help Protect Existing Single 

Family Neighborhoods 

TOD directs more compact development to 

appropriate areas near transit, thereby reducing 

pressure for such development next to existing singlefamily 

neighborhoods. 

Play a Role in Economic 

Development 

TOD is increasingly used as a tool to help revitalize 

aging downtowns and urban neighborhoods. 

Decreasing Local 

Infrastructure Costs 

Through more compact development, TOD can 

reduce infrastructure costs to local governments and 

property owners by up to 25 percent. 

Provide mobility choices 

Reduce the need to drive 

Help protect existing neighborhoods 

Introduction | 3



Current Status of Transit and TOD 

Jacksonville Transportation Authority Regional Transit Initiatives 

The JTA is taking a long term view of future transit 

needs for the city of Jacksonville and the region. The 

major transit routes defined by the JTA Transit Initiatives 

Map (TIM) are depicted in Figure 1 below. This map 

illustrates identified corridors for major proposed transit 

modes, as well as provides conceptual locations for transit 

stations. This map was used to organize the locations of 

both Transit Corridors and Place Types which are the 

building blocks of the Design Guidelines. As the JTA 

system grows, and the TIM is revised to identify new 

transit corridors and stations, the Design Guidelines will 

need to be updated to encompass any new routes in order 

to provide for TOD opportunities along all major transit 

routes within the city. 

Summary of JTA TOD Goals 

• Increase and enhance transit ridership 

• Support a variety of transportation 

modes 

• Encourage and enhance community 

development which support transit use 

accessibility 

• Reduce auto dependency 

• Provide a variety of services and uses 

within walking distance of residences 

• Promote safe and attractive pedestrian 

oriented public infrastructure 

4 | Current Status of Transit and TOD 

Figure 1 - JTA Transit Initiatives

I-10 

I-10 

BEAVER ST 

I-10 

CRYSTAL SPRINGS RD 

103rd ST 

GARDEN ST 

HERLONG RD 

COLLINS RD 

ST 

FOREST 

MONCRIEF RD 

PARK CITY RD 

I-295 

WILSON BLVD 

MORSE AVE 

BLVD 

DUNN AVE 

SAN JUAN 

LAKE SHORE BLVD 

I-10 

AVE 

CASSAT AVE 

PARK ST 

BLVD 

TIMUQUANA RD 

18th ST 

SOUTEL DR 

FARMS BLVD 

I-295 

DUNN AVE 

I-95 

Fu ler 

Bridge 

I-95 

8th ST 

BUSCH DR 

PICKERS RD 

RD 

I-95 

HAINES ST EXPY 

TALLEYRAND AVE 

John E. Mathews 

Bridge 

9A 

BOWDEN RD 

SUNBEAM RD 

I-295 

GLYNLEA RD 

GREENLAND RD 

CENTURY ST 

TOUCHTON RD 

I-295 

KERNAN BLVD 

I-295 

BEACH BLVD 


I-10 


CASSAT AVE 

I-10 

CASSAT AVE 

J. TURNER BUTLER BLVD 

A1A 

ATLANTIC BLVD 

FARMS BLVD 


I-295 




City of Jacksonville Documents 

2030 Mobility Plan 

The Policy Framework and Design Guidelines are intended to build upon and implement the foundation laid 

by existing studies, reports and adopted documents. They follow the direction provided in the adopted City of 

Jacksonville City 2030 of Comprehensive Jacksonville City Plan and the of 2030 Jacksonville 

Mobility Plan. The 2030 Mobility Plan is organized into 

five tiers of Development Areas ranging from the high-density, urbanized core to low-density outlying rural areas: 

Development Areas Development Areas 

Central Business District, Urban Priority Area (UPA), Urban Area (UA), Suburban Area (SA), and Rural Area 

(RA). These Central Business development District areas were integrated Central Business into District the Future Land Use Element of the 2030 Comprehensive 

Plan, and Urban are Priority shown Areain Figure 2 below. Urban The Priority Central AreaBusiness District is the downtown transportation concurrency 

exception Urban area, Area and serves as the core Urban of concentric Area development areas. The UPA generally includes the historic 

core of Suburban the City Areand major connecting Suburban corridors, Area and encourages infill at urban densities, revitalization and the 

use of existing Rural Area infrastructure through Rural redevelopment. Area The UA is the next tier and generally corresponds with 

the densely Roads developed portions of the Roads City that have been in residential or employment generating uses prior 

to consolidation. Major HighwaysLike the UPA, the UA Major is Highways expected to employ urban development characteristics. The SA tier 

generally 

River 

corresponds with the urbanizing 

River 

portions of the City developed after consolidation. Development 

within the SA should promote interconnectivity and generally have urban development characteristics. The 

outermost tier is the RA, which is comprised of all land not included in the previous development areas and 

corresponds with undeveloped, agriculture, or conservation lands intended to be developed at lower densities 

to minimize demand for new infrastructure. The development pattern of five concentric, development areas 

provided the framework for creating the Design Guidelines for TOD. 

City of Jacksonville of Jacksonville 

Development Areas 

Development Areas 

Central Business District 

Urban Priority Area 

Urban Area 

Suburban Area 

Rural Area 

Roads 

Major Highways 

River 


Urban Priority Area 

Urban Area 

Suburban Area 

Rural Area 

Roads 


River 

*2030 Comprehensive Plan, Capital Improvement Element # CI-1, 

Transportation Element # T-14, Future Land Use Element # L-28 

Data provided by City of Jacksonville, Florida 

Planning and Development Department 

Developed by James M. Reed, AICP - jreed@coj.net 

November 9, 2010 

Content intended for illustrative purposes only. 

U.S 301 BALDWIN-MAXVILLE RD 

YELLOW WATER RD 

OTIS RD 

NORMANDY BLVD 

Feet 

0 7,500 15,000 30,000 45,000 60,000 

U.S. 301 BALDWIN-BRYCEVILLE RD 

I-10 

I-10 


OLD PLANK RD 



*2030 Comprehensive Plan, Capital Improvement *2030 Element Comprehensive # CI-1, Plan, Capital Improvement Element # CI-1, 

Transportation Element # T-14, Future Land Use Element Transportation # L-28 Element # T-14, Future Land Use Element # L-28 



Developed by James M. Reed, AICP - jreed@coj.net Developed by James M. Reed, AICP - jreed@coj.net 




CHAFFEE RD 



COMMONWEALTH AVE 

PLUMMER RD 

BLAIR RD 

JONES RD 

OLD MIDDLEBURG RD 

NORMANDY 

I-10 

I-10 

JONES RD 

BEAVER ST 

PRITCHARD RD 

SHINDLER DR 

BEAVER ST 

A RGYLE 

BULLS BAY HWY 

FOURAKER RD 

WESTPORT RD 

OLD KINGS RD 

NEW KINGS RD 

GARDEN 

RICKER RD 

IMESON RD 


RAMPART RD 

PICKETTVILLE RD 

I-295 

OTIS RD 

OTIS RD 

NORMANDY BLVD 




LANE AVE 

LANE AVE 


LEM TURNER RD 

JAMMES RD 

5th AVE 

BEAVER ST 

BLANDING BLVD 

EDGEWOOD AVE 

SEABOARD AVE 

LAKE SHORE 

TROUT RIVER BLVD 

POST ST 

RD 

I-295 

COLLINS 

EDGEWOOD AV E 

ORTEGA 

45th ST 

McDUFF AVE 

ROOSEVELT BLVD 


PARK ST 

KINGS RD 

KING ST 

RD 

MONCRIEF 

AVE 

EDGEWOOD 

RIVERSIDE AVE 

OLD PLANK RD 

PECAN PARK RD 

ST 

BEAVER BAY 

ST 

Wa ren 

DUVAL RD 

Bridge 

Henry H. Buckman Bridge 

PECAN PARK RD 

AIRPORT RD 

ST. Elmo 

Acosta 

BROAD ST 

20th ST EXPY 

STATE ST 

SAN MARCO BLVD 

MANDARIN RD 

Bridge 

Alsop 

RD 

MANDARIN 

BRADY 

ORANGE 

John T. 

MAIN ST 

SAN JOSE BLVD 

HENDRICKS AVE 

CHAFFEE RD 

LIBERTY ST 

ST AUGUSTINE RD 

BUSCH DR E 

SCOTT MILL RD 


I-95 

BEAUCLERC RD 

SAN JOSE BLVD 

Bridge 

BEACH BLVD 

J ULINGTON CREEK RD 

Hart 

EMERSON ST 

HECKSCHER DR 

Isaiah D. 

SAN JOSE BLVD 

LORETTO RD 

HARTLEY RD 

MAIN ST 

EASTPORT RD 

PHILIPS HWY 

DUVAL STATION RD 

PLUMMER RD 

BLAIR RD 

POWERS AVE 

ATLANTIC BLVD 

STARRATT RD 

P ULASKI RD 

HART EXPY 

OLD 

BAYMEADOWS RD 

I-10 

UNIVERSITY BLVD 

KINGS RD 

NEW BERLIN RD 


EASTPORT RD 

HOOD LANDING RD 

CESERY RD 

YELLOW BLUFF RD 

PARENTAL HOME RD 

HOOD RD 

JULINGTON CREEK RD 

FORT CAROLINE RD 

ROGERO RD 

ST. AUGUSTINE RD 

TOWNSEND RD 

EXPY 

ARLINGTON 

RD 

ARLINGTON 

STAR RD 

LONE 

ALTAMA RD 





Feet 

0 7,500 15,000 30,000 0 45,000 7,500 15,000 60,000 30,000 45,000 60,000 

I-10 


OLD PLANK RD 

CHAFFEE RD 




PLUMMER RD 

BLAIR RD 

I-10 

JONES RD 

I-10 

103rd ST 

PHILIPS HWY 

I-95 

BELFORT RD 

MERRILL RD 

HOGAN RD 

STARRATT RD 

Napoleon Bonaparte 

Broward Bridge 

SOUTHSIDE BLVD 

NEW BERLIN RD 

SOUTHSIDE CONNECTOR 

CEDAR POINT RD 


BONEY RD 

MONUMENT RD 

9-A 

ST JOHNS BLUFF RD 

HECKSCHER DR 

I-95 


ATLANTIC BLVD 


PHILIPS HWY 

McCORMICK RD 

MT PLEASANT RD 


GIRVIN RD 

5th AVE 

HODGES BLVD 

Figure 2 - 2030 Mobility Plan Development Areas 

Feet 

Current 

WILSON BLVD 

Status of Transit and TOD | 5 

NORMANDY 

JONES RD 


NORMANDY 

BEAVER ST 

GARDEN ST 

JONES RD 

GARDEN ST 

JONES RD 

PRITCHARD RD 

PRITCHARD RD 

SHINDLER DR 

BULLS BAY HWY 

HERLONG RD 

A RGYLE 

BULLS BAY HWY 

OTIS RD 

HERLONG RD 

NORMANDY BLVD 

COLLINS RD 

FOURAKER RD 

OLD KINGS RD 

NEW KINGS RD 

FOURAKER RD 

WESTPORT RD 

GARDEN 

OLD KINGS RD 

IMESON RD 

NEW KINGS RD 

GARDEN 

ST 

RICKER RD 

IMESON RD 

MONCRIEF RD 


ST 

FOREST 


MONCRIEF RD 


RAMPART RD 


PARK CITY RD 

I-295 

LANE AVE 

LANE AVE 


LEM TURNER RD 

LANE AVE 

LANE AVE 

WILSON BLVD 

MORSE AVE 

DUNN AVE 

BLVD 


BEAVER ST 

SAN JUAN 

LEM TURNER RD 

DUNN AVE 

5th AVE 

BEAVER ST 

SAN JUAN 

JAMMES RD 

OLD PLANK RD 

BLANDING BLVD 

A1A 

AVE 

HECKSCHER DR 

SAN PABLO RD 

EDGEWOOD AVE 

PARK ST 

LAKE SHORE 

AVE 


OCEAN ST 

POST ST 

EDGEWOOD AVE 

PARK ST 

SEABOARD AVE 

LAKE SHORE 


CHAFFEE RD 

I-295 

BLVD 

POST ST 

A1A 

COLLINS RD 

BLVD 


EDGEWOOD AVE 

MAYPORT RD 

TIMUQUANA RD 

118th ST 

EDGEWOOD AVE 

ORTEGA 

SOUTEL DR 

45th ST 

PLUMMER RD 

SOUTEL DR 

BLAIR RD 

McDUFF AVE 


A1A 

45th ST 

McDUFF AVE 

I-10 


A1A 

PARK ST 


KINGS RD 

KING ST 

PARK ST 

KINGS RD 

KING ST 

I-295 

RD 

MONCRIEF 

AVE 

EDGEWOOD 

DUNN AVE 

RIVERSIDE AVE 

37 

I-295 

RD 

MONCRIEF 

AVE 

EDGEWOOD 


103rd ST 

JONES RD 


NORMANDY 

DUNN AVE 

GARDEN ST 

JONES RD 

RIVERSIDE AVE 

PRITCHARD RD 

SHINDLER DR 

PECAN PARK RD 

ST 

BEAVER BAY 

ST 

I-95 

Fu ler 

Warren 

Bridge 

DUVAL RD 

Bridge 

PECAN PARK RD 

ST 

BEAVER BAY 

ST 

A RGYLE 

BULLS BAY HWY 

Warren 

Bridge 

HERLONG RD 

AIRPORT RD 

ST. Elmo 

Acosta 

I-95 

Fu ler 

COLLINS RD 

BROAD ST 

20th ST EXPY 

I-95 

PECAN PARK RD 

8th ST 

STATE ST 


Bridge 

DUVAL RD 

Bridge 


Alsop 

AIRPORT RD 

ST. Elmo 

Acosta 

John T. 

BROAD ST 

FOURAKER RD 

WESTPORT RD 

MAIN ST 

SAN JOSE BLVD 

20th ST EXPY 

MANDARIN RD 

HENDRICKS AVE 

BUSCH DR 

LIBERTY ST 

I-95 

RD 

MANDARIN 

BRADY 

ORANGE 

PECAN PARK RD 

8th ST 

STATE ST 


OLD KINGS RD 

Bridge 

NEW KINGS RD 

Alsop 

GARDEN 

John T. 

MAIN ST 

SAN JOSE BLVD 

RICKER RD 

IMESON RD 

HENDRICKS AVE 

BUSCH DR 


ST 

LIBERTY ST 

FOREST 

BUSCH DR E 


RD 

RAMPART RD 

I-95 



I-295 

PICKERS RD 

I-95 

BUSCH DR E 

MONCRIEF RD 

PARK CITY RD 

SCOTT MILL RD 

I-95 

Bridge 

BEACH BLVD 

I-95 

LANE AVE 

TALLEYRAND AVE 

Hart 

EMERSON ST 

HECKSCHER DR 

Isaiah D. 

