Connecting a Community through Roadway RedesignADAPTING ARLINGTONA Senior Capstone Project by Mark Koenig University of Florida College of Design, Construction & Planning Department of Landscape Architecture Spring 2014
ACKNOWLEDGMENTSI would like to extend many thanks to the Department of Landscape Architecture faculty, especially my advisor Kay Williams, for all their guidance and support over the past five years. Also, a special thank you to the Jacksonville Planning and Development Department and FDOT District 2 for their provision of key information towards the completion of this project. Furthermore, I would like to thank all my friends, family and studio mates for their input and help along the way. It has been a long and arduous journey and I could not have done it without you all.
MOTIVEAging, outdated infrastructure and continuously sprawling suburban landscapes are stalwart icons of contemporary American cities. The question of what can be done to rectify our unabated growth pattern outwards is a concern that is being addressed more by citizens and visionaries, especially those in the design professions. The recent cultural push to live more symbiotically with nature has led to experimentation in the blighted inner-city and first-ring suburbs of many cities. New ideas in transportation, housing, farming, etc., have been able to take hold and prosper in the hands of citizen groups and government officials willing to reevaluate the status quo. With this foundation in perspective, I choose to focus on a Floridian landscape prime for innovative intervention.
ABSTRACT HISTORY GOALS ANALYSIS RESEARCH SYNTHESIS CONCEPT DESIGN APPENDIXCONTENTS
PROJECT ABSTRACTThe Arlington neighborhood of Jacksonville, FL, is a first-ring suburb which has not been uncharacteristic in the decline of its public infrastructure and commercial-retail services in the past decades. Originally developed in the 1950s Post World War II boom, the Arlington neighborhood developed around the Arlington Expressway, a limited-access freeway connecting Jacksonvilles Downtown urban core across the St. Johns River on towards Jacksonville Beach. Through the on-going decades, the Arlington neighborhood grew along the backbone of its expressway, developing as a corridor of strip malls and retail centers with low density residential homes developed behind. With the development of bigger and brighter suburban centers in Jacksonville, the Arlington neighborhood slowly fell into the downtrodden and bleak state of disrepair where it currently remains. Adapting Arlington, as a project, serves to reinvigorate and reevaluate the current state of affairs in the Arlington neighborhood of Jacksonville. As a catalyst and highly visible symbol, the Arlington Expressway, and other public right of ways, serve as the starting point for redesign. The current roadway, very much similar in form since its conception, acts as a well defined barrier to north-south movement through Arlington, especially pedestrian flow. Thus, increased connectivity throughout Arlington for pedestrian and vehicular flows, and visioning as to where those flows were desired to be made, laid the foundation for all design investigation. The project utilizes the public realm to allow a larger program range than previously supported. Unutilized roadway medians, battering walls, vacant parcels and underperforming asphalt were envisioned as areas for increased public open space, public art installation, bus rapid transit stations and infill development. The design strives to enliven the Arlington community through the creation of a diverse, lively environment starting at the streetscape and public realm.
ARLINGTON EXPRESSWAY JACKSONVILLE, DUVAL COUNTY, FL
ARLINGTON OPENEDBefore the 1950s, the Arlington neighborhood was a primarily rural community on the far shores of the St. Johns River across from the urban core of Downtown Jacksonville, FL. With the cessation of WWII, the fate of Arlington was to be realized through large-scale infrastructure development, much as the rest of America at the time. The construction of the Matthews Bridge, completed in 1953, forged a direct link between Downtown Jacksonville and the undeveloped lands of the Arlington neighborhood. The further construction of the Arlington Expressway, a four-lane divided freeway, as the extension of the Matthews Bridge through the Arlington neighborhood, allowed for a corridor directly linking to Jacksonvilles beaches further to the east.
ARLINGTON 1953 BRIDGE CONNECTION COMPLETION
ARLINGTON DEVELOPEDFollowing completion of the major infrastructure projects, the Matthews Bridge and Arlington Expressway, development quickly followed suit in the Arlington neighborhood. Single-family residential communities sprouted up adjacent to the new roadway, the subdivisions Lake Lucina and Alderman Park among the first. Coupled with the influx of new suburbanites chasing the American dream came the development of commercial centers to provide the services necessary to a burgeoning population. By 1955, the Town & Country Shopping Center and Arlington Plaza had opened adjacent to the expressway to serve the 25,000 new residents who had already settled in Arlington. Additional strip retail centers soon followed suite, such as the Expressway Mall and Regency Square Shopping Center. The addition of office park complexes and light industrial centers increased the functioning of the Arlington neighborhood as not only a bedroom community, but a fully realized live-and-work extension of Jacksonvilles urban core. With the advent of new suburban development further from the core of Downtown Jacksonville in later decades, such as the Mandarin and Orange Park communities, competition to attract residents in the now mature Arlington neighborhood led towards the path of its decline. The commercial-retail strip centers of Arlington faced ever greater competition from the new regional malls and town-centers of other Jacksonville suburbs.