MAIN ST 

DUV 

EASTPORT RD 

PHILIPS HWY 

LANE AVE 

WILSON BLVD 

MORSE AVE 

BEAUCLERC RD 

BLVD 


SAN JOSE BLVD 

LEM 

EAS 

DU 

Brid 

John 

J 

B 

BLVD 

PHIL 

SAN 

I-295 

JAMMES RD 

ORT

I-10 

I-10 

I-10 

I-10 


103rd ST 

GARDEN ST 

PRITCHARD RD 

HERLONG RD 

COLLINS RD 

A R GYLE 

I-10 

ST 

FOREST 

MONCRIEF RD 

I-10 

PARK CITY RD 

I-295 


WILSON BLVD 

103rd ST 

MORSE AVE 

BLVD 

DUNN AVE 

5th AVE 


SAN JUAN 

GARDEN ST 


PRITCHARD RD 

AVE 

CASSAT AVE 

PARK ST 

HERLONG RD 

POST S T 

E 

COLLINS RD 

TIMUQUANA RD 

A R GYLE 

118th ST 

SOUTEL DR 

FARMS BLVD 

ST 

FOREST 

MONCRIEF RD 

PARK CITY RD 

I-295 

I-10 

WILSON BLVD 

DUNN AVE 

BLVD 

DUNN AVE 

5th AVE 



103rd ST 

MORSE AVE 

SAN JUAN 

E 

GARDEN ST 


AVE 

DUVAL RD 

PRITCHARD RD 

CASSAT AVE 

PARK ST 

HERLONG RD 

POST S T 

E 

20th ST EXPY 

8th ST 

LVD 

TIMUQUANA RD 

COLLINS RD 

118th ST 

A R GYLE 

A 

BUSCH DR 

SOUTEL DR 

FARMS BLVD 

PICKERS RD 

RD 

I-95 

ST 

FOREST 

MONCRIEF RD 


PARK CITY RD 

I-295 

J 

DUNN AVE 

WILSON BLVD 

MORSE AVE 


Bridge 

BLVD 

DUNN AVE 

E 

5th AVE 

9A 


SAN JUAN 


DUVAL RD 

AVE 

BOWDEN RD 

CASSAT AVE 

I-10 

PARK ST 

SUNBEAM RD 

20th ST EXPY 

8th ST 

POST S T 

I-295 


ROGERO RD 


E 

LVD 

103rd ST 

A 

GLYNLEA RD 

BUSCH DR 

TIMUQUANA RD 

118th ST 

RD 

GREENLAND RD 

JULINGTON CR E EK RD 

TOWNSEND RD 

I-95 

SOUTEL DR 

PICKERS RD 

GARDEN ST 

ST 

RD 

MERRILL RD 

ARLINGTON EXPY 

FARMS BLVD 

ST 

FOREST 

FOREST 


ST 

PRITCHARD RD 

CENTURY ST 

HERLONG RD 

STARRATT RD 

I-295 

I-295 

TOUCHTON RD 

WILSON BLVD 

COLLINS RD 

WILSON BLVD 

J 

A R GYLE 

I-295 

DUNN AVE 


Bridge 


E 

ST 

FOREST 

9A 

MONCRIEF RD 

BOWDEN RD 

PARK CITY RD 

SUNBEAM RD 



I-295 

WILSON BLVD 


DUVAL RD 

MORSE AVE 

I-295 

20th ST EXPY 

AVE 

BLVD 

CASSAT AVE 

DUNN AVE 


ROGERO RD 

GLYNLEA RD 

8th ST 

AVE 

LVD 

CASSAT AVE 

A 

5th AVE 


SAN JUAN 

E 

E 


AVE 

TIMUQUANA RD 

CASSAT AVE 

PARK ST 

TIMUQUANA RD 

GREENLAND RD 


CASSAT AVE 

BUSCH DR 

TOWNSEND RD 

RD 


PICKERS RD 

RD 

I-95 


MERRILL RD 

CENTURY ST 

STARRATT RD 

McCORMICK RD 

POST S T 

TOUCHTON RD 

E 

TIMUQUANA RD 

118th ST 

J 

FARMS BLVD 

FARMS BLVD 

KERNAN BLVD 

SOUTEL DR 


Bridge 


BEACH BLVD 

FARMS BLVD 

9A 

BOWDEN RD 

I-295 

SUNBEAM RD 

DUNN AVE 

DUNN AVE 

DUNN AVE 

DUNN AVE 

I-295 


ROGERO RD 

GLYNLEA RD 

E 

E 

E 

GREENLAND RD 


E 

TOWNSEND RD 

RD 

I-295 

DUVAL RD 

MERRILL RD 


20th ST EXPY 

McCORMICK RD 

CENTURY ST 

STARRATT RD 

8th ST 

LVD 

TOUCHTON RD 

KERNAN BLVD 

A 

BUSCH DR 

RD 

LVD 

BEACH BLVD 


LVD 

PICKERS RD 

A 

LVD 

MAYPORT RD 

I-95 

BUSCH DR 

BUSCH DR 



ATLANTIC BLVD 

BUSCH DR 

AVE 

J 

CASSAT AVE 

A1A 



Bridge 



E 

A1A 

9A 


BOWDEN RD 


SUNBEAM RD 

FARMS BLVD 

McCORMICK RD 

Bridge 

Bridge 

I-295 



ROGERO RD 

GLYNLEA RD 

Bridge 

KERNAN BLVD 

GREENLAND RD 


MAYPORT RD 

TOWNSEND RD 

RD 

MERRILL RD 


ATLANTIC BLVD 

BEACH BLVD 

CENTURY ST 

STARRATT RD 

TOUCHTON RD 

A1A 

ROGERO RD 

ROGERO RD 

ROGERO RD 

GLYNLEA RD 

GLYNLEA RD 

GLYNLEA RD 

A1A 


E 



Comprehensive Plan 

The City of Jacksonville’s Comprehensive Plan includes a provision for TOD in the medium/high density 

residential as well as non-residential or commercial land use categories. This TOD allowance is applicable to 

all sites within ½ mile of JTA’s planned Rapid Transit System or Commuter Rail lines. TOD allowances 

are intended to encourage compact, mixed use development on sites that are accessible by transit. A TOD 

designation ensures that all new development within walking distance of an existing or planned rapid transit 

alignment or station is transit supportive and pedestrian focused. 

Figure 3 shows the City of Jacksonville 2030 Future Land Use Map. TOD allowances are included in the 

Community/General Commercial (CGC), Residential-Professional-Institutional (RPI), and Neighborhood 

Commercial (NC) future Future land Land use designations. Use* Densities to the extent allowed in the High Density Residential 

(HDR) 

City 

future 

of 

land 

Jacksonville 

Categories 

use designation are allowable within TOD areas. In addition to the CGC and RPI future 

Agriculture I 

land Future use designations, Land Use* Business Agriculture II Park (BP) future land use category also includes additional density allowance 

for TOD. TOD densities Agriculture in each III 

Categories 

future land use designation are further categorized based on location as urban 

Agriculture IV 

priority, 

Agriculture 

urban 

I 

and suburban development areas as defined in both the 2030 Mobility Plan and the 2030 

Business Park 

Agriculture II 

Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element. 

City of Central Jacksonville 

Business District 

Agriculture III 

Community/Gen. Commercial 


City Future of Land Jacksonville 

Use* City of Jacksonville 

Business Park 

Conservation 

City of City Jacksonville of Jacksonville 

Categories 

Agriculture I 


High Density Residential 

Future Land Agriculture Use* II 

Categories 

Community/Gen. Commercial Heavy Industrial 


Agriculture I 

Categories 

Categories 

Conservation Agriculture IV Low Density Residential 


Agriculture I 

Agriculture I 

Agriculture I Business Park 

High Density Residential Light Industrial Agriculture III 





Agriculture Agriculture III 


Heavy Industrial II 

Medium Density Residential 


Business Park 



Agriculture Low Density IIIResidential 

Conservation Neighborhood Central Commercial 

Business District 

Business Park 

Business Park 

Agriculture IV High Density Residential 


Central Light Business Industrial District 

Public Buildings and Facilities 


Heavy Industrial 

Conservation 

Community/Gen. 

Community/Gen. Commercial Business Commercial 

Medium Density Park Residential 

Low Density Residential Regional Commercial 


Conservation 

Conservation 

Central Business District Light Industrial 

Neighborhood Commercial Recreation and Heavy Open Industrial Space 





Low Density Residential 

Heavy 

Heavy Industrial Public Industrial Buildings and Facilities Residential - Professional - Instutional 

Neighborhood Commercial 

Light Industrial 

Low 

Low Density Residential Conservation 

Density Residential 

Regional Commercial Public Buildings and Facilities Rural Residential Medium Density Residential 





Medium Recreation Density Residential and Open Space Water 



Neighborhood Heavy Industrial 

Commercial 

Neighborhood Commercial Residential - Professional Instutional Water Dependent/Water Related 

City Jacksonville 

Regional Commercial 

Recreation and Open Space 

Residential - Professional - Instutional Regional Commercial 


Public Buildings and Facilities Low Rural Density Residential Residential Rural Residential Multi Use Recreation and Open Space 



Light Industrial Water 

Residential - Professional - Instutional 

Recreation Water and Open Space 


Recreation and Open Space 

Water Dependent/Water Related Rural Residential 

Future Residential 

Residential - Professional - Instutional Medium - Professional 

Water Dependent/Water Density Land - Residential 

Instutional Use* 

Multi UseRelated 

River Water 

Rural Residential 


Categories 

Neighborhood Multi Use Commercial 


Water Dependent/Water Related 

Water 

Duval County 

Water 

River 

Multi Use 

Water Public Buildings and Facilities 

Water Dependent/Water Related Major Agriculture Dependent/Water Highways I Related 

Duval County 


Multi 

Multi Use 

Regional Use 

River Agriculture Commercial II 

River 


Major Highways Recreation and Open Space 

Duval County 

River Duval Agriculture County III 

River 

Duval Residential County - Professional - Instutional 

Duval County 


Future Land Future Use* Land Use* 

Rural Business Residential Park 


6 | Current Status of Transit and TOD 


Water Central Business District 


I-10 

BEAVER ST 

Water Community/Gen. Dependent/Water Commercial Related 

Multi Conservation Use 

Major High Density Highways Residential 

River Heavy Industrial 

Duval Low Density CountyResidential 






OTIS RD 

I-10 

NORMANDY BLVD 

I-10 


Residential Developed - Professional by James - Instutional M. Reed, AICP - jreed@coj.net 

* 2030 Comprehensive 

* 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use September, 

Plan, Future 

Element Map 2009 

Land Use Element Map Data L-19 provided by Planning and Development Department 

L-19 


Data provided by Planning Developed by James M. Reed, AICP - jreed@coj.net 

Data provided by Planning and Development Content 

and Development 

Department intended for illustrative 

Department 

purposes only. 

Water 

September, 2009 



Feet 

September, Water 2009 Dependent/Water 0 8,000 Related 16,000 32,000 Content intended 48,000 for illustrative purposes 64,000 only. 


Content intended Multi Use 

Data provided by Planning and Development Department 

for illustrative purposes only. 

Feet 


0 8,000 16,000 32,000 48,000 64,000 

* 2030 Comprehensive Major Highways Plan, Future Land Use Element Map L-19 

Feet 

Developed Feet by James M. Reed, AICP - jreed@coj.net 

0 8,000 16,000 32,000 48,000 64,000 

0 8,000 16,000 32,000 River 

48,000 64,000 


Future Land Use* 

OLD PLANK RD 

CHAFFEE RD 

COMMO N WEALTH AVE 

Recreation Data and Open provided Space by Planning and Development Department 

* 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Element Map L-19 

BLAIR RD 

PLUMMER RD 




JONES RD 


I-10 

NORMANDY 

I-10 

JONES RD 

BEAVER ST 

SHINDLER DR 

BEAVER ST 

BULLS BAY HWY 

FOURAKER RD 

WESTPORT RD 

NEW KINGS RD 

OLD KINGS RD 

GARDEN 

RICKER RD 

IMESON RD 

OTIS RD 

OTIS RD 


NORMANDY BLVD 

NORMANDY BLVD 

RAMPART RD 



I-295 

LANE AVE 

LANE AVE 

LEM TURNER RD 

JAMMES RD 

BEAVER ST 

BLANDING BLVD 

I-10 

EDGEWOOD AVE 


SEABOARD AVE 


LAKE SHOR 

COLLINS RD 

I-295 


EDGEWOOD AVE 

BLVD 

ORTEGA 

I-10 

45th ST 

McDUFF AVE 


BEAVER ST 


KINGS RD 

OLD PLANK RD 

KING ST 

PA RK ST 

OLD PLANK RD 

I-295 

EDGEWOOD AVE 

MONCRIEF RD 

RIVERSIDE A V 

CHAFFEE RD 

CHAFFEE RD 

OTIS RD 

NORMANDY BLVD 

PECAN PARK RD 

I-95 

BAY ST 

Fu ler 

Wa ren 

Bridge 

Bridge 


AIRPORT RD 

BROAD ST 

BEAVER ST 

ST. Elmo 

Acosta 

BLAIR RD 

I-95 

ORANGE 

MAND 

PECAN PARK RD 

PLUMMER RD 


MAIN ST 

STATE ST 

Bridge 

SAN MA R CO B 

Alsop 

John T. 

HENDRICKS AVE 

MANDARIN RD 

B RADY 

LIBERTY ST 


SAN 

I-10 

JOSE BLVD 

RIN R D 

BUSCH DR E 

I-95 

ST A UGUSTINE RD 

SC OTT MILL RD 

SAN JOSE BLVD 

Bridge 


103rd ST 

JONES RD 

NORMANDY 

AND AVE 

TALLEYR 

Isaiah D. 

Hart 

MAIN ST 

EASTPORT RD 


HECKSCHER DR 

GARDEN ST 

BEACH BLVD 

EMERSON ST 

JONES RD 

PHILIPS HWY 

BEAUCLERC RD 

SAN JOSE BLVD 

POWERS AVE 

HARTLEY RD 

LORETTO RD 

P U 

LASKI RD 

UNIVERSITY B LVD 

OLD 

ULINGTON CREEK RD 

SHINDLER DR 

STARRATT RD 

ATLANTIC BL VD 

HART EXPY 

NEW BERLIN RD 


PRITCHARD RD 

BULLS BAY HWY 

KINGS RD 

EASTPORT RD 

BAYMEADOWS RD 

HERLONG RD 

CESERY RD 



Figure 3 - City of Jacksonville Comprehensive Plan 2030 - Future Land Use Map 


OLD PLANK RD 


Data provided by Planning and September, Development 2009Department 

Duval County 

Developed by James M. Reed, Content AICP intended - jreed@coj.net for illustrative purposes only. 


0 8,000 16,000 


32,000 48,000 

Feet 

64,000 


OLD PLANK RD 






I-10 

BEAVER ST 

OTIS RD 

NORMANDY BLVD 

CHAFFEE RD 



I-10 





I-10 

I-10 

BEAVER ST 

BEAVER ST 

I-10 

OTIS RD 

NORMANDY BLVD 

BLAIR RD 


PLUMMER RD 

OTIS RD 

JONES RD 


NORMANDY 

Feet 

JONES RD 

SHINDLER DR 

OLD PLANK RD 

BULLS BAY HWY 

FOURAKER RD 

WESTPORT RD 

NEW KINGS RD 

OLD KINGS RD 

GARDEN 


CHAFFEE RD 

RICKER RD 

IMESON RD 


RAMPART RD 


BLAIR RD 


I-295 

PLUMMER RD 


LANE AVE 

OLD PLANK RD 

LANE AVE 

I-10 

LEM TURNER RD 

JONES RD 


JAMMES RD 

BEAVER ST 

BEAVER ST 

NORMANDY 

E RD 

BLANDING BLVD 

JONES RD 

I-10 

EDGEWOOD AVE 

SEABOARD AVE 

SHINDLER DR 

LAKE SHOR 

I-295 

BLAIR RD 

PLUMMER RD 


COLLINS RD 

EDGEWOOD AVE 

BLVD 

I-10 

ORTEGA 

OTIS RD 

NORMANDY BLVD 

AIR RD 

BULLS BAY HWY 

103rd ST 

I-10 

FOURAKER RD 

JONES RD 

45th ST 


WESTPORT RD 

PLUMMER RD 


NEW KINGS RD 

OLD KINGS RD 

GARDEN 

McDUFF AVE 

RICKER RD 


NORMANDY 


JONES RD 

IMESON RD 

KINGS RD 

KING ST 

PA RK ST 

RAMPART RD 


I-295 

GARDEN ST 

EDGEWOOD AVE 

JONES RD 



I-295 

MONCRIEF RD 

JONES RD 

LANE AVE 

LANE AVE 

RIVERSIDE A V 

CHAFFEE RD 

GARDEN ST 

LEM TURNER RD 

PRITCHARD RD 

JAMMES RD 

SHINDLER DR 

PECAN PARK RD 


I-95 

BEAVER ST 

BLANDING BLVD 

I-10 

Wa ren 

Bridge 

BLAIR RD 

HERLONG RD 

COLLINS RD 

PLUMMER RD 

BULLS BAY HWY 

Bridge 

COLLINS RD 

A R GYLE 

A R GYLE 

AIRPORT RD 

BROAD ST 

BEAVER ST 

BAY ST 

Fu ler 


PRITCHARD RD 

BULLS BAY HWY 

EDGEWOOD AVE 

ST. Elmo 

Acosta 

SEABOARD AVE 

I-95 

ORANGE 

MAND 

PECAN PARK RD 

MAIN ST 

STATE ST 

Bridge 

SAN MA R CO B 

LAKE SHOR 

I-295 

FOURAKER RD 


HOOD RD 

WESTPORT FOURAKER RD RD 

WESTPORT RD 

JONES RD 


GARDEN 

GARDEN 


NEW KINGS RD 

OLD KINGS RD 

NORMANDY 

NEW KINGS RD 

OLD KINGS RD 

HENDRICKS AVE 

MANDARIN RD 

B RADY 


Alsop 

John T. 

LIBERTY ST 

SAN 

COLLINS RD 

JOSE BLVD 

RIN R D 

L ONE STAR 

ARLING TON RD 

ALTAMA RD 

RICKER RD 

I-95 

BELFORT R D 


RICKER RD 

IMESON RD 

IMESON RD 

JONES RD 

H OGAN RD 


PHILIPS HWY 

MONCRIEF RD 

BUSCH DR E 

OLD PLANK RD 

EDGEWOOD AVE 

BLVD 

ORTEGA 

NEW KINGS RD 

OLD KINGS RD 

GARDEN 

IMESON RD 

45th ST 

McDUFF AVE 


MONCRIEF RD 

I-95 



SHINDLER DR 

RAMPART RD 

RAMPART RD 



PARK CITY RD 


PARK CITY RD 

SO UTHSIDE BLVD 

NEW BERLIN RD 




I-295 

BULLS BAY HWY 


SAN JOSE BLVD 

Bridge 

I-295 

AND AVE 

TALLEYR 

Isaiah D. 

Hart 

MAIN ST 


HECKSCHER DR 

EMERSON ST 

BEAUCLERC RD 


EASTPORT RD 

KINGS RD 

KING ST 

PA RK ST 

CHAFFEE RD 

BEACH BLVD 

PHILIPS HWY 

MONCRIEF RD 

I-295 


IDE CONNECTOR 

SOUTH S 

LANE AVE 

SAN JOSE BLVD 

LANE AVE 

FOURAKER RD 

WESTPORT RD 

LANE AVE 

LANE AVE 

POWERS AVE 

MORSE AVE 

HARTLEY RD 

LORETTO RD 

MORSE AVE 

BLVD 

BLVD 

LEM TURNER RD 

LEM TURNER RD 

NEW KINGS RD 

OLD KINGS RD 

DUNN AVE 

GARDEN 

DUNN AVE 

5th AVE 

BONEY RD 

MONUMENT RD 

9-A 

BLANDING BLVD 

I-10 



RICKER RD 

IMESON RD 

SAN JUAN 

JAMMES RD 


BEAVER ST 

RAMPART RD 


5th AVE 



SAN JUAN 

OLD 



P U 

LASKI RD 

EDGEWOOD AVE 

MONCRIEF RD 

STARRATT RD 

RIVERSIDE A V 

ANE AVE 


LANE AVE 

HART EXPY 

JAMMES RD 

NEW BERLIN RD 


BEAVER ST 

KINGS RD 

EASTPORT RD 

BLANDING BLVD 

I-295 


I-10 



BLAIR RD 

LEM TURNER RD 

DUNN AVE 

BAYMEADOWS RD 

5th AVE 

PECAN PARK RD 

PLUMMER RD 

I-95 

Wa ren 

Bridge 

CESERY RD 

Bridge 

I-10 

LANE AVE 

HECKSCHER DR 

I-95 

LANE AVE 

EDGEWOOD AVE 

PARK ST 


HOOD RD 

EDGEWOOD AVE 

SEABOARD AVE 

PARK ST 

SEABOARD AVE 

LEM TURNER RD 

JAMMES RD 


LAKE SHOR 

LAKE SHOR 



103rd ST 


BEAVER ST 

AIRPORT RD 

BROAD ST 

BEAVER ST 

BAY ST 

Fu ler 

ST. Elmo 

Acosta 


I-10 

I-95 

ORANGE 

MAND 

PECAN PARK RD 

MAIN ST 

STATE ST 

Bridge 

SAN MA R CO B 

Alsop 

John T. 

JONES RD 


POST S T 

I-295 


BEAVER ST 

L ONE STAR 

ARLING TON RD 

I-295 


BLANDING BLVD 

I-10 

POST S T 

ALTAMA RD 

I-95 

ATLANTIC BLVD 

BLVD 

BELFORT R D 

118th ST 

BLVD 

COLLINS RD 


EDGEWOOD AVE 

PARK ST 

HENDRICKS AVE 

NORMANDY 

PHILIPS HWY 

118th ST 

COLLINS RD 

EDGEWOOD AVE 

EDGEWOOD AVE 

SEABOARD AVE 

SOUTEL DR 

LAKE SHOR 

H OGAN RD 


PHILIPS HWY 

MANDARIN RD 

B RADY 

LIBERTY ST 

SAN 

JOSE BLVD 

RIN R D 

POST S T 

GARDEN ST 

BUSCH DR E 

JONES RD 

I-95 



45th ST 

McDUFF AVE 


ORTEGA 

EDGEWOOD AVE 


ORTEGA 

SOUTEL DR 

COLLINS RD 

I-295 


NEW BERLIN RD 


SAN JOSE BLVD 

EDGEWOOD AVE 


EDGEWOOD AVE 

BLVD 



45th ST 


IDE CONNECTOR 

SOUTH S 

McDUFF AVE 

ORTEGA 


SHINDLER DR 

MAIN ST 

EASTPORT RD 

Bridge 



PRITCHARD RD 

AND AVE 

TALLEYR 

Isaiah D. 

Hart 

SOUTEL DR 

HECKSCHER DR 

BEACH BLVD 

EMERSON ST 

PHILIPS HWY 

BEAUCLERC RD 


HERLONG RD 

SAN JOSE BLVD 


45th ST 

McDUFF AVE 



BULLS BAY HWY 

KINGS RD 

KING ST 

PA RK ST 

GIRVIN RD 

KINGS RD 

KING ST 


PA RK ST 

COLLINS RD 

45th ST 

McDUFF AVE 

POWERS AVE 

HARTLEY RD 

LORETTO RD 

P U 


OLD 


STARRATT RD 

LASKI RD 


HART EXPY 

A R GYLE 

BONEY RD 

I-295 

KINGS RD 

KING ST 

PA RK ST 

I-295 

MONUMENT RD 

9-A 

KINGS RD 

KING ST 

PA RK ST 

NEW BERLIN RD 


KINGS RD 

EASTPORT RD 

EDGEWOOD AVE 

MONCRIEF RD 

EDGEWOOD AVE 

EDGEWOOD AVE 

FOURAKER RD 

I-295 

BAYMEADOWS RD 

WESTPORT RD 

CESERY RD 

MONCRIEF RD 


HODGES BLVD 


HECKSCHER DR 

MONCRIEF RD 


A1A 

RIVERSIDE A V 

RIVERSIDE A V 

RIVERSIDE A V 

I-95 

NEW KINGS RD 


OLD KINGS RD 

GARDEN 

RICKER RD 

IMESON RD 


HOOD RD 

ST 

FOREST 

EDGEWOOD AVE 

MONCRIEF RD 

RIVERSIDE A V 


HECKSCH ER DR 

SAN PABLO RD 

PECAN PARK RD 

MONCRIEF RD 

L ONE STAR 

ARLING TON RD 

ALTAMA RD 

I-95 

BAY ST 

Fu ler 

Wa ren 

Bridge 

ATLANTIC BLVD 

RAMPART RD 

PECAN PARK RD 

PECAN PARK RD 

I-95 

Bridge 

I-95 

BAY ST 

Fu ler 

Warren 

Bridge 


AIRPORT RD 

BROAD ST 

BEAVER ST 

BAY ST 

Acosta 

Bridge 

OCEAN ST 

ST. Elmo 

Fu ler 

Warren 

AIRPORT RD 

A1A 

DUVAL RD 

A1A 


I-95 


Bridge 

I-95 

BROAD ST 

BEAVER ST 

ST. Elmo 

Acosta 

ORANGE 

MAND 

PECAN PARK RD 

MAIN ST 

STATE ST 

Bridge 

SAN MA R CO B 

AIRPORT RD 

DUVAL RD 

Bridge 


BROAD ST 

BEAVER ST 

Alsop 

John T. 

ST. Elmo 

Acosta 

HENDRICKS AVE 

PECAN PARK RD 

20th ST EXPY 

8th ST 

MAIN ST 

STATE ST 

Bridge 

SAN MA R CO B 

Alsop 

John T. 

MANDARIN RD 

B RADY 


PHILIPS HWY 


PARK CITY RD 


BELFORT R D 

I-295 

LANE AVE 

H OGAN RD 

PECAN PARK RD 

LANE AVE 

WILSON BLVD 


I-95 

PHILIPS HWY 


LIBERTY ST 

SAN 


MORSE AVE 

I-95 

BAY ST 

Fu ler 

Warren 

Bridge 

BLVD 

LEM TURNER RD 

JOSE BLVD 

RIN R D 

I-95 

ORANGE 

MAND 

PECAN PARK RD 

DUNN AVE 


MAIN ST 

BUSCH DR E 

20th ST EXPY 

8th ST 

STATE ST 

Bridge 

SAN MA R CO B 

Alsop 

John T. 

LIBERTY ST 

SAN 

I-95 

HENDRICKS AVE 


HENDRICKS AVE 


JOSE BLVD 

MANDARIN RD 

B RADY 

5th AVE 


SAN JUAN 

AIRPORT RD 

DUVAL RD 

Bridge 


BROAD ST 

BEAVER ST 

ST. Elmo 

Acosta 

NEW BERLIN RD 




IDE CONNECTOR 

SOUTH S 

JAMMES RD 

I-95 

BEAVER ST 

LIBERTY ST 

SAN 

GIRVIN RD 

BLANDING BLVD 

JOSE BLVD 

RD 

RIN R D 

I-10 

PECAN PARK RD 

20th ST EXPY 

8th ST 

MAIN ST 

STATE ST 

Bridge 

SAN MA R CO B 

Alsop 

John T. 

MANDARIN RD 

SAN JOSE BLVD 

Bridge 

AND AVE 

I-95 

MAIN ST 

EASTPORT RD 

HECKSCHER DR 

BUSCH DR E 

TALLEYR 

Isaiah D. 

Hart 

BEACH BLVD 

EMERSON ST 

PHILIPS HWY 

HODGES BLVD 

I-95 

BEAUCLERC RD 

PICKERS RD 

LIBERTY ST 

HENDRICKS AVE 

BONEY RD 

I-95 



BUSCH DR E 

EDGEWOOD AVE 

MONUMENT RD 

9-A 

PARK ST 

I-95 


SEABOARD AVE 

I-95 


LAKE SHOR 

SAN JOSE BLVD 


POWERS AVE 

HARTLEY RD 

BUSCH DR E 

I-295 

LORETTO RD 

P U 

LASKI RD 

SAN JOSE BLVD 

Bridge 

AND AVE 

TALLEYR 

Isaiah D. 

Hart 

MAIN ST 

EASTPORT RD 


OLD 



A1A 

STARRATT RD 

POST S T 


HART EXPY 

SAN JOSE BLVD 

Bridge 



HECKSCHER DR 

BEACH BLVD 

EMERSON ST 

PHILIPS HWY 

BEAUCLERC RD 

NEW BERLIN RD 

KINGS RD 

MAIN ST 

EASTPORT RD 


HECKSCHER DR 

HECKSCH ER DR 

SAN PABLO RD 

BLVD 

COLLINS RD 

EASTPORT RD 

BAYMEADOWS RD 

J 

AND AVE 

TALLEYR 

Isaiah D. 

Hart 


CESERY RD 


SAN JOSE BLVD 


HECKSCHER DR 

BEACH BLVD 

EMERSON ST 

PHILIPS HWY 

TIMUQUANA RD 

I-95 

118th ST 

I-95 


EDGEWOOD AVE 

ORTEGA 

BEAUCLERC RD 

Bridge 

AND AVE 

TALLEYR 

SOUTEL DR 

MAIN ST 

OCEAN ST 

ATLANTIC BLVD 

EASTPORT RD 

PHILIPS HWY 

A1A 

SAN JOSE BLVD 

A1A 

P U 

POWERS AVE 

HARTLEY RD 

STARRATT RD 

LASKI RD 


POWERS AVE 


HOOD RD 

HARTLEY RD 

LORETTO RD 

P U 

LASKI RD 

45th ST 


HART EXPY 


OLD 


L ONE STAR 

ARLING TON RD 

ALTAMA RD 


OLD 


Isaiah D. 