ARLINGTON 1957 SUBURBAN DEVELOPMENT BOOM
ENLIVENPROVIDE VISIONING FOR FUTURE LAND USES THAT ACTIVATE THE SITE FOR CURRENT USERS, AND OPEN THE SITE TO A GREATER DENSITY OF USERS. GENERATE AN INCREASED SENSE OF COMMUNITY WITHIN THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD THROUGH AMENITIZATION OF PUBLIC SPACES AND PARTNERSHIPS WITH COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS. PREEMPTIVELY CHOOSE DESIGN SOLUTIONS BY WHICH THE SITE CAN BOTH PROTECT AND SPONSOR CONTINUOUS ACTIVITY AT ALL TIME INTERVALS THROUGHOUT THE DAY.GOALS & OBJECTIVESIn order to establish a guiding framework by which design investigation and decision-making could be applied for the Arlington neighborhood, existing planning documents, community-meeting minutes and literature on urban design were consulted. The main informing documents were as follows: Greater Arlington/Beaches Vision Plan, Greater Arlington/Beaches Charrette Summary, Complete Streets Best Policy and Implementation Practices, and Retrofitting Suburbia Urban Design Solutions for Redesigning Suburbs.
CONNECTASSUAGE THE PHYSICAL BARRIER OF THE EXPRESSWAY AS A MEANS TO REESTABLISH SAFE FLOWS OF MOVEMENT ACROSS AND WITHIN THE COMMUNITY. DEVELOP SAFE AND INTEGRATED TRAVEL SYSTEMS FOR THE NECESSARY MOVEMENT OF ALL USER GROUPS: PEDESTRIAN, CYCLIST, DRIVER, TRANSIT USER. ENHANCE THE LINKAGES AND INTERRELATIONSHIPS OF PUBLIC SPACES WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WITH THE SITE USERS WHICH UTILIZE THEM.SUSTAININCREASE THE ECOLOGICAL SERVICES BEING PROVIDED TO, FOR, AND BY THE COMMUNITY BY DEVELOPING WITH REGARDS TO NATURAL PROCESSES AND ENVIRONMENTAL FUNCTIONS. ALLOW FOR A SYSTEMS APPROACH BY WHICH THE SITE CAN BE DEVELOPED AND HARNESSED TO MEET THE IMMEDIATE AND FUTURE NEEDS OF ITS VARYING USER GROUPS. PROMOTE COMMUNITY INTEREST AND PARTICIPATION IN PROVIDING NECESSARY NEIGHBORHOOD SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND RETAIL SERVICES.
CIRCULATION ANALYSISCirculation through the Arlington neighborhood was analyzed through dissection of the infrastructure system into component parts. The choosen divisions related to varying uses: vehicular, pedestrian-cyclist, and public transit. Primary vehicular circulation, as well as all other circulation types, in the Arlington neighborhood are based around the Arlington Expressway. As part of the greater SR-115 network, the Arlington Expressway is the highest-capacity Class I roadway within Arlington, and currently has a daily traffic-load of 46,500 vehicles. The vehicular level of service for the Arlington Expressway is LOS D, the standard minimum design level for urban roadways in Jacksonville. Pedestrian-Cyclist circulation in Arlington is shown to be severely lacking when the sidewalk network and bike path network are isolated from all other infrastructure. Along the Arlington Expressway corridor roughly 50 percent of the 3.06 linear miles has current sidewalk infrastructure, with only three pedestrian crossing points at University Boulevard, Cesery Boulevard, and Arlington Road. Existing bike infrastructure in the Arlington neighborhood is limited to an approximately one mile-long dedicated path along Lone Star Road to the north of the Tree Hill Nature Center. The Jacksonville Comprehensive Plan 2030 distinguishes bike lane expansion in Arlington, as well as increasing pedestrian flows across the Arlington Expressway, as primary interventions. Public transit circulation through the Arlington neighborhood currently consists of four normal bus service routes, with only three routes having dedicated stops within a half-mile of the Arlington Expressway corridor. The Jacksonville Transit Authority is currently studying East Jacksonville for the possibility of Bus Rapid Transit service, and while the study proposes the use of the Arlington Expressway as an arterial for the route, no stops are proposed along its three mile stretch.