Hart 

STARRATT RD 

McDUFF AVE 


HART EXPY 



HECKSCHER DR 

BEACH BLVD 

EMERSON ST 

P U 



LASKI RD 


I-95 

18 

NEW BERLIN RD 


9A 

BOWDEN RD 

KINGS RD 

EASTPORT RD 

BELFORT R D 


BAYMEADOWS RD 

H OGAN RD 

CESERY RD 


PHILIPS HWY 

NEW BERLIN RD 


9A 

BOWDEN RD 

KINGS RD 

I-295 

EASTPORT RD 

KINGS RD 

KING ST 

PA RK ST 

STARRATT RD 


BAYMEADOWS RD 


HART EXPY 

CESERY RD 

SUNBEAM RD 



SUNBEAM RD 



HOOD RD 

I-295 



NEW BERLIN RD 




IDE CONNECTOR 

SOUTH S 




HOOD RD 

I-295 


DUNN AVE 

EDGEWOOD AVE 

NEW BERLIN RD 

9A 

EASTPORT RD 

GIRVIN RD 

MONCRIEF RD 

CESERY RD 


RIVERSIDE A V 

HODGES BLVD 

A1A 


TOWNSEND RD 

L ONE STAR 

ARLING TON RD 

ALTAMA RD 

I-95 

BELF 

J. TURNER 

GREENLAND 

BO 

MONU 

9-A 

BELF 

R 

ARLINGTO 

I-95 

GREENLAND 

ST. AUGUSTINE R 

PHILIPS HWY 


TOWNSEND RD 

L ONE STAR 

ARLING TON RD 

PECAN 

I-95 

HECKSCH ER D 

SAN PABLO RD 

BEA 

BAY ST 

Fu ler 

Warren 

Bridge 

ALTAMA RD 

R 

ARLINGTO 


J. TURNER 

Henry H. Buckm 

PHILIPS HWY 


TOWNSEND RD 

L ONE STAR 

ARLING TON RD 

ALTAMA RD 

R 

ARLINGTO



Zoning Code 

The City of Jacksonville’s Zoning Ordinance includes a section for TOD that classifies sites within ½ mile 

of transit based on locational criteria. The ordinance is intended to implement specific Comprehensive Plan 

policies to allow increased residential density, reduced automobile parking, pedestrian oriented open space, 

mixed use, and reduced setbacks in areas designated for mass transit stations. 

The ordinance classifies areas within ¼ mile of transit stations as TOD-1 and areas between ¼ and ½ mile as 

TOD-2. TOD-1 and TOD-2 are allowed additional density based on applicable future land use categories 

in the Comprehensive Plan. In addition to the density and intensity requirements, the ordinance specifies 

development regulations for streetscape design, parking, and pedestrian access. 

The ordinance lists some specific areas that are suited for TOD and requires the preparation of a station area 

master plan through a public process for the station areas. Form based zoning principles and consistency with 

Jacksonville Design Guidelines and Best Practices Handbook are required for the TOD overlay and site plan. 

Design Guidelines 

The Jacksonville Design Guidelines and Best Practices Handbook provides architectural and site design 

guidance for commercial development and redevelopment in the city. The handbook includes guidance for 

pedestrian environments, signage, landscape and buffering, lighting, and parking. The guidelines currently in 

place only apply to commercial. The Mobility Plan and Future Land Use Element recommend incorporating 

the design guidelines into the Land Development Regulations. 

The handbook guidance is not specific to TODs but are generally applicable to urban form issues. The TOD 

zoning ordinance provides specific guidance on streetscape and parking requirements for TOD. 

Figure 4 - Sample Graphics from Jacksonville Design Guidelines and Best Practices Handbook 

Current Status of Transit and TOD | 7



Next Steps For Implementation 

Implementing TOD is a multi-step process involving 

several local planning, transportation, and transit 

agencies. Some key steps are outlined below. 

Amendment of Comprehensive 

Plan to adopt Transit Corridor 

and Station AREA Typologies 

This step can occur immediately based on JTA’s 

Transit Initiatives Map and the corridor and station 

area intensity, density, and use recommendations in 

this document. Besides amending the comprehensive 

plan to include transit priority corridors and station 

typologies, this step requires the adoption of the 

Design Guidelines for TOD in the land development 

regulations/zoning code. The City of Jacksonville is 

primarily responsible for this amendment with input 

from JTA. 

Designation of Transit 

Priority Corridors within a 

½ mile area of influence from 

planned Transit alignments 

This step occurs after the transit corridors have 

been determined and designated as transit priority 

corridors. For the City of Jacksonville, several rapid 

transit corridors (light rail and bus) have already been 

designated as such based on JTA’s Transit Initiatives 

Map. The commuter rail corridor could also be 

designated as a transit corridor. This initial designation 

allows for consideration of transit supportive density, 

intensity and uses adopted in the Comprehensive 

Plan within the general area of influence of the 

transit corridors. This step is also primarily led by the 

City of Jacksonville in close coordination with JTA’s 

alternatives analysis process. 

Designation of TOD Future Land 

Use Floating Zone within a ½ 

mile radius of planned Rapid 

Transit station locations 

This step occurs after the rapid transit alignments 

have been established based on an alternatives analysis 

process initiated by JTA. This initial designation 

allows for consideration of transit supportive density, 

intensity and uses adopted in the Comprehensive 

Plan within the general area of influence of the 

transit stations. This step is also primarily led by the 

City of Jacksonville in close coordination with JTA’s 

Amend Policies and Adopt TOD 

Typologies and Guidelines 

Designate Transit Corridors 

and Finalize Alignments 

Designate Floating 

Zone for TOD 

Identify Station Area 

Boundaries and Initiate 

planning process 

Create and Implement 

Station Area Master Plans 

8 | Current Status of Transit and TOD



alternatives analysis process but requires the adoption 

of an inter-local agreement to determine project 

roles and responsibilities for all local planning, 

transportation, and transit agencies. 

Determination of specific station 

area boundaries for each Rapid 

Transit station location 

This step follows the alternatives analysis process and 

the adoption of a locally preferred alternative. Specific 

boundaries for station areas are determined and a 

public process for station area planning is initiated. 

The station area planning process is led by the City of 

Jacksonville and guided by the inter-local agreement. 

The adoption of station area plans requires areawide 

rezoning based on adopted TOD framework 

in the land development regulations/zoning code. 

A priority ranking should be assigned to the station 

areas for purposes of conducting site specific TOD 

station area master plans. 

Creation of Station 

Area Master Plans 

The art of place making, namely designing stations 

areas for individual character, livability, walkability, 

diversity and vitality, happens at the station area 

master planning and implementation phase. The 

Design Guidelines for TOD provide a communitywide 

typology of place types, but does not 

provide specific details or implementation actions 

customized for each individual station area. Through 

master planning each station has the opportunity 

to customize its TOD potential. This phase will 

require a public process that involves citizens, local 

government, private developers and designers who 

can come together to address the potential urban 

design elements that make TOD work. These master 

plans will outline a station area vision and design 

implementation plans to help achieve that vision. 

The process will require a precise land use inventory 

and community context evaluation to understand 

the general market forces and social dynamics at 

play. The plans should develop station specific design 

standards and mobility strategies to achieve that 

vision. Implementation plans should address phasing 

and milestones to monitor progress, identify obstacles 

and potential solutions, identify public and private 

financing, and assign roles and responsibilities. 

Station Area Plan 

Analyze existing land use to determine vacant land and 

opportunities for redevelopment. 

Identify opportunities for infill and new transit-oriented 

development. 

Determine appropriate mix of uses and building heights. 

Current Status of Transit and TOD | 9



What is Required to Make TOD Work? 

While the fundamental elements of TOD are easy 

to describe, successfully implementing TOD can 

be challenging. TOD policies should work toward 

creating a development pattern that takes full 

advantage of the capacity for people to walk, and their 

desire to ride transit, while remaining compatible 

with market forces, personal preferences and existing 

community contexts. 

Market Forces 

Development and re-development projects 

depend heavily on market conditions, including 

regional population and employment growth in 

the Jacksonville area and the ability for developers, 

residents, and businesses to pay to absorb new space 

created by TOD projects. TOD policies and design 

standards need to have sufficient flexibility to allow 

walkable, transit-friendly communities to take shape 

in an affordable manner. 

Personal Preferences 

Market demand indicates two things: the ability 

to pay and the willingness to pay. Preferences for 

housing types and community design elements vary 

among individuals depending on a host of factors like 

family size, income, and age. The mixed use character 

of TOD provides an opportunity to cater to an array 

of potential residents and businesses. TOD policies 

should be sensitive to the appropriate design, scale, 

and mix of uses to account for varying preferences. 

Mockingbird Station, Dallas, Texas 

Fruitvale Station, San Francisco Bay Area, California 

Existing Community Contexts 

TODs are not intended to be mere islands of transit 

and pedestrian activity. TOD policies should ensure 

that new and redevelopment projects integrate and 

blend neatly with the surrounding neighborhood 

contexts. This allows the TOD project to reinforce 

the existing community character and invites 

neighbors from the area to utilize alternative modes 

of transportation to reach local destinations. 

Capital Metro, Austin, Texas 

10 | What is Required to Make TOD Work



What Other Communities Are Doing to Implement Transit and TOD 

TOD is a development strategy that has gained momentum around the country and the state in recent years. 

Communities have sought to implement transit and TOD to provide a balanced transportation network, 

giving people an alternative to driving. A TOD strategy also minimizes the need to provide new infrastructure 

to serve metropolitan growth by utilizing existing facilities. This helps to revitalize urban centers and foster 

vibrant neighborhoods. A couple examples of TOD strategies taking shape in American cities are described in 

the boxes on this page. 

iles 

Tampa, Florida 

In the Tampa Bay region, Hillsborough 

Area Regional Transit (HART) is working 

to implement the area’s first light rail line 

connecting Tampa International Airport to the 

University of South Florida via Tampa’s urban 

core. The proposed rail line is an important 

first piece of the regional transit vision adopted 

by the Tampa Bay Regional Transportation 

Authority. To meet ridership goals and 

enhance the light rail project’s competitiveness 

for federal funding, the City of Tampa and 

Hillsborough County have adopted TOD 

policies that define transit oriented districts, 

encourage pedestrian activity, and promote 

dense, mixed-use developments. The City’s 

TOD policies address the Federal Transit 

Administration’s (FTA) increased emphasis 

on development policies and land use/ 

transportation coordination methods. 

Charlotte, North Carolina 

In the early 1990s, the City of Charlotte 

adopted a long term growth strategy that 

aimed to focus population and employment 

growth in the City’s existing urban centers and 

major transportation corridors. Transit and 

TOD were identified as critical components 

for successfully implementing the “Centers 

and Corridors” vision. To support the 

growth framework, the City established TOD 

districts and policies and began planning for 

rapid transit. In 2007, Charlotte completed 

construction of its first light rail line, part 

of a network of five proposed rapid transit 

corridors. With the City’s TOD policies in 

place, the LYNX Blue Line sparked a flurry of 

mixed use development along its alignment. 

As a result, ridership in the first several years 

of operation has vastly exceeded projects and 

further rapid transit projects are progressing 

through the planning stages. 

What is Required to Make TOD Work | 11



Federal Transit Administration 

To receive discretionary funds from the Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) for transit improvements, 

Jacksonville competes with other localities from across 

the southeast and the country. The FTA is placing a 

heavy emphasis on land use planning when making 

funding recommendations, evaluating an area’s 

growth management strategies, transit supportive 

corridor policies, station area zoning regulations, and 

implementation tools. A comprehensive set of TOD 

policies will address each of these factors in detail, 

based on FTA’s guidance. As such, TOD policies will 

be critical in capturing federal dollars to build the 

transit systems that are necessary to keep Jacksonville 

and other American cities running. 

Federal Transit Administration 

New Starts Program 

The New Starts program supports locally planned, 

implemented and operated transit capital 

investments. It is the federal government’s primary 

financial resource for funding new transit projects. 

The New Starts program funds various types of transit 

- commuter rail, heavy rail, light rail or Bus Rapid 

Transit – and is intended for large-scale projects. As 

required by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, the 

FTA must prioritize transit projects for funding. To 

be eligible for federal funding, a project must advance 

through the different project development phases 

of the New Starts program, including alternatives 

analysis, preliminary engineering, and final design. 

Alternatives Analysis 

Using the statutorily identified criteria, FTA evaluates 

projects as a condition for advancement into each 

project development phase of the program. New Starts 

projects must emerge from a regional, multimodal 

transportation planning process. The first two phases 

of the New Starts process - systems planning and 

alternatives analysis - address this requirement. The 

systems planning phase identifies the transportation 

needs of a region, while the alternatives analysis 

phase provides information on the benefits, costs, 

and impacts of different options, such as rail lines or 

bus routes, in a specific corridor versus a region. The 

alternatives analysis phase results in the selection of a 

locally preferred alternative, which is the New Starts 

project that FTA evaluates for funding. 

Mobility 

Improvements 

(20%) 

Public 

Transportation 

Supportive 

Land Use (20%) 

Environmental 

Benefits (10%) 

Project 

Justification 

Rating 

Economic 

Development 

Effects (20%) 

Cost 

Effectiveness 

(20%) 

Operating 

Efficiencies 

(10%) 

12 | What is Required to Make TOD Work 

Figure 5 - Federal Transit Administration New Starts Project Justification Rating



Preliminary Engineering 

After a locally preferred alternative is selected, the 

project sponsor submits an application to FTA for 

the project to enter the preliminary engineering 

phase. When this phase is completed and federal 

environmental requirements under the National 

Environmental Policy Act are satisfied, FTA may 

approve the project’s advancement into final design. 

FTA may then recommend the project for a Full 

Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) and advance the 

project into construction. 

Changes to New Starts Criteria 

In 2009, the FTA commenced a major update to the 

New Starts criteria. The proposed changes include 

a shift from reliance on cost effectiveness as the 

primary criteria to a greater emphasis on land use, 

economic development and the potential TOD 

within planned transit corridors and station areas. 

As of January 2010, the FTA put out a press release 

indicating the Administration will no longer target 

its funding recommendations only to projects that 

receive a Medium or better cost-effectiveness rating, 

but that a project must receive an overall rating of at 

least Medium and be expected to be ready funding. 

This recent change in effect de-emphasizes the costeffectiveness 

rating. If a project could demonstrate 

an overall rating of Medium or better it could be 

considered for funding, and cost-effectiveness alone 

will not be a limiting factor. 

Communities around the country seeking to position 

themselves for New Starts funding have begun to 

update land use policies to enable TOD. FTA is now 

incorporating levels of TOD policy readiness into the 

criteria for New Starts prioritization. Communities 

that have policies in place and demonstrated success 

in implementing projects with transit-supportive 

densities will now have an advantage in competing 

for New Starts funds. 

The project justification rating of a project seeking 

New Starts funding will be based on ratings for 

the following criteria with the weights shown 

in parentheses: mobility improvements (20%), 

environmental benefits (10%), cost effectiveness 

(20%), operating efficiencies (10%), economic 

development effects (20%), and public transportation 

supportive land use (20%). Figure 5 and Table 1 

illustrate and describe this ranking and criteria. 

Criteria 

Measures/Categories 

Mobility Improvements 

Measured by travel time benefits per project passenger mile, 

low-income households served, and employment near stations. 