VEHICULAR CIRCULATION NETWORK Arlington Expressway Local Collectors Local Roads
PEDESTRIAN-CYCLIST CIRCULATION Existing Sidewalk Paths Existing Bike Lanes
PUBLIC TRANSIT CIRCULATION CT2 Southside Bus Route/Stop U2 Southside Bus Route/Stop R5 Interliner Bus Route/Stop AR6 Arlington Bus Route/Stop
SECTIONAL ANALYSISSectional analysis of the Arlington Expressway corridor was undertaken to determine the spatial arrangement of roadway features within the public right of way, as well as to explore the transitional space between the public right of way and adjacent private development. The three existing divided intersections along the Arlington Expressway provide minimal space for pedestrian movement. Two five-foot sidewalks are all that is provided for the three pedestrian connection points across the three-and-a-half mile long Arlington Expressway. The vast majority of the public right of way is given over 200 8 30 24 6 5 30 31 31 24 6 5DIVIDED INTERSECTION TYPICAL Pedestrian Realm Vehicular Realm Transitional Realm
ARLINGTON EXPRESSWAY TYPICALto the vehicular realm. Adjacent private development at the main intersections and nodes along the Arlington Expressway is typical as elsewhere along the roadway, favoring structure setbacks of greater than 30 feet with parking lots fronted on the expressway service roads. Beyond the relatively more developed divided intersection areas, the remainder of the Arlington Expressway corridor is equally unfavorable to pedestrian movement. The right of way becomes void of sidewalks and pedestrian infrastructure, and forces pedestrian flows into the vehicular realm or on private property. Large 30foot medians seperating the main expressway from its parallel service roads are unutilized, save for light poles and turf. A center median equipped with oleander and a chain-link fence is often traversed by rogue pedestrians. 200 30 30 24 30 31 31 24 Pedestrian Realm Vehicular Realm Transitional Realm
VISUAL IMPACT ANALYSISThe current visual appearance along the Arlington Expressway corridor reveals a declining suburban landscape akin to many other first-ring suburbs throughout the country. The Town & Country Shopping Center and Arlington Plaza have undergone perpetual decline over the past few decades, both experiencing overwhelming vacancy rates and providing a lack of essential services, such as accessibility to food. The decline in the Arlington Expressway as a retail-commercial corridor is further evident in the prominent amount of abutting parcels that are either for sale, lease or have become vacant. The Arlington Expressways third prominent strip mall, the Expressway Mall, was torn down in 2006 and remains the largest vacant parcel along the corridor at 18.48 acres. VACANT EXPRESSWAY MALL SITE
UNFAVORABLE PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT
DIVIDED EXPRESSWAY INTERSECTION
WALKABILITY ANALYSISWalkability analysis was conducted through the process of identifying the existing points of interest within the Arlington Expressway corridor and mapping a five-minute, quarter-mile walking radius from those areas. The points of interest identified for analysis were grouped into three disparate catagories: Public Open Space, Education Facilities, and Food Services. The existing sidewalk network was transposed onto these analysis diagrams to highlight the level of pedestrian connectivity supported by current infrastructure. Analysis of pedestrian accessibility to public open space showed a lack of open space to the Northwest and Southwest portions of the Arlington Expressway corridor. While the Northeast and Southeast areas largely fell within a quarter-mile walking radius of public open space, the blatant lack of pedestrian infrastructure to access these spaces greatly diminishes the safety associated with pedestrian flow to these spaces. Analysis of pedestrian accessibility to education facilities highlighted the relatively large dispersal of such facilities within the Arlington neighborhood, and thus the high amount of land area located within a quarter-mile walking range. The lack of sidewalks to allow safe means of access, especially for a primarily adolescent user group, again show how the current infrastructure situation is undermining this access potential. Analysis of pedestrian accessibility to food services revealed the clear lack of procurement potential to the eastern half of the Arlington Expressway corridor. Even in those areas within a quarter-mile walking radius to a food service provider, the lack of clear sidewalk network would undermine the use possibility of pedestrian access. It is also of critical importance to note that not one current food service provider in the Arlington Expressway corridor is a dedicated grocery or market, but rather convenient stores and pharmacies which happen to sell some food stuffs.
PEDESTRIAN ACCESSIBILITY TO PUBLIC OPEN SPACE 5-Minute Walk Radius Public Open Space Sidewalk Network
PEDESTRIAN ACCESSIBILITY TO EDUCATION FACILITIES 5-Minute Walk Radius Education Facilities Sidewalk Network
PEDESTRIAN ACCESSIBILITY TO FOOD SERVICES 5-Minute Walk Radius Food Services Sidewalk Network
LAND USE ANALYSISExisting land use analysis of the Arlington neighborhood in Jacksonville, FL, reflects the development trends which were typical of the area in the Post WWII decades. Parcels adjacent to the public right of way have a wide array of uses including: Institutional, Commercial, Light Industrial, and Medium-Density Residential. Beyond these right of way fronting parcels, Low-Density Residential land use proliferates in Arlington, with some Medium-Density Residential, Institutional, and Government-Owned open space mixed throughout. The lack of focus of land uses along the expressway corridor, and the linear spacing of them, creates a network favoring vehicular transportation to and from destinations, putting the pedestrian at a disadvantage for obtaining essential goods and services from disparate locations. Of significant note is the wide array of Vacant parcels which exist in the Arlington Expressway corridor. Through visual impact analysis and assessment it also remains clear that while some parcels may have current land use designation of Commercial or Institutional, overwhelming lack of tenants adds to the appearance and perception of vacancy and blight. The location of many of these vacant and blighted parcels in the most highly visible area of the Arlington neighborhood, directly adjacent to the heavily travelled Arlington Expressway, further bulsters the downtrodden image of the community.
LAND USE ANALYSIS Commercial Med.-Density Residential Low-Density Residential Reserved Open Space Institutional Light Industrial Vacant Parcels
HYDROLOGIC ANALYSISLocated along the Eastern banks of the St. Johns River, the Arlington neighborhood has many water-based resource opportunities. The Arlington River forms a natural barrier to the Southeast of Arlington, with Strawberry Creek and the Red Bay Branch running directly through the community further to the west. Lands within the FEMA 100-year storm event flood plain were mappped in correlation to two-foot contour data to achieve the hydrologic analysis diagram provided. Lands along the St. Johns River, Arlington River, Strawberry Creek, and Red Bay Branch were shown to be the relative low points and receptors of water drainage flow for the Arlington neighborhood. Curb and gutter infrastructure along the major roadways through Arlington, the Arlington Expressway, Arlington Road, Cesery Boulevard, and University Boulevard, provide drainage interception on to the further watershed. Areas along the water tributaries were found to lie within the FEMA 100-year flood pain.
HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS FEMA 100-year flood plain 2-foot contour lines
USER INVENTORY & ANALYSISDemographic research of Jacksonville, FL, as a whole, plus the Arlington community specifically, was conducted to provide further insight into the user base of the site. In comparison to other areas of Jacksonville, save maybe Jacksonvilles also defunct urban core, the median household income levels of Arlington prove to be low, with 14-25 percent of the population falling below the poverty line. While only 3-9 percent of Arlington residents utilize existing public transportation, it proves to be a relatively high percentage when compared to Jacksonville as a whole, showing the reliance of this community for public access to goods and services not located within their own neighborhood. Direct input from the Arlington community was also available in the form of charrette meeting minutes compiled by Flagg Design Studio, LLC, for the Jacksonville Planning Department in the Arlington Planning District Charrettes Summary Report (See Appendix). The access to this material of local citizens most direct concerns helped to provide a foundation for not only project goal creation, but for development of program elements within the design process.
THE NEW YORK BOULEVARDSIn order to explore the adverse effects of Post-WWII suburban planning on the development and design of the Arlington Expressway corridor, a study of other historic suburban corridors was undertaken. A trio of roadways in the Bronx and Brooklyn first-ring suburbs of New York City were researched to determine the factors of planning and design which lead to their varying degrees of success. The first roadway corridor to be analyzed was that of the Grand Concourse in the Bronx, NY. Designed in the late 1890s, the roadway runs four-and-a-half miles as an extension of the north-south axis set up by Central Park on Manhattan. With a right of way width averaging 175 feet, the roadway corridor is slightly narrower than that of the Arlington Expressway. With a lack of public-private partnerships and shoddy maintenance, the corridor is eerily similar in its downtrodden appearance to the Arlington Expressway, although the inclusion of sidewalks, no matter how narrow, still allows for pedestrian flows. The tall massing of abutting property structures, paucity of street trees, and lack of intersection connections for pedestrian crossing points all uphold the Grand Concourse as a boulevard focused on vehicular movement. Consideration of pedestrian flows remains an afterthought. The Eastern Parkway and Ocean Parkway corridors of Brooklyn, NY, are relative success stories for first-ring suburban landscapes. Built in the 1870s, these roadways are of particular interest as design works of Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux. Both roadways have right of way widths averaging 210 feet, falling within the upper range of the Arlington Expressways width. At two-and-a-half and five-and-a-half miles respectively, the roadways create definitive yet integrated spaces for pedestrians and vehicles alike. Each parkway possesses wide, center through-traffic lanes flanked by grand pedestrian malls, smaller local-traffic service roads, and sidewalks bordering parcels with dedicated 30-foot building setbacks. The presence of unbroken rows of shady street trees coupled with the amentized and activated malls entices pedestrian flows, while still providing safety.
GRAND CONCOURSE, BRONX Pedestrian Realm Vehicular Realm Transitional Realm
EASTERN PARKWAY, BROOKLYN Pedestrian Realm Vehicular Realm Transitional Realm
OCEAN PARKWAY, BROOKLYN Pedestrian Realm Vehicular Realm Transitional Realm
PROJECT SYNTHESIS & PROGRAM DEVELOPMENTThrough the synthesis of project analysis and research investigation, a preliminary development program was developed to guide conceptual design work. This program directly responds to the goals and objectives laid out to inform the overall design visioning. Emphasis was placed on program elements that could be materialized and implemented in the public right of way spaces in Arlington, as well as recommendations for how privately-owned adjacent parcels could respond most appropriately.ENLIVEN CONNECT SUSTAIN
PROGRAM ELEMENTSSIDEWALKS / WALKING PATHS BIKE PATHS / LANES TRAIL SYSTEM STREETSCAPE PLANTINGS STREET LIGHTING PUBLIC TRANSIT ROUTES PUBLIC TRANSIT STOPS PUBLIC ART PUBLIC OPEN SPACE EXPRESSWAY CROSSINGS PARK & RIDE LOTS GATEWAY FEATURES DENSER DEVELOPMENT
Opportunity to create community gateway through planting & public art installation Opportunity to utilize Town & Country Shopping Center for redevelopment Opportunity to improve connectivity by connecting road across expressway Opportunity to utilize Arlington Plaza and vacant parcels for redevelopment Constraint of designing alternatives for existing divided intersections
SITE SYNTHESIS Opportunity to utilize government parcels along roadway for infrastructure projects Opportunity to connect green space network using vacant & government parcels Opportunity to improve connectivity by connecting road across expressway Opportunity to utilize Expressway Mall vacant site for redevelopment Opportunity to utilize expressway right of way for public amenities and spaces
CONCEPTUAL EXPLORATIONDesign intervention alternatives for the Arlington neighborhood were first explored conceptually by examining different arrangements of elements within the Arlington Expressway right of way. Sectional diagrams were utilized as an effective tool to quickly consider how realignment and massing of necessary roadway elements could impact the site programmatically, and thus have a bearing on the overall project goals: to connect, to enliven, and to sustain the Arlington community. At a conceptual level, the development of an overarching framework by which smaller scale design decisions could be made was also investigated. The first concept focused on clustering intervention into development nodes, by which the idea of pulsating centers of activity from Peter Calthorpes Urban Network system would be played out. The existing Town & Country Shopping Center and Arlington Plaza sites, plus the vacant former Expressway Mall site would be the three critical development nodes and focus of urban-scaled roadway design solutions. The existing Tree Hill Nature Center and Red Bay Branch watershed connection would be the critical node for open space connection within Arlington. Roadway design between node locations would reflect and respond to the desired character of a less-dense residential neighborhood arrangement. The second design framework concept focused on development along the major roadway corridors of the Arlington neighborhood. This linear fabric of intervention would maximize exposure to the Arlington community and look to remediate the conflicting land uses currently adjacent to right of ways. Roadway design solutions would focus on the creation of an urban trail system by which public open space would also be easily accessible throughout Arlington.