Environmental Benefits 

Cost Effectiveness 

Operating Efficiencies 

Economic Development 

Transit Supportive Land Use & Future Patterns 

Other 

Measured by change in regional pollutant emissions, change in 

regional energy consumption, and EPA air quality designation. 

Measured as the cost per hour of travel time saved. 

Measured by system operating cost per passenger mile. 

Measured by transit supportive plans and policies, performance 

and impacts of policies. 

Measured by existing land use, transit supportive plans and 

policies and performance, and impacts of policies. 

Includes a number of optional factors, including the projected 

economic impact of project. 

Table 1: Federal Transit Administration - New Starts Criteria and Measures 




Can TOD Really Be Effective in 

Jacksonville? 

In a word, yes. Jacksonville actually has a long history 

as a thriving transit city. Trains and street railroads 

played an integral part in the city’s early development. 

Jacksonville’s first train station opened in 1858, and 

as the city grew, so did its rail infrastructure. Boasting 

one of the best natural harbors in the Southeast, 

Jacksonville quickly became an important destination 

for people and goods from around Florida, the South, 

and the East Coast. At the peak of the railroad era in 

Jacksonville, the City’s rail terminal (now the Prime 

Osborne Convention Center) could accommodate 

more than 200 trains per day and served as many as 

100,000 passengers per day. 

At that time, local street railroads were the primary 

means of connecting Jacksonville’s urban and 

suburban neighborhoods. The first streetcars were 

powered by mules and horses, but by 1895 the city’s 

streetcar fleet was entirely electric. At its pinnacle, 

the Jacksonville street railway network extended over 

59 miles of track, served by 101 passenger cars. The 

streetcars were largely responsible for Jacksonville’s 

earliest suburban developments: Riverside, 

Springfield, Avondale, Ortega, Murray Hill, San 

Marco, and Fairfield were all “streetcar suburbs” 

oriented to the popular transit service. 

The Riverside Avenue street car line radiating out of 

downtown (upper right corner) gives rise to ‘streetcar 

neighborhoods.’ Close up from a 1893 map of Jacksonville 

by Augustus Koch, US Library of Congress archives. 

San Marco Main Street, Jacksonville 

Springfield, Jacksonville 

14 | What is Required to Make TOD Work



The vast network of streetcars and intercity railroads 

have had a lasting effect on central Jacksonville’s urban 

form. The streetcar neighborhoods retain a high level 

of street connectivity, transit-supportive densities, 

and ample pedestrian facilities. These neighborhoods 

demonstrate that transit-friendly development 

patterns are viable and liveable in Jacksonville, and 

they are appropriate areas for redevelopment TOD 

projects. Similarly, suburban greenfield TOD 

projects can support high quality transit service in 

other burgeoning parts of the region. 

Several cities across the U.S. are reinvesting in 

streetcars, historic and modern, as part of their 

premium public transportation network. The cities 

of Tampa and Charlotte restored historic streetcar 

routes in their city centers. The city of Portland 

realized the revival of the Pearl District by investing 

in a new streetcar route through the district. 

Downtown Jacksonville 

Streetcar Railroad Ports Bridges 

Jacksonville’s origins are closely tied to many transportation and transit investments illustrated in the above 1893 map of 

Jacksonville by Augustus Koch, US Library of Congress archives. 




Evaluation of TOD Potential 

To better understand the potential impact of TOD policies in defined transit corridors, an evaluation of 

each transit corridor was conducted. The TOD policies represent a potential intensification for different 

corridors. What exists today and what could be possible given the realization of a TOD buildout is necessary 

to understand the impacts on different transit corridors. This land use and buildout potential evaluation, 

detailed in Appendix A, Analysis of TOD Potential, was addressed in three major steps below: 

What exists today: To better understand what 

exists today a ‘virtual present’ is created for existing 

residential and employment densities. This ‘virtual 

present’ is created by analyzing the parcels that 

were in a half-mile distance, or buffer, on either 

side of a fixed-route transit corridors for existing 

land use. The present day jobs and households data 

from the regional travel demand model were then 

associated with residential and employment parcels 

to approximate where people currently live and work 

in each transit corridor. The findings are summarized 

by transit corridor in Appendix A, Tables 1-4. 

What could change: Evaluate the development and 

redevelopment potential for parcels based on analysis 

of existing land use classification and/or improvement 

and land value assessments. Every parcel in Duval 

County parcels contains land use codes and tax 

assessment data from the Department of Revenue. 

(DOR). These data were analyzed using GIS. The 

improvement value to land value ratios for parcels 

were calculated, averaged by land use type, and 

then grouped into development potential categories 

of: vacant/high potential, medium potential, low 

potential, full developed or unbuildable (no future 

potential) as explained in Appendix A, Table 5. 

How could it change: Examine transit-oriented 

development (TOD) buildout potential by creating 

a ‘virtual future.’ Creating this virtual future involved 

combining the results of previous steps. First, parcels 

that were evaluated to have some level of development 

potential (low, medium, high or vacant) and were 

assigned a TOD place type. Each TOD place type has 

with it an associated development multiplier such as 

jobs or houses per acre. Each acre with development 

potential could then be multiplied by the dwellings/ 

acre or employees/acre values of a given TOD policy. 

The TOD buildout factor was adjusted based on 

the high, medium and low development potential 

evaluated in the “what could change” step. Vacant 

and high redevelopment potential areas received 

16 | Evaluation of TOD Potential 

TOD Density, Use, and 

Design Recommendations 

Transit stations and corridors will differ in urban 

form, density and intensity. To account for a range 

of suburban to urban TOD policies, a typology 

of place making elements were composed. These 

were developed from standards provided by 

Reconnecting America, Florida Department 

of Transportation Design Guidelines and the 

City of Jacksonville Comprehensive Plan. These 

place making elements were grouped into two 

generalized categories of urban and suburban 

(based on the City of Jacksonville 2030 

Comprehensive Plan), and within those two 

categories the scales of development and land 

use intensity varied from neighborhoods, to 

villages, to towns, to downtown districts. Using 

the CorPlan, a GIS-based land use analysis 

application, the average dwelling units per acre 

and employees per acre were approximated. On 

page 14 is a table that represents the relative 

density and intensity of the place making 

elements. 

100% buildout potential, the medium redevelopment 

potential received 66%, and the low redevelopment 

potential received 33%. Finally, any parcel that 

qualified for the residential-neighborhood “scale 

transition” protection was post-processed to reduce 

the overall buildout potential by an additional 15%. 

The definition of parcels qualifying for this residentialneighborhood, 

“scaled transition” protection comes 

from the City of Jacksonville Comprehensive Plan 

(Section 3.1.25). Appendix A, Tables 11-15 outline 

the results of this TOD potential analysis, by corridor 

and by TOD place making element.

103rd St 

Garden St 

Crystal Springs Rd 

Prichard Rd 

Collins Rd 

Wilson Blvd 

Dunn Ave 

Park St 

San Juan Blvd 

Kingsley Ave 

Bowden Rd 

Arlington Expy 

Zoo Parkway 

Old St Augustine Rd 

Southside Blvd 

Baymeadows Rd 

Heckscher Dr 

J Turner Butler 

Beach Blvd 



TOD Place Making Elements Allocated 

to Vacant/Redevelopable Parcels 

S1 Campus 

S2 Town Center 

S3 Village 

S4 Suburban Neighborhood 

SC Suburban Corridor 

U1 Downtown 

U2 Urban Center 

U3 Main Street 

U4 Urban Neighborhood 

UC Urban Corridor 

TOD Study Area 

1 

295 

Lem Turner Rd 

95 

Ye low Blu f Rd 

9A 

New Berlin Rd 

Starre t Rd 

Kings Rd 

Monument Rd 

Beaver St 

90 

Atlantic Blvd 

Atlantic Blvd 

10 

Normandy Blvd 

17 

St Johns River 

295 

9A 

San Jose Blvd 

95 

Old Middleburg Rd 

Hood Rd 

1 

17 

95 

0 5 

Miles 

Figure 6 - TOD Corridor and Station Allocation Map 

TOD Place Making Element * 

Average Density 

(DUs per Acre) 

Average Intensity 

(Non-Res FAR) 

Average 

Employment Per Acre 

S1 Campus - 1.0 - 2.5 125 

S2 Town Center 35 - 50 3.5 - 4.0 100 

S3 Village 8 - 12 0.8 - 1.5 20 

S4 Suburban Neighborhood 6 - 10 0.5 - 0.8 10 

SC Suburban Corridor 6 - 10 0.5 - 0.8 10 

U1 Downtown > 40 4.0 - 8.0 300 

U2 Urban Center 15 - 30 2.0 - 4.0 173 

U3 Main Street 10 - 18 1.0 - 2.0 62 

U4 Urban Neighborhood 10 - 18 0.8 - 1.0 15 

UC Urban Corridor 10 - 18 0.8 - 1.0 15 

* Place Types are addressed in greater 

detail in the Design Guidelines 

Table 2: TOD Corridor and Station Area Summary 

Evaluation of TOD Potential | 17



Transit Technologies 

When planning a TOD project or district, it is important to consider the kind of transit technology that will 

serve the area. The major transit technologies are commuter rail, express bus, light rail, bus rapid transit, 

monorail, streetcar, and local service bus. Each technology has characteristics that influence the intensity, 

spacing, and form of TODs. Transit technology choices will largely reflect the needs of the transit system, but 

they will also consider future development and redevelopment plans along a prospective alignment. While 

TODs respond to transit technologies, they also can influence what technologies are viable and best suited for 

a particular corridor. The major transit technologies are described briefly below. Each technology has distinct 

vehicle and operational characteristics. Vehicle type, size, costs, and right-of-way requirements vary among 

the different technologies. These factors influence operational characteristics like optimal travel distances and 

times, station spacing, and the size and nature of station service areas. 

Commuter Rail 

Commuter rail technology utilizes relatively large 

train cars that can carry a high number of passengers. 

Commuter rail operates in its own right-of-way, 

separate from automobile traffic; but in many cities, 

commuter trains share track and right-of-way with 

freight rail carriers. Because of the capacities and 

speeds achievable with commuter rail, this technology 

is best suited for covering long distances with stations 

spaced from 1 to 5 miles apart. Station service areas 

are large and often accessed by driving from the 

surrounding community. 

Commuter rail is most effective in areas that have 

strong regional centers with high employment 

densities, linking them to suburban communities. 

However, suburban commuter rail station areas can 

include an even mix of residential and commercial 

uses at medium to high densities. Park and ride access 

is appropriate near commuter station areas given that 

they will draw ridership from nearby communities. 

Walkable TOD communities should be implemented 

in the immediate vicinity of the station, transitioning 

smoothly to a lower density development pattern in 

the greater station area. 

Service Area:1mile to 5 miles 

Station Spacing: 1miles to 5 miles 

Optimal Transit Shed: 5 miles to 100 miles 

Commuter Rail Characteristics 

Express Bus 

An express bus operates in a similar manner to 

commuter rail, serving a regional center from 

outlying areas, with few stops in between. However, 

express bus cannot provide the same passenger 

capacity and speed as commuter rail. It is well suited 

for serving low to medium density communities and 

often only operates during the morning and evening 

peak commuting hours to allow suburban residents 

18 | Transit Technologies



to reach urban employment destinations. TODs 

in express bus service areas would exhibit similar 

characteristics to those in local bus service areas, and 

a single TOD project or district may be served by 

both local and express bus routes. 

Light Rail 

In contrast to commuter rail, light rail can operate 

either in a dedicated right-of-way or in mixed traffic 

with automobiles. Also, light rail vehicles are smaller 

than commuter rail cars, carrying fewer passengers. 

Light rail can cover long distances, but is best suited 

for short to intermediate trips. Stations are usually 

one to two miles apart. Park and ride access is 

appropriate in low density areas, while walk access 

to stations becomes more viable in areas of increased 

employment activity and/or residential density. 

Since light rail transit can effectively serve a wide 

variety of place types along a single alignment, 

TODs in light rail station areas will vary to reflect 

the character and intensity of nearby neighborhoods 

and development. In urban centers, TODs will 

exhibit high densities and a thorough mix of uses. 

In neighborhoods and community centers, there 

will likely be a greater emphasis placed on residential 

uses at medium to lower densities, with supporting 

community retail and commercial services. 

Bus Rapid Transit 

Bus rapid transit, or BRT, combines the flexibility 

of a bus with the high quality service of rail transit. 

BRT can operate in an exclusive right-of-way or in 

mixed traffic. BRT routes generally have fewer stops 

than a normal bus route, spaced about a half mile 

to one mile apart, and the stops usually have special 

treatments akin to a light rail platform, including 

shelters and ticket vending machines. BRT can 

cover substantial distances and serve as an effective 

and affordable alternative to rail transit in certain 

contexts. 

Like light rail, BRT can serve many different types 

of places with varying densities and mixes of uses. 

Hence, TODs in BRT station areas are generally 

similar to those found in comparable light rail station 

areas, although they often have lower densities and a 

higher ratio of homes to jobs. 

Service Area:1/4 mile to 5 miles 

Station Spacing: 1 mile to 2 miles 


Light Rail Characteristics 

Service Area:1/4 mile to 3 miles 

Station Spacing: 1/2 mile to 1 mile 


Bus Rapid Transit Characteristics 

Transit Technologies | 19



Monorail “Skyway” 

Automated monorail systems are fixed transit facilities 

that operate on elevated guideways. The elevated 

design allows monorails to be routed directly to 

specific activity centers in a given service area without 

having to conform to, or compete with, established 

travel right-of-way. This “automated people mover” 

transit technology is designed to enhance mobility 

in targeted areas of intense activity such as core 

business districts, airport hubs, or entertainment/ 

campus facilities. Activity centers served by monorail 

typically have very high levels of investment, or urban 

development, that warrant the higher investment in 

transit. 

In Jacksonville the JTA operates the 2.5-mile Skyway, 

a fully automated transit system operating on an 

elevated dual guideway. Nine two-car trains serve 

eight stations on both sides of the St. Johns River 

and in the central business district. Station spacing 

for monorails is variable and depends on the specific 

activity centers of a service area. The Skyway system 

is interconnected with JTA’s free Trolley service, 

providing riders with expanded mobility in the 

downtown area linking specific destinations such as 

the Prime Obsorne Convention Center, the Florida 

State College (FSC) and San Marco. The JTA 

Skyway is one of seven urban “automated people 

mover” systems that were built in the U.S. beginning 

in the 1970s. The other six major urban systems 

are in Detroit, Michigan; Irving, Texas; Miami, 

Florida; Las Vegas, Nevada; Indianapolis, Indiana; 

and Morgantown, West Virginia. Monorail “people 

mover” systems are also installed at amusement parks 

(Disney) and major airports (Dallas-Fort Worth) 

throughout the country. 

Streetcar 

Streetcars serve a similar function to local buses, 

meeting localized travel demand over short distances. 

Service is generally frequent and there are a variety 

of vehicle types from historic and vintage streetcars 

to modern cars. Modern cars have higher passenger 

capacities, multiple doors and low floors for quick 

boarding and alighting, and generally rely on ticket 

vending machines at platforms to manage fare 

collection. Because of these attributes, the modern 

20 | Transit Technologies 

Monorail “Skyway” 

Service Area:1/4 mile to 1 mile 

Station Spacing: 1/8 mile to 1/4 mile 


Street Car Characteristics



streetcar can provide capacity and operational 

efficiency advantages to the average bus. 

However similar to bus transit, streetcars have been 

demonstrated to have a greater influence on urban 

form than their rubber-wheeled counterparts. 

Streetcars provide local accessibility to medium and 

high density areas. Several streetcar projects across the 

country have spurred successful TOD redevelopment 

projects in urban areas, introducing or increasing 

residential activity mixed with office and retail uses. 

Local Bus 

The most common mode of transit is the bus. Buses 

provide a high level of flexibility in terms of route 

alignment, service frequency, and stop location. Bus 

transit is well suited for low to medium density areas, 

but high frequency service is warranted to provide 

local accessibility in dense urban areas as well. Buses 

often complement high capacity transit facilities 

like commuter rail and light rail, providing a more 

localized service with more stops spaced closely 

together, often about a quarter mile apart. 

TODs in urban and suburban contexts can boost 

route and system productivity for buses and justify 

service enhancements such as improved headways or 

new routes. Suburban TODs can provide outlying 

transit hubs and create vibrant public spaces in low 

to medium density neighborhoods. 

Street Car Example 

Service Area:1/4 mile to 1/2 mile 

Station Spacing: 1/8 mile to 1/4 mile 


Local Bus Characteristics 

Policy Issues and Opportunities 

Multimodal Transportation Plan 

The City of Jacksonville has completed the 2030 Multimodal Transportation Study, an appendix of the 2030 

Mobility Plan. This study addresses new requirements for integrated land use and transportation planning 

stipulated in Senate Bill 360 passed by the Florida legislature in 2009. The new requirements are designed 

to encourage urban areas to incentivize the use of alternative modes of transportation, reduce vehicle miles 

traveled (VMT), and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The plan outlines transportation strategies and needed 

improvements to address Jacksonville’s traffic congestion and mobility needs. 

The Multimodal Transportation Plan incorporates highway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements 

in the North Florida TPO’s Cost Feasible Plan for 2030, as well as City-managed projects in the Better 

Jacksonville Plan. Planned transit projects include BRT, commuter rail, and streetcar projects, as well as an 

extension of the Skyway to San Marco. Over 100 miles of bicycle improvements and 68 miles of sidewalk are 

included in the plan. 

Policy Issues and Opportunities | 21



Mobility Fee 

In conjunction with the 2030 Multimodal Transportation Study, the City has developed a 2030 Mobility 

Plan to create a viable multimodal system. The plan, which is scheduled for adoption in mid-2011, includes 

a mobility fee that will apply to new developments and replace the existing proportionate fair share program 

administered through the City’s concurrency management system. The mobility fee is based on VMT and 

will fund multimodal transportation projects, including roads, transit, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. 

The assessed fee can be reduced by implementing traffic reduction measures that include increasing residential 

densities, providing a mix of uses, locating development in areas served by transit, creating bicycle and pedestrian 

friendly communities, and providing below market rate dwelling units. The goal of allowing for mobility fee 

reductions is to encourage urban infill development and foster transit-friendly development patterns. 

The mobility fee addresses the problem of paying for the transportation impacts of development in a different 

manner than former impact fees and concurrency management processes. The result is less incentive for 

developers to pursue low-density projects in greenfield areas. Over time TOD is more likely to become a 

typical development pattern rather than a novelty, supported by an expanding metropolitan transit network. 

TOD Incentives 

While most communities and developers support the basic principles behind TOD, implementing TOD has 

been lagging. The primary reasons for this lag in implementation are lack of committed funding for transit 

and the perception of risk in TOD. Creating incentives for TOD at the city and county level can help lower 

the risk for developers and encourage transit supportive land use patterns. 

Station Area Planning 

Strategic planning for development within transit priority corridors and around transit stations can reduce the 

perception of risk for developers and increase the possibility of securing committed funding for transit. Creating 

the station area master plan through a public process generates community support for TOD. Station area 

plans further signal clear development intentions for this area which should help reduce both uncertainties and 

perceptions of risk to prospective developers. 

Density Bonuses 

Allowing higher density and intensity within walking 

distance of transit stops creates more opportunity for 

people to live and work in places with easy access to 

transit. Encouraging compact and pedestrian friendly 

neighborhoods can result in a sustainable urban pattern 

that is beneficial to residents and local businesses. 

Location Efficient Mortgages 

A “Location Efficient Mortgage” rewards households 

with lower transportation expenses by allowing them 

to qualify for larger loan amounts. Location efficient 

mortgages allow people to relocate to TODs and 

generate more demand for TOD. 

Parking Reduction 

Reducing minimum parking requirements along 

transit priority corridors and around transit stations 

lowers the cost of development and encourages transit 

use. Phased parking reduction and maximizing shared 

and/or public parking opportunities make transit use 

more convenient. 

22 | Policy Issues and Opportunities 

LOCATION EFFICIENT MORTGAGE 

A Location Efficient Mortgage (LEM) is a 

mortgage that helps people become homeowners 

in location efficient communities. These are 

convenient neighborhoods in which residents 

can walk from their homes to stores, schools, 

recreation, and public transportation. People 

who live in location efficient communities 

have less need to drive, which allows them to 

save money and improves the environment 

for everyone. The LEM combines a low down 

payment, competitive interest rates, and flexible 

criteria for financial qualification to allow more 

people to own the home of their dreams. 

http://www.locationefficiency.com/



Property Tax Abatement 

Reducing property taxes on high density, mixed 

use developments within walking distance of 

transit stations lowers land and/or development 

cost for developers and creates affordable housing 

opportunities for the community. 

Park and Ride 

A significant means of accessing transit, especially 

commuter rail and express bus, are park and ride lots, 

which allow riders to arrive at transit station areas by 

car. While TODs enhance the accessibility and utility 

of transit service for residents and workers within the 

development, they also become focal points for activity 

and transit access from the surrounding community. 

This can be especially prominent in suburban areas. 

Development policies should address the need to 

incorporate park and ride facilities in TODs where 

warranted, based on the scale of the development 

and/or neighborhood contexts. 

In order to strategically and efficiently implement 

appropriate park and ride lots, candidate locations 

should be identified based on existing and planned 

transit alignments. This allows developers to 

understand the quantity and nature of transit 

facilities that are appropriate for a given TOD 

project. The provision of park and ride spaces as 

part of a TOD should apply to the overall obligation 

for new development to mitigate its impacts on the 

transportation system. 

Intermodal Transfer Station 

Park and Ride 

Policy Issues and Opportunities | 23



Summary 

The quality of mobility and vitality in Jacksonville are closely linked to investments in transportation. The land 

use policies designed in accordance with transportation investments serve to shape, and thereby encourage, 

transit supportive development patterns. This has proven true for Jacksonville’s past and remains a viable and 

achievable direction for the future. These policy framework and design guidelines are intended to help achieve 

the transit and mobility goals set by JTA for the region. The future land use and mobility plans of the City 

are supportive of transit supportive and transit oriented development. The proposed design guidelines are a 

tool to realize these aims and potential. By encouraging a place-making approach to development, designing 

walkable communities, and encouraging a dynamic and diverse mixture of uses in close proximity to transit, 

the return on investment for Jacksonville could be multi fold. Approximately 15% of all land in Jacksonville 

is within a half-mile of existing or proposed premium transit corridors. Under the proposed TOD place type 

policy framework there is buildout capacity for Jacksonville to more than double in size with improved access 

to transit, and increased transportation choices. These framework and design guidelines present a future that is 

optimistic of the potential for increased transit ridership and reduced dependency on automobile travel while 

encouraging a high quality and human-scaled built environment. Orienting future jobs and houses within 

reach of transit, existing transportation networks and each other will reduce public and private sector spending 

on extending infrastructure. It will also reduce household expenditures on transportation. 

There is not a misconception that the future TOD policy scenario presented here will be auto-free, rather that 

auto-dependency will be reduced simply by providing choices. People in this future TOD framework will have 

quality, vibrant, enjoyable places to live, work and recreate, places allow for choice in transportation, reduce 

dependency on foreign oil, and create economic opportunities throughout the region. 

24 | Summary 

Appendix A

Appendix A



Appendix A: Analysis of TOD Potential 

Contents 

Introduction 2 

What Exists Today? 3 

Defining the Study Area 3 

Where Do People Live and Work Today? 4 

What Could Change? 9 

Creating a Virtual Future – Evaluating TOD Potential 14 

Summary 17 

List of Figures 

Figure 1: Transit Lines 3 

Figure 2: Rapid Fixed Transit Corridors 4 

Figure 3: Transit Line Buffers Compose the Study Area 5 

Figure 4: Generalized Land Use 6 

Figure 5: Study Area Parcels by Development Potential Category 12 

Figure 6: TOD Place Types 13 

Figure 7: TOD Place Types Allocated to Vacant/Redevelopable Parcels 14 

List of Tables 

Table 1: Existing Dwelling Units / Densities by Transit Corridor 6 

Table 2: Existing Employment / Densities by Transit Corridor 7 

Table 3: Existing Jobs/Housing Ratios 7 

Table 4: Existing Average Floor-to-Area Ratio by Corridor 8 

Table 5: Improvement Value/Land Value Ratio (example) 8 

Table 6: Development Potential Status and Acres 9 

Table 7: Development Potential Summarized 10 

Table 8: Development Potential by Corridor (Acres) 11 

Table 9: Development Potential by Corridor (Percentage) 11 

Table 10: Development Potential by Corridor - Summary 12 

Table 11: TOD Place Making Element Density/Intensity 13 

Table 12: Potential New Dwelling Units and Jobs by Place Type 15 

Table 13: Potential Acres Developed by Place Type 15 

Table 14: Potential New Development Summarized by Transit Corridor/Area 16 

Table 15: Total Future Buildout – Existing and Future Potential 16 

Appendix A: Analysis of TOD Potential | A-1



Introduction 

The purpose of Appendix A is to provide a more thorough explanation of the methods, assumptions, and 

quantitative aspects of the land use and buildout potential analysis performed during the Transit Oriented 

Development Policy Framework conducted for the Jacksonville Transportation Authority. The process followed 

three primary stages: 

Step 1: Determine What exists today 

Evaluating future potential requires a clear understanding of present conditions. To accomplish this a ‘virtual 

present’ is created for existing residential and employment densities. The steps involved analyzing the parcels 

that were in the half-mile buffer of fixed-route transit corridors for existing land use. The present day jobs 

and households data from the regional travel demand model were then associated with residential and 

employment parcels to approximate where people currently live and work in each transit corridor. The findings 

are summarized by transit corridor in Appendix A, Tables 1-4. 

Step 2: Identify Areas with Propensity for Change 

The next step involved identifying the areas with some propensity for change by evaluating the development and 

redevelopment potential for parcels based on analysis of existing land use classification and/or improvement and 

land value assessments. The steps involved analyzing the County GIS parcels with the Department of Revenue 

land use codes and tax assessment information. This provided the base of the analysis. The improvement value 

to land value ratio for parcels were calculated, averaged by land use type, and then grouped into development 

potential categories of vacant/high potential, medium potential, low potential, full developed or unbuildable 

(no future potential) as explained in Appendix A, Table 5. 

Step 3: Test Capacity for Change Under Proposed TOD Policies 

The final step tested the capacity for change under proposed TOD policies by examining buildout potential by 

creating a ‘virtual future.’ Creating this ‘virtual future’ involved combining the results of previous steps. Parcels 

evaluated to have some development potential were assigned a TOD place making element, and their acreage 

was multiplied by the dwelling/acre or employee/acre values for the place making element. The TOD buildout 

potential was adjusted based on the high, medium and low development potential evaluated in the “what 

could change” step. Vacant and high redevelopment potential areas received 100% buildout potential, the 

medium redevelopment potential received 66%, and the low redevelopment potential received 33%. Finally, 

any parcel that qualified for the residential-neighborhood “scale transition” protection was post-processed 

to reduce the overall buildout potential by 15%. Appendix A, Tables 11-15 outline the results of this TOD 

potential analysis, but by corridor and by TOD place making element. 

A-2 | Appendix A: Analysis of TOD Potential

103rd St 

Garden St 


Prichard Rd 

Collins Rd 

Wilson Blvd 

Dunn Ave 

Park St 

San Juan Blvd 

Kingsley Ave 

Bowden Rd 


Zoo Parkway 



Baymeadows Rd 

Heckscher Dr 


Beach Blvd 



What Exists Today? 

Defining the Study Area 

The study area was defined by taking the premium fixed transit lines shown in Figure 1, and buffering them 

by a ½ mile. A buffer is the distance from the transit corridor/station area. Premium fixed transit lines are the 

rapid transit (BRT/light rail), the Skyway, and Street Car. Figure 2 shows the rapid fixed transit corridors (BRT/ 

light rail) that were analyzed individually and reported on separately for purposes of comparing corridors. The 

high frequency transit (HFT) lines were not buffered as part of the study area, since the nature and timing 

of implementing this transit infrastructure is uncertain, and represents less infrastructure investment as fixed 

transits routes. Potential station areas along HFT lines were included in the study area, as shown in Figure 

3, because these hubs have greater investment and certainty associated with them. The general intent of new 

development or redevelopment efforts along the corridors is to create ‘transit-ready’ or ‘transit supportive’ 

urban environments that encompass a ½ mile offset from transit corridors and transit station/ stop locations, 

and are either defined as a place type or transit corridor. Station and corridor Place Types are defined in greater 

detail in the supporting TOD Design Guidelines. Figure 3 also shows the location of all TOD hubs, or station 

areas, that were evaluated as part of this study. 

Rapid, Fixed Transit 

Commuter Rail 

Skyway 

Street Car 

High Frequency Transit Line 

95 


Starre t Rd 

Lem Turner Rd 

New Berlin Rd 

9A 

1 

295 

Kings Rd 

Monument Rd 

Beaver St 

90 

Atlantic Blvd 

Atlantic Blvd 

10 

Normandy Blvd 

17 


295 

9A 

San Jose Blvd 

95 


Hood Rd 

1 

17 

95 

0 5 

Miles 

Figure 1: Transit Lines 


103rd St 

Garden St 


Prichard Rd 

Collins Rd 

Wilson Blvd 

Dunn Ave 

Park St 

San Juan Blvd 

Kingsley Ave 

Bowden Rd 


Zoo Parkway 



Baymeadows Rd 

Heckscher Dr 


Beach Blvd 



Rapid Fixed- Transit Corridors 

Rapid A 

95 

Rapid B 

Rapid C 


Rapid D 

Rapid E 

Starre t Rd 

Rapid F 

Lem Turner Rd 

Rapid G 

New Berlin Rd 

1 

295 

F 

9A 

E 

G 

Kings Rd 

B 

Monument Rd 

Beaver St 

90 

Atlantic Blvd 

A 

Atlantic Blvd 

10 

Normandy Blvd 

17 


C 

295 

9A 

San Jose Blvd 

D 

95 


Hood Rd 

1 

17 

95 

0 5 

Miles 

Where Do People Live and Work Today? 