PROS: CONS: SIDEWALK PROMENADE FOCUS Pedestrian Realm Vehicular Realm Transitional Realm
CENTRAL PEDESTRIAN MEDIAN FOCUS Pedestrian Realm Vehicular Realm Transitional RealmPROS: CONS:
DIVIDED PEDESTRIAN MEDIAN FOCUS Pedestrian Realm Vehicular Realm Transitional RealmPROS: CONS:
CLUSTERED DESIGN FRAMEWORK Open Space Node Development Nodes Potential Links
LINEAR DESIGN FRAMEWORK Open Space Fabric Development Fabric Potential Links
Arlington Gateway University Blvd. BRT Station & Public Art Town & Country Center Redevelopment Node Cesery Blvd. Intersection Public Art Reconnected Intersection Arlington Plaza Redevelopment Node Arlington Rd. Intersection Public Art
OVERALL MASTER PLAN Arlington Rd. BRT Station Tree Hill Nature Center Connection Reconnected Intersection Reconnected Intersection Expressway Mall Redevelopment Node
Expanded Pedesrian Crossing Realm Widened Crosswalk for Urban Trail Connection Urban Trail System Transition at Nodes Parrallel Parking Along Urban Node Stretches
ARLINGTON PLAZA INTERSECTION NODE Public Art Inclusion for Community Gateway JTA Owned Land made into Park & Ride Eastbound Bus Rapid Transit Station Dedicated Bus Rapid Transit Lane
ARTFUL EXPRESSION at DIVIDED INTERSECTION -Activate the Site -Community Interest & Participation
BUS RAPID TRANSIT STOP -Safe & Integrated Travel Systems -Enhance the Linkages -Meet Immediate & Future Needs
4 198 Public R.O.W. 20 Setback 37 3-Lane Expwy. 25 Public Art Battering Wall 10 Side Walk 12 Drive Lane 15 Curb & Planter 10 Side Walk 8 Par. Park 37 3-Lane Expwy.The three existing divided intersections along the Arlington Expressway were designed to be retrofitted in order to better meet the project goals and objectives. This design intervention would allow large-scale existing infrastructure to be kept with minimal alterations. Utilization of the six existing expressway battering walls for public art pieces such as murals allow for placemaking and image-branding for the Arlington neighborhood, an important component of enticing community engagement and support for redevelopment visioning.
198 Public R.O.W. 20 Setback 37 3-Lane Expwy. 25 Public Art Battering Wall 10 Side Walk 12 Drive Lane 15 Curb & Planter 10 Side Walk 8 Par. ParkDIVIDED INTERSECTION TYPICALDivided intersection redesign would also take advantage of these locations as the nodes of development focus along the Arlington Expressway. The expressway service roads would be reduced in scale to provide for a larger 10 landscaped pedestrian path, a vital connective piece for the urban trail system through these nodes. Parallel parking with a provided 3 step-curb and 10 planted buffer, per Jacksonvilles Design Guidelines for Pedestrian Environments, was designed to amenitize the streetscape and encourage higher-density mixed-use development.
Signalized Intersection per FDOT design code Median at Intersection clear per sight triangle Parrallel parking phased out away from nodes Additional lane to provide left-hand turning
CUT-ACROSS INTERSECTION MASTER PLAN Dedicated Bus Rapid Transit Lane 30 wide Urban Trail System along Medians Double-row of trees to enhance pedestrian zone Plantings, Lighting, & Seating to enhance zone
10 208 Public R.O.W. 15 Setback 37 3-Lane Expwy. 37 3-Lane Expwy. 30 Urban Trail Median System 22 Drive Lanes 15 Ped. Zone 10 Plant BufferBetween the development nodes identified at the Town & Country Shopping Center, Arlington Plaza, and Expressway Mall areas, redesign of the Arlington Expressway focused on the creation of a travel corridor that supplied the community with high-functioning public green space in addition to space for safe and integrated travel systems. The two 30 medians between the expressway through-traffic lanes and service road lanes are activated to provide for the maximum amount of uses in the community: an urban trail system for pedestrian and
208 Public R.O.W. 15 Setback 37 3-Lane Expwy. 30 Urban Trail Median System 22 Drive Lanes 15 Ped. Zone 10 Plant BufferARLINGTON EXPRESSWAY TYPICALcyclist flows, the site location for bus rapid transit routes and stations, as well as public green space in an area currently underserved by such facilities. Roadway design for newly constructed signalized-intersections followed guidelines set forth by the Florida Department of Transportation in their design standards (See Appendix). All proposed conceptual planting design and massing would also follow established standards, in this case Jacksonvilles Design Guidelines Suggested Plant List (See Appendix).
Page 14 Arlington V isioning Charrette No. 2Session No. 2 was held on Saturday, October 11, 2008 at University Park Library from 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM and addressed but did not limit the discussions to Sub Area No. 1 as shown on the map on Page 4. This sub area generally included lands east of St. Johns River, west of Southside Boulevard, north of Beach Boulevard and south of St. Johns River. Table Programming Priorities As a component of the programming exercise, charrette participants were asked to depict on the aerial those areas of the planning district that were of priority for improvements. The highest priority (red dots) was defined as those issues or areas that were in most need of attention or improvements to the lowest areas (green dots) that were in least need of improvements. Participants were instructed to place red, green and yellow dots directly onto the plans to identify the corresponding areas of highest, medium and lowest priority. Transportation and Connectivity Highest Priority: Re-route University Boulevard so it doesnt cut through a residential neighborhood at Cesery Boulevard. Develop alternative methods of transportation; light rail and better bus routes. Create safer park and ride lots. Limit roundabouts to residential or arterial streets. Landscape Merrill Road at SR 9-A. The foot of the Mathews Bridge should be landscaped with a beautiful entry point into Arlington. Arlington Expressway is very dangerous to cross. Incorporate pedestrian crossovers. Water taxi collaboration with Jones College should be developed. A roundabout is needed at Rogero Road. Need a mini transit station at Regency Square. University Boulevard north of Arlington Expressway has no other evacuation point in case of a disaster. Medium Priority: More coordinated signal timing is needed to move traffic. Regency Mall area needs better connectivity to other shopping areas. More bike paths and bike lanes are needed. More traffic lights and crosswalks are needed. Mass transit along waterways is needed. Craig Field: 30 years from now it could be a mass regional transit hub. Need to accept it as a transit hub. Create a rapid bus transit along the new Mathews Bridge. Lowest Priority: Relocate the shipping and port facilities to more industrial zones. Traffic calming at University and Edenfield is needed. Page 15 Recreation and Open Space Highest Priority: Preserve the river waterfront and adjacent neighborhoods. Create water taxi service and access to other river parks. Enforce using green energy within parks such as solar and reclaimed water. Increase and encourage use of the river with water access and boat ramps. Expand or create parks at existing boat ramps. Park maintenance is lacking and needs to be improved. Upgrades are needed for all parks. Medium Priority: Bring more symphony programs to the outlying communities. There is little cultural emphasis. Need to promote more arts and becoming a member of museums. Need more pedestrian connections to Reddie Point Preserve, Arlington Lions Club and all waterfront parks. Parks need more signage. Add amenities to neighborhood parks such as community centers. Need more access to Pottsburg Creek. Board walks are needed along the river.Create more passive and active activities alike for young and old people. Jacksonville University should open up the riverfront for public accessibility. Lowest Priority: Maintain medians and plant more landscaping. Sub station needs to be added to Glynlea Park. Add sidewalks to provide connection between residential and park areas. Better park safety, more general upkeep, and more lighting are needed. Bruce Park needs a walking track and bathrooms need updating. Develop theme water sports such as Dragon boat races and crew races. Take more advantage of the river and its tributaries. Maintain Kona skate park. Conservation and Coastal Management Highest Priority: Better response time is needed for public works when roads are blocked. Wetlands and waterways are worth protecting. Medium Priority: Need plans for any Mathews Bridge expansion to utilize ideas from the vision plan. Lowest Priority: Phase out septic tanks. Provide more alternative routes for evacuation in neighborhoods with one-way in and one-way out. Maintain low density development along riverfront with opportunities for higher density limited to areas immediately around major roadways and bridges. Urban and Suburban Design Highest Priority: Maintain the neighborhood feel and increase neighborhood parks. Create better and more useful bus shelters for bad weather and increase security. No roundabouts are needed for traffic calming. Retrofit existing Dollar stores for better uses.