A-4 | Appendix A: Analysis of TOD Potential 

Figure 2: Rapid Fixed Transit Corridors 

To understand potential for the future, a detailed examination of the present was needed. An analysis was 

conducted to develop an understanding of where people live and work in the transit corridors and at what 

densities. This picture of current development is called a ‘virtual present.’ This snapshot provides the baseline 

against which a virtual TOD ‘future’ can be envisioned. 

The steps to build a virtual present involved first classifying the existing land uses. The GIS parcel database for 

Jacksonville was the primary source of land use data. A half-mile buffer of all premium fixed route transit, as 

well as high frequency transit station areas, was used to clip parcels and select them for analysis. Clipping is a 

process of using GIS to extract one area from another, in this case the 1/2 mile area was used to extract parcels 

that matched its coverage. These clipped study area parcels, depicted by the buffer areas in Figure 3, represent 

67,672 acres, or 15% of land in Jacksonville. Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) from the regional travel demand 

forecasting model contain the jobs and housing data studied. Parcel-level information, TAZs and planned 

fixed route transit GIS data were the three primary data sources used to evaluate what exists today. 

Real-estate parcel data contains Department of Revenue (DOR) land use code classifications, as shown 

in Figure 4. DOR classifications can be grouped into generalized land use categories such as residential or 

employment uses. These classifications inform us where people currently live and work, while a different set 

of data is examined to inform us of how many live there. Using GIS, the household and job totals from a 

TAZs are disaggregated and associated with parcels identified with an existing residential or employment land

103rd St 

Garden St 


Prichard Rd 

Collins Rd 

Wilson Blvd 

Dunn Ave 

Park St 

San Juan Blvd 

Kingsley Ave 

Bowden Rd 


Zoo Parkway 



Baymeadows Rd 

Heckscher Dr 


Beach Blvd 



use. Present day estimates of jobs and household data from regional travel demand model TAZs were then 

proportionally assigned to residential or employment study area parcels. Once these values are assigned, a clear 

‘virtual present’ picture emerges of where people live and work and in what densities. 

The results of the virtual present were summarized by transit corridor/station areas. Assigning a single parcel 

to a single transit corridor is not feasible at this level of analysis given that there is overlap between corridors 

especially when many of them converge near downtown. Therefore it should be noted that there is overlap 

in the by-corridor summaries. The by-corridor summaries allow a comparison between corridors, but should 

not be totaled for the whole study area because of the overlap. In the study area, there are approximately 

102,866 dwelling units, 209,44 jobs, on 67,672 acres. Tables 1 and 2 on the next page contain the present 

day residential and employment estimates for each transit corridor. Tables 3 and 4 contain a household-to-job 

ratios, and floor-to-area ratio coverages, by transit corridor. 

Transit Routes and Buffers 

Rapid Transit (1/2 mile buffer) 

95 

Commuter Rail (1/2 mile buffer) 

Skyway (1/2 mile buffer) 


Streetcar (1/2 mile buffer) 

High Frequency Transit Station Area 

Starre t Rd 

High Frequency Transit Line 

TOD Hubs 

Lem Turner Rd 

New Berlin Rd 

Premium Fixed Transit Station 

Commuter Rail Station 

1 

295 

9A 

High Frequency Transit Station 

Kings Rd 

Monument Rd 

Beaver St 

90 

Atlantic Blvd 

Atlantic Blvd 

10 

Normandy Blvd 

17 


295 

9A 

San Jose Blvd 

95 


Hood Rd 

1 

17 

95 

0 5 

Miles 

Figure 3: Transit Line Buffers Compose the Study Area 


103rd St 

Garden St 


Prichard Rd 

Collins Rd 

Wilson Blvd 

Dunn Ave 

Park St 

San Juan Blvd 

Kingsley Ave 

Bowden Rd 


Zoo Parkway 



Baymeadows Rd 

Heckscher Dr 


Beach Blvd 



Study Area 

Generalized Existing Land Use 

Employment (Com, Off, Ind, Gov, Mil, Civ) 

Vacant; Agriculture 

Residential (SF, MF) 

Undevelopable (Utility, Rds, ROW) 

95 


Starre t Rd 

Lem Turner Rd 

New Berlin Rd 

9A 

1 

295 

Kings Rd 

Monument Rd 

Beaver St 

90 

Atlantic Blvd 

Atlantic Blvd 

10 

Normandy Blvd 

17 


295 

9A 

San Jose Blvd 

95 


Hood Rd 

1 

17 

95 

0 5 

Miles 

Figure 4: Generalized Land Use 

Transit Corridor/Area 

Total 

Residential Acres 

Total DUs 

Per Corridor 

Avg DUs 

per Acre 

Total 

Corridor Acres 

Percent 

Residential 

Rapid Trans - Corridor A 3,172 19,377 6.11 10,020 32% 

Rapid Trans - Corridor B 3,059 21,022 6.87 9,072 34% 

Rapid Trans - Corridor C 1,309 10,017 7.65 7,485 17% 

Rapid Trans - Corridor D 2,732 16,288 5.96 6,479 42% 

Rapid Trans - Corridor E 2,093 12,116 5.79 4,975 42% 

Rapid Trans - Corridor F 1,578 8,968 5.68 7,184 22% 

Rapid Trans - Corridor G 631 5,481 8.69 2,344 27% 

Commuter Rail 8,962 46,551 5.19 37,903 24% 

Skyway 46 997 21.69 1,317 3% 

Street Car 801 9,444 11.79 3,552 23% 

HFT Station Area 1,543 6,213 4.03 4,276 36% 


Table 1: Existing Dwelling Units / Densities by Transit Corridor




Total 

Employment 

Acres 

Total 

Employees 

Per Corridor 

Avg Emp/ 

Acre 

Total 

Corridor 

Acres 

Percent 

Employment 

Rapid Trans - Corridor A 3,536 61,067 17.27 10,020 35% 

Rapid Trans - Corridor B 3,414 64,359 18.85 9,072 38% 

Rapid Trans - Corridor C 3,540 80,124 22.64 7,485 47% 

Rapid Trans - Corridor D 2,148 46,021 21.42 6,479 33% 

Rapid Trans - Corridor E 1,543 40,849 26.47 4,975 31% 

Rapid Trans - Corridor F 1,949 17,165 8.81 7,184 27% 

Rapid Trans - Corridor G 732 11,498 15.71 2,344 31% 

Commuter Rail 10,164 126,012 12.40 37,903 27% 

Skyway 748 49,226 65.79 1,317 57% 

Street Car 1,586 76,182 48.03 3,552 45% 

HFT Station Area 1,345 3,150 2.34 4,276 31% 

Table 2: Existing Employment / Densities by Transit Corridor 


Existing Dwelling 

Units 

Existing Employment 

Jobs/House Ratio 

Rapid Trans - Corridor A 19,377 61,067 3.15 

Rapid Trans - Corridor B 21,022 64,359 3.06 

Rapid Trans - Corridor C 10,017 80,124 8.00 

Rapid Trans - Corridor D 16,288 46,021 2.83 

Rapid Trans - Corridor E 12,116 40,849 3.37 

Rapid Trans - Corridor F 8,968 17,165 1.91 

Rapid Trans - Corridor G 5,481 11,498 2.10 

Commuter Rail 46,551 126,012 2.71 

Skyway 997 49,226 49.37 

Street Car 9,444 76,182 8.07 

HFT Station Area 6,213 3,150 0.51 

Table 3: Existing Jobs/Housing Ratios 





Avg Emp/Acre 

FAR at 

300 SF/Emp 

FAR at 

450 SF/Emp 

FAR at 

600 SF/Emp 

Rapid Trans - Corridor A 17.3 0.12 0.18 0.24 

Rapid Trans - Corridor B 18.9 0.13 0.19 0.26 

Rapid Trans - Corridor C 22.6 0.16 0.23 0.31 

Rapid Trans - Corridor D 21.4 0.15 0.22 0.30 

Rapid Trans - Corridor E 26.5 0.18 0.27 0.36 

Rapid Trans - Corridor F 8.8 0.06 0.09 0.12 

Rapid Trans - Corridor G 15.7 0.11 0.16 0.22 

Commuter Rail 12.4 0.09 0.13 0.17 

Skyway 65.8 0.45 0.68 0.91 

Street Car 48.0 0.33 0.50 0.66 

HFT Station Area 2.3 0.02 0.02 0.03 

Table 4: Existing Average Floor-to-Area Ratio by Corridor 

Improvement to land 

value ratio example 

Percentile used 

to determine 

redevelopment potential 

REDEV STATUS (GIS) 

Redevelopment 

Potential assigned a 

parcel 

0.82 75 % DEVT Fully Developed 

VAC 

UNBLD 

Vacant 

Unbuildable 

Table 5: Improvement Value/Land Value Ratio (example) 




What Could Change? 

After determining a virtual present, the next phase in understanding a future TOD scenario was to evaluate 

the potential for change. Vacant areas have the highest potential to develop, while high investment areas, such 

as established single family neighborhoods or tall office condos, probably have very low or no redevelopment 

potential. Parcels with existing development may have different potential for change based on land use or 

tax assessment values. Real-estate parcel data contains an improvement value and land value assessments. 

Improvement values are a measure of the total investment in building or other enhancements made to realestate. 

Land values are assessments of just the land before any improvements. Both assessment values come 

from the local assessors office. The ratio of improvement value to land value is a useful indicator of how much 

investment has been made on a property, and thus its potential to develop more in the future. A combination 

of DOR land use status, and tax assessment value were studied for all parcels in the transit corridor study 

area. The ratio of improvement value to land value was calculated, averaged, and then grouped by percentile 

to determine a parcel’s redevelopment potential for increased investment. Table 5 below shows an example 

of how an average improvement-to-land ratio was classified into redevelopment status based on a percentile 

grouping. 

The different redevelopment potential categories listed in Table 5 were assigned each parcel. These categories 

are explained further in Table 6, and quantified in Tables 7-10. 

Developed 

Approximately 43% (28,842 acres) of the study area was determined to be currently developed with little to 

no potential for future redevelopment. These parcels often had very high improvement to land value ratios, 

generally in top 25%. In addition, all existing single family residential was considered developed. Military, 

state, federal, and religious properties and institutions were classified as developed. The County owned lands 

were manually evaluated and where there were major civic or public facilities such as schools, hospitals, airports 

and stadiums were classified as developed, otherwise they were considered vacant. 

STATUS 

(GIS) 

DEVT 

REDEV1 

REDEV2 

REDEV3 

REDEV STATUS EXPLANATION ACRES 

Developed 

High Potential 

Redevelopment 

Medium Potential 

Redevelopment 

Low Potential 

Redevelopment 

Evaluated not likely to redevelop given high improvement 

to land value ratios. 

Improvement values to land value ratio averages were 

generally were in the lowest 25%. 


generally were in the 25-50% range. 


generally were in the 50-75% range. 

PERCENT 

OF TOTAL 

28,842 43% 

5,837 9% 

1,949 3% 

1,694 3% 

UNBLD 

Unbuildable, not 

likely to develop. 

Unbuildable areas included general public ROW, utilities, 

storm water retention, natural areas (FNAI), as well as 

Federal, State owned and some County owned lands. 

12,383 18% 

VAC 

Vacant or 

agriculture 

Areas labeled as vacant or agricultural by the Department 

of Revenue existing land use classification. 

16,966 25% 

Table 6: Development Potential Status and Acres 




High redevelopment potential 

Approximately 9% (5,837 acres) of the study area was determined to have improvement value to land value 

ratio averages that were generally were in the lowest 25%. These areas have the lowest investment, or larger 

acreage, relative to their land values. 

Medium redevelopment potential 

Approximately 3% (1,949 acres) of the study area was determined to have improvement values to land value 

ratio averages that were generally in the 25-50% range, indicating a relatively medium average potential for 

change. 

Low redevelopment potential 

Approximately 3% (1,694 acres) of the study area was determined to have improvement values to land value 

ratio averages that were generally were in the 50-75% range, indicating these parcels have a pretty significant 

current investment level but some remaining possibility for change or future development. 

Unbuildable OR not likely to develop 

Approximately 18% (12,383 acres) of the study area was evaluated as being ‘unbuildable’ or no development 

potential in the project horizon. Unbuildable areas included general public right-of-way, utilities, storm water 

retention, natural areas in the Florida Natural Areas Inventory Program, as well as federal, state owned and 

some County owned lands. Aerials were surveyed of large County owned parcels and where there was no 

visible development, these larger parcels were given a vacant classification. 

Vacant or agriculture 

Approximately 25% (16,966 acres) of the study area was evaluated as being ‘vacant’ or in agriculture use per 

their DOR land use classification. Some parcels that did not fit any of the categories above, and that had zero 

improvement values, were manually classified as vacant. When performing the future buildout, vacant parcels 

were allocated the full possible buildout potential of a TOD place type. 

Table 6 lists the acres associated with each development potential classification, and Table 7 provides a more 

concise summary by grouping all redevelopment categories into just one for simplicity. Tables 8-10 are 

summaries by transit corridor, shown both as total acres and as a percent of transit corridor acreage. It should 

be noted that there is significant overlap between corridors, especially downtown where many lines converge. 

It makes more sense to keep the overlap in order to compare corridors. Making a judgement about why one 

parcel would be assigned, or attributed, to one corridor and not the other would be difficult and prone to 

inaccuracies at this level of analysis. The summary in Table 7 of overall land with development potential shows 

that a majority of land in the study area, 61%, was determined to be fully developed or not developable. These 

lands were not allocated a TOD place type and did not receive and future buildout potential. The 14% of 

land with some redevelopment potential, and the 25% of vacant land, constitute the areas that were assigned 

a TOD place type and therefore some future buildout potential in terms of new jobs or dwellings. The areas 

with some level of development potential, either vacant or redevelopable, are shown in Figure 5. 