Page 16 Design standards are needed for landscaping. Improve intersections with landscaping. Need better lighting. Create more outdoor eating establishments. Medium Priority: More density needed will include high rise residential development. Rogero Town Center Initiative is under development with beautification and landscaping plans. Historical Preservation Highest Priority: Use historical landmarks for economic stimulus marketing (i.e. Norman Studios, St. Nicholas). Make the public aware of natural and manmade assets of historical significance. Land Use and Growth Management Highest Priority: Need to create more business friendly corridors. Any plans for the Craig Field expansion will effect future generations. Billboard ordinance needs to be strongly enforced. Medium Priority: Create more of a village concept with new development. No more Craig Field expansion. Jacksonville University and the river is the draw for people living and working in the area. Need to be careful that zoning might change land uses to inappropriate uses. Area will not grow that much more because of the established single family homes. Property taxes are too low to be able to pay for public services. Raise taxes to put more police on the street and have more amenities. Lowest Priority: Create more open space and recreation. Housing / Residential Highest Priority: Need to have stronger code enforcement for the upkeep of vacant property. Need better street lighting and landscaping. Old wooden houses can be revitalized. Medium Priority: Requirements are necessary for curb and gutter for newer neighborhoods. Older neighborhoods need to have the streets renovated. Give incentives to good landlords who prohibit bad renters. Lowest Priority: Have tighter residential design standards. Page 17 Non-Residential Uses Highest Priority: Do not allow inappropriate industrial uses near neighborhoods. Town and Country and Regency areas need to be redeveloped. Abandoned and underutilized commercial areas need to be improved (i.e. Merrill Road, University Blvd. Arlington/ Rogero Road and Fort Caroline Road). Fresh Market grocery store is a great idea. The Gazebo Mall needs revitalization. A solution is needed for gas stations at University Boulevard and Merrill Road. If the property is abandoned owners need to screen or beautify. Medium Priority: There are commercial opportunities along University Boulevard, Ft. Caroline Road and Merrill Road. Incorporate Jacksonville Universitys students and their needs into the development of more residential, commercial and retail development. Jacksonville University needs to support businesses on University Boulevard. Collaborate with the University with walkability and rideability. There are no attractions for students in the area. Stricter zoning codes are needed along University Boulevard (i.e. landscaping, signage, building, and maintenance). Need more restaurants and outdoor cafes. Bring residential and commercial people together to compare ideas. Revitalize blighted commercial buildings. Blighted commercial areas need to be addressed through re-zoning. Commercial uses are widely varied (i.e. too many check cashing facilities). Schools are underutilized. Organize them better for night uses, community uses. Lowest Priority: Industrial uses need to be better screened. Fund and implement the Arlington Town Center Plan. Improve faades of commercial buildings. Public Health and Safety Highest Priority: More neighborhood watch programs are needed with JSO participation. Our police force is undermanned and needs more of a presence in the community. The sub-station at Regency Mall is underutilized. Residents need more security in the area parks. The Southbank riverwalk is bad, the Northbank riverwalk is good. Need to create more crime free multi-family housing. A sub-station is needed at Glynlea Park. Medium Priority: Evacuation routes need to be better defined and better access is needed out of the primary roadways quickly. Plans are being formulated to reduce crime for multifamily housing using CPTED standards. Lowest Priority: Bring in better renters. Owners need to invest more in properties and upkeep. Increase police presence to lower the crime rate. ARLINGTON PLANNING DISTRICT CHARRETTES SUMMARY REPORT
2012 FDOT QUALITY/L EVEL OF SERVICE HANDBOOK TABLES TABLE 1 Generalized Annual Average Daily Urbanized Areas 12/18 /12 INTERRUPTED FLOW FACILITIES UNINTERRUPTED FLOW FACILITIES Non State Signalized Roadway Adjustments (Alter corresponding state volumes by the indicated percent.) NonState S ignalized Roadways 10% STATE SIGNALIZED ARTERIALS Class I (40 mph or higher posted speed limit) Lanes Median B C D E 2 Undivided 16,800 17,700 ** 4 Divided 37, 9 00 39, 8 00 ** 6 Divided 58, 4 00 59, 9 00 ** 8 Divided 78, 8 00 80 1 00 ** Class II ( 35 mph or slower posted speed limit) Lanes Median B C D E 2 Undivided 7 3 00 14, 8 00 15,600 4 Divided 14,500 32,400 33,800 6 Divided 23,300 50 000 50,900 8 Divided 32,000 67,300 68,100 Freeway Adjustments Auxiliary Lane s Present in Both Directions Ramp Metering + 20,000 + 5% FREEWAYS Core Urbanized Lanes B C D E 4 47,400 64,000 77,900 84,600 6 69,900 95,200 116,600 130,600 8 92,500 126,400 154,300 176,600 10 115,100 159,700 194,500 222,700 12 162,400 216,700 256,600 268 ,900 Urbanized Lanes B C D E 4 45,800 61,500 74,400 79,900 6 68,100 93,000 111,800 123,300 8 91,500 123,500 14 8 ,700 166,800 10 114,800 15 6 0 00 18 7 1 00 210,300 Median & Turn Lane Adjustments Lanes Median Exclusive Left Lanes Exclusive Right Lanes Adjustment Factors 2 Divided Yes No +5% 2 Undivided No No 20% Multi Undivided Yes No 5% Multi Undivi ded No No 25% Yes + 5% One Way Facility Adjustment Multiply the corresponding two directional volumes in this table by 0.6 UNINTERRUPTED FLOW HIGHWAYS Lanes Median B C D E 2 Undivided 8, 6 00 17,0 00 24, 2 00 3 3 3 00 4 Divided 3 6,700 51,800 65,600 72,600 6 Divided 55,000 77,700 98,300 108,800 Uninterrupted Flow Highway Adjustments Lanes Median Exclusive left lanes Adjustment factors 2 Divided Yes +5% Multi Undivided Yes 5% Multi Undivided No 25% BICYCLE MODE2 (Multip ly motorized vehicle volumes shown below by number of directional roadway lanes to determine two way maximum service volumes.) Paved Shoulder/Bicycle Lane Coverage B C D E 0 49% 2,900 7,600 19,700 50 84% 2,100 6,700 19,700 >19,700 85 100% 9,300 19,700 >19,700 ** PEDESTRIAN MODE2 (Multiply motorized vehicle volumes shown below by number of directional roadway lanes to determine two way maximum service volumes.) Sidewalk Coverage B C D E 0 49% * 2,800 9,500 50 84% 1 ,600 8,700 15,800 85 100% 3,800 10,700 17,400 > 19,700 BUS MODE (Scheduled Fixed Route)3 (Buses in peak hour in peak direction ) Sidewalk Coverage B C D E 0 84% > 5 4 3 2 85 100% > 4 3 2 1 1Values shown are presented as two way annual av erage daily volumes for levels of service and are for the automobile/truck modes unless specifically stated. This table does not constitute a standard and should be used only for general planning applications. The computer models from which this table is derived should be used for more specific planning applications. The table and deriving computer models should not be used for corridor or intersection design, where more refined techniques exist. Calculations are based on planning applications of the Highwa y Capacity Manual and the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual. 2 Level of service for the bicycle and pedestrian modes in this table is based on number of motorized vehicles, not number of bicyclists or pedestrians using the facility. 3 Buses per hour shown are only for the peak hour in the single direction of the higher traffic flow. Cannot be achieved using table input value defaults. * Not applicable for that level of service letter grade. For the automobile mode, volumes greater than level o f service D become F because intersection capacities have been reached. For the bicycle mode, the level of service letter grade (including F) is not achievable because there is no maximum vehicle volume threshold using table input value defaults. Source: Florida Department of Transportation Systems Planning Office www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los/default.shtm 2013 QUALITY/ LEVEL OF SERVICE HANDBOOK STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 2013
2 Q/LOS HANDBOOK PURPOSE AND SCOPE PAGE 19 As shown in Figure 2-4 the vehicular volume and number of lanes significantly affect the automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian levels of service. Other roadway and traffic variables, plus control (signalization) variables, determine the automobile LOS. The motorized vehicle running speed (calculated as part of the automobile LOS) is also an important determinant of bicycle and pedestrian LOS. Together with the presence of bicycle lanes and sidewalks, motorized vehicle volumes and speeds are the main determinants of bicycle and pedestrian LOS. Bus LOS is primarily determined by bus frequency, but is also affected by pedestrian LOS. In summary, all the roadway modes are linked together. Figure 2-4 Relationship of Inputs to Quality of Service Measures 2012 FDOT QUALITY/L EVEL OF SERVICE HANDBOOK TABLES TABLE 1 (continued) Generalized Annual Averag e Daily Urbanized Areas 12/18/12 INPUT VALUE ASSUMPTIONS Uninterrupted Flow Facilities Interrupted Flow Facilities State Arterials Class I Freeways Core Freeways Highways Class I Class II Bicycle Pedestrian ROADWAY CHARAC TERISTICS Area type (u,lu) lu lu u u u u u u u u Number of through lanes (both dir.) 4 10 4 12 2 4 6 2 4 8 2 4 8 4 4 Posted speed (mph) 70 65 50 50 45 50 30 30 45 45 Free flow speed (mph) 75 70 55 55 50 55 35 35 50 50 Auxiliary Lanes (n,y) n n Median (n, nr, r) n r n r n r r r Terrain (l,r) l l l l l l l l l l % no passing zone 80 Exclusive left turn lane impact (n, y) [n] y y y y y y y Exclusive right turn lanes (n, y) n n n n n n Facility length (mi) 4 4 5 5 2 2 1.9 1.8 2 2 Number of basic segments 4 4 TRAFFIC CHARACTERIST ICS Planning analysis hour factor (K) 0.090 0.085 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 Directional distribution factor (D) 0.547 0.547 0.550 0.550 0.550 0.560 0.565 0.560 0.565 0.565 Peak hour factor (PHF) 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Base saturation flow rate (pcphpl) 1,700 2,100 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 Heavy vehicle percent 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1. 0 1.0 1.0 2.5 2.0 Local adjustment factor 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.98 % left turns 12 12 12 12 12 12 % right turns 12 12 12 12 12 12 CONTROL CHARACTERIST ICS Number of signals 4 4 10 10 4 6 Arrival type (1 6) 3 3 4 4 4 4 Signal type (a, c, p) c c c c c c Cycle leng th (C) 120 150 120 120 120 120 Effective green ratio (g/C) 0.44 0.45 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 MULTIMODAL CHARACTER ISTICS Paved shoulder/