SUMMARY ACRES PERCENT OF TOTAL 

Developed /Unbuildable 41,225 61% 

Redevelopable 9,480 14% 

Vacant 16,966 25% 

Total 67,672 100% 

Table 7: Development Potential Summarized 




TRANSIT 

CORRIDOR/AREA 

TOTAL ACRES 

DEVELOPED 

HIGH REDEV 

POTENTIAL 

MEDIUM REDEV 

POTENTIAL 

LOW REDEV 

POTENTIAL 

UNBUILDABLE 

VACANT 

Rapid Trans - Corridor A 10,020 5,000 1,291 370 355 1,243 1,762 

Rapid Trans - Corridor B 9,072 5,020 927 342 307 1,302 1,174 

Rapid Trans - Corridor C 7,485 3,212 1,159 406 407 1,182 1,118 

Rapid Trans - Corridor D 6,479 4,040 762 243 173 581 679 

Rapid Trans - Corridor E 4,975 3,077 387 207 122 373 808 

Rapid Trans - Corridor F 7,184 2,926 450 305 138 1,111 2,254 

Rapid Trans - Corridor G 2,344 1,283 141 51 49 495 325 

Commuter Rail 37,903 13,979 3,280 959 925 7,160 11,600 

Skyway 1,317 544 290 74 58 209 143 

Street Car 3,552 1,880 645 176 113 371 366 

HFT Station 4,276 1,636 238 60 44 1,359 938 

Table 8: Development Potential by Corridor (Acres) 

TRANSIT CORRIDOR/ 

AREA 

TOTAL ACRES 

DEVELOPED 

HIGH REDEV 

POTENTIAL 

MEDIUM REDEV 

POTENTIAL 

LOW REDEV 

POTENTIAL 

UNBUILDABLE 

VACANT 

Rapid Trans - Corridor A 10,020 50% 13% 4% 4% 12% 18% 

Rapid Trans - Corridor B 9,072 55% 10% 4% 3% 14% 13% 

Rapid Trans - Corridor C 7,485 43% 15% 5% 5% 16% 15% 

Rapid Trans - Corridor D 6,479 62% 12% 4% 3% 9% 10% 

Rapid Trans - Corridor E 4,975 62% 8% 4% 2% 8% 16% 

Rapid Trans - Corridor F 7,184 41% 6% 4% 2% 15% 31% 

Rapid Trans - Corridor G 2,344 55% 6% 2% 2% 21% 14% 

Commuter Rail 37,903 37% 9% 3% 2% 19% 31% 

Skyway 1,317 41% 22% 6% 4% 16% 11% 

Street Car 3,552 53% 18% 5% 3% 10% 10% 

HFT Station 4,276 46% 7% 2% 1% 38% 26% 

Table 9: Development Potential by Corridor (Percentage) 


103rd St 

Garden St 


Prichard Rd 

Collins Rd 

Wilson Blvd 

Dunn Ave 

Park St 

San Juan Blvd 

Kingsley Ave 

Bowden Rd 


Zoo Parkway 



Baymeadows Rd 

Heckscher Dr 


Beach Blvd 



95 

Development/Redevelopment Potential 


REDEV1 - High Potential 

REDEV2 - Med Potential 

Starre t Rd 

REDEV3 - Low Potential 

Lem Turner Rd 

VAC - Vacant (High Potential) 

New Berlin Rd 

(Fully developed or undevelopable 

parcels not shown) 

9A 

1 

295 

Kings Rd 

Monument Rd 

Beaver St 

90 

Atlantic Blvd 

Atlantic Blvd 

10 

Normandy Blvd 

17 


295 

9A 

San Jose Blvd 

95 


Hood Rd 

1 

17 

95 

0 5 

Miles 

Figure 5: Study Area Parcels by Development Potential Category 

TRANSIT CORRIDOR/AREA 

TOTAL ACRES 

DEVELOPED OR 

UNBUILDABLE 

REDEVELOP- 

ABLE 

VACANT 

Rapid Trans - Corridor A 10,020 62% 20% 18% 

Rapid Trans - Corridor B 9,072 70% 17% 13% 

Rapid Trans - Corridor C 7,485 59% 26% 15% 

Rapid Trans - Corridor D 6,479 71% 18% 10% 

Rapid Trans - Corridor E 4,975 69% 14% 16% 

Rapid Trans - Corridor F 7,184 56% 12% 31% 

Rapid Trans - Corridor G 2,344 76% 10% 14% 

Commuter Rail 37,903 56% 14% 31% 

Skyway 1,317 57% 32% 11% 

Street Car 3,552 63% 26% 10% 

HFT Station Area 4,276 84% 10% 26% 


Table 10: Development Potential by Corridor - Summary

103rd St 

Garden St 


Prichard Rd 

Collins Rd 

Wilson Blvd 

Dunn Ave 

Park St 

San Juan Blvd 

Kingsley Ave 

Bowden Rd 


Zoo Parkway 



Baymeadows Rd 

Heckscher Dr 


Beach Blvd 



TOD Place Types 

S1 Campus/Facilities 

95 


S3 Village 




Starre t Rd 

U1 Downtown 

Lem Turner Rd 


New Berlin Rd 




Commuter Stations 

1 

295 

9A 

Kings Rd 

Monument Rd 

Beaver St 

90 

Atlantic Blvd 

Atlantic Blvd 

10 

Normandy Blvd 

17 


295 

9A 

San Jose Blvd 

95 


Hood Rd 

1 

17 

95 

0 5 

Miles 

Figure 6: TOD Place Types 

TOD PLACE MAKING 

ELEMENT 

AVERAGE 

DU PER ACRE 

AVERAGE FAR 

(NON-RES ONLY) 

EMPLOYMENT PER 

ACRE 

S1 Campus 0.0 1.2 89.2 

S2 Town Center 28.7 3.3 103.5 

S3 Village 10.1 0.8 20.9 

S4 Suburban Neighborhood 7.7 0.6 10.3 

SC Suburban Corridor 7.7 0.6 10.3 

U1 Downtown 47.5 5.0 299.8 

U2 Urban Center 23.1 2.6 173.4 

U3 Main Street 16.3 1.4 61.9 

U4 Urban Neighborhood 15.6 0.9 

UC Urban Corridor 15.6 0.9 15.6 

Table 11: TOD Place Making Element Density/Intensity 


103rd St 

Garden St 


Prichard Rd 

Collins Rd 

Wilson Blvd 

Dunn Ave 

Park St 

San Juan Blvd 

Kingsley Ave 

Bowden Rd 


Zoo Parkway 



Baymeadows Rd 

Heckscher Dr 


Beach Blvd 



Creating a Virtual Future – Evaluating TOD Potential 

A virtual future was created to test the future buildout potential of different TOD policies. The steps in this 

process involved identifying the location of future transit hubs (stations areas), and assigning them one of 

eight station area, or one of two corridor TOD place types. A typology map of TOD Place Types is shown in 

Figure 6. Station areas were assigned to a half-mile area, or buffer, around each hub. The corridors between the 

hubs were either assigned an urban corridor, or a suburban corridor place type based depending on where that 

corridor intersected with Jacksonville’s 2030 Mobility Plan development area designation (Central Business; 

Urban Priority, Suburban Priority, see Figure 3 in the Policy Framework). 

Each TOD place making element has associated with it a density and intensity intention for the policy framework. 

The density/intensity values are shown in Table 11. The average dwelling units/acre and employment/acre for 

each TOD place type is typically given as a variable range, but for purposes of this buildout an exact figure was 

adopted. The place making elements were composed and allocated to study area parcels in GIS using CorPlan 

- a land use evaluation and allocation tool. 

The density/intensity values shown in Table 11 were applied only to study parcels determined to be vacant or 

redevelopable to some degree. A map of the TOD place type allocation to study area vacant and redevelopment 

parcels is shown in Figure 7. Areas that were vacant or that had high redevelopment potential received 100% 

of the TOD potential jobs and houses. Areas of medium redevelopment potential received 66% of the full 

TOD buildout, and areas of low redevelopment potential received 33%. In addition, any developable parcel 

TOD Place Making Elements Allocated 

to Vacant/Redevelopable Parcels 

S1 Campus 


95 

S3 Village 




U1 Downtown 

Starre t Rd 

Lem Turner Rd 



New Berlin Rd 



1 

295 

9A 

TOD Study Area 

Kings Rd 

Monument Rd 

Beaver St 

90 

Atlantic Blvd 

Atlantic Blvd 

10 

Normandy Blvd 

17 


295 

9A 

San Jose Blvd 

95 


Hood Rd 

1 

17 

95 

0 5 

Miles 


Figure 7: TOD Place Types Allocated to Vacant/Redevelopable Parcels



that qualified for the residential-neighborhood 'Scale Transition' protection had the development potential 

reduced by 15%. The definition of parcels qualifying for this residential-neighborhood, “scaled transition” 

protection comes from the City of Jacksonville Comprehensive plan, “In order to maintain and enhance existing 

residential enclaves and low density residential areas, the commercial, industrial, Medium Density Residential, and 

High Density Residential future land use category descriptions shall include provisions for general neighborhood 

protection.” 

Table 12 shows the potential for new dwelling units and jobs within the total area for each TOD place type 

within the study area. Table 13 shows the total acres for each TOD place type, the jobs/housing ratio for each 

and the potential dwelling units per acre and employees per acre that could be achieved with the TOD areas. 

TOD Place Type Dwellings Percent of Total Jobs Percent of Total 

S1 Campus 0 0% 49,029 6% 

S2 Town Center 32,373 11% 116,499 14% 

S3 Village 26,506 9% 54,764 7% 

S4 Suburban Neighborhood 7,435 2% 9,892 1% 

SC Suburban Corridor 85,234 28% 113,409 14% 

U1 Downtown 26,026 9% 164,351 20% 

U2 Urban Center 16,800 6% 126,330 16% 

U3 Main Street 24,290 8% 92,203 11% 

U4 Urban Neighborhood 7,253 2% 7,304 1% 

UC Urban Corridor 74,262 25% 74,792 9% 

Total 300,178 808,573 

Table 12: Potential New Dwelling Units and Jobs by Place Type 

TOD Place Type 

Acres 

(Vac/Redev) 

Percent of 

Total 

Jobs/Housing 

Ratio 

DU/Acre 

EMP/Acre 

S1 Campus 578 2% na 0.0 84.8 

S2 Town Center 1,263 5% 1.34 25.6 92.2 

S3 Village 2,870 11% 0.77 9.2 19.1 

S4 Suburban Neighborhood 997 4% 0.49 7.5 9.9 

SC Suburban Corridor 11,404 43% 0.49 7.5 9.9 

U1 Downtown 607 2% 2.34 42.9 270.9 

U2 Urban Center 882 3% 2.79 19.1 143.3 

U3 Main Street 1,829 7% 1.41 13.3 50.4 

U4 Urban Neighborhood 5,443 21% 0.37 13.6 13.7 

UC Urban Corridor 574 2% 0.37 12.6 12.7 

Total 26,447 2.69 

Table 13: Potential Acres Developed by Place Type 




The final tables combine the existing and future dwelling units and jobs by TOD place type and transit 

corridor/area. Table 14 shows the future potential for new dwelling units and jobs within the TOD area by 

transit corridor/area. It also shows the potential average dwelling unit per acre and employment per acre with 

each corridor/area. Table 15 shows the existing plus future total potential buildout for each corridor/area. The 

dwelling units and employment are the sum of what is in Tables 1, 2 and 14. 


Future 

Dwellings 

Future 

Jobs 

Acres 

Vac/Redev 

Jobs/ 

Housing 

Average 

DU/Acre 

Average 

EMP/Acre 

Rapid Trans - Corridor A 59,888 248,180 3,778 4.14 15.85 65.70 

Rapid Trans - Corridor B 54,381 225,840 2,750 4.15 19.77 82.11 

Rapid Trans - Corridor C 52,596 196,941 3,091 3.74 17.01 63.71 

Rapid Trans - Corridor D 30,370 118,218 1,857 3.89 16.35 63.64 

Rapid Trans - Corridor E 25,079 102,710 1,524 4.10 16.46 67.40 

Rapid Trans - Corridor F 35,251 113,121 3,148 3.21 11.20 35.94 

Rapid Trans - Corridor G 10,969 40,668 566 3.71 19.38 71.86 

Commuter Rail 185,664 449,885 16,764 2.42 11.08 26.84 

Skyway 19,722 117,956 564 5.98 34.95 209.07 

Street Car 35,908 187,823 1,301 5.23 27.60 144.39 

HFT Station Area 11,771 58,001 1,281 4.93 9.19 45.26 

Table 14: Potential New Development Summarized by Transit Corridor/Area 

Virtual Future (Existing 

+ TOD Buildout) 

Dwelling 

Units 

Employment 

Jobs/House 

Ratio 

Average DU/ 

Acre 

Average 

Emp/Acre 

Rapid Trans - Corridor A 79,265 309,247 3.90 10.98 41.48 

Rapid Trans - Corridor B 75,403 290,199 3.85 13.32 50.48 

Rapid Trans - Corridor C 62,613 277,065 4.43 12.33 43.17 

Rapid Trans - Corridor D 46,658 164,239 3.52 11.16 42.53 

Rapid Trans - Corridor E 37,195 143,559 3.86 11.12 46.94 

Rapid Trans - Corridor F 44,219 130,286 2.95 8.44 22.37 

Rapid Trans - Corridor G 16,450 52,166 3.17 14.04 43.79 

Commuter Rail 232,215 575,897 2.48 8.13 19.62 

Skyway 20,719 167,182 8.07 28.32 137.43 

Street Car 45,352 264,005 5.82 19.70 96.21 

HFT Station Area 17,984 61,151 3.40 6.61 23.80 

Table 15: Total Future Buildout – Existing and Future Potential 




Summary 

The full TOD potential buildout for the whole study area of 300,178 new dwellings and 808,573 new jobs 

represents a maximum possible buildout based on TOD policies (density/intensity) as applied to land currently 

evaluated to be developable or redevelopable. Full buildouts are seldom realized, however the significant 

potential shows that if transit oriented policies are realized a significant number of future households and jobs 

can be served by transit investments. 

The intensity /density and mix of use guidelines included in the Design Guidelines for Transit Oriented 

Development are informed by the analysis included in this Appendix. TOD within the designated rapid transit 

corridors and station areas represents a small proportion of land in the City of Jacksonville but has a significant 

development potential. In order to represent realistic growth targets and manage the long term jobs to housing 

balance within and outside the rapid transit corridors, the station area and corridor intensity/density in the 

design guidelines are adjusted lower. 




References and Resources 

“City of Jacksonville 2030 Comprehensive Plan”, November 2010, City of Jacksonville Planning and Development 

Department 

“City of Jacksonville 2030 Mobility Plan”, November 2010, City of Jacksonville Planning and Development 

Department 

“Jacksonville Florida Transit Initiatives”, Jacksonville Transportation Authority, July 14, 2009 

“Policy of the Jacksonville Transportation Authority for Development Adjacent to Transit Facilities”, Jacksonville 

Transportation Authority, September 10, 2008 

“City of Jacksonville, Ordinance 2007-587-E”, Enacted June 27, 2007 

“Jacksonville Design Guidelines and Best Practices Handbook” Prepared by Miller, Sellen, Conner, & Walsh 

“TOD 101: Why Transit-Oriented Development and Why Now?” By Reconnecting America and the Center for 

Transit-Oriented Development, www.reconnectingamerica.org 

“TOD 202: Station Area Planning, How to Make Great Transit-Oriented Places” By Reconnecting America and 

the Center for Transit-Oriented Development, www.reconnectingamerica.org 

“Vine Street Redevelopment Overlay Design Guidelines”, City of Kissimmee, Florida, November 13, 2009, 

Prepared by Renaissance Planning Group 

“SmartCode v 9.2” www.SmartCodeCentral.org 

“Florida Department of Transportation, Transit Oriented Development Design Guidelines”, Draft April ‘09 

Some Images were courtesy the Reconnecting America Image bank, www.reconnectingamerica.org

Policy Framework - Jacksonville Transportation Authority

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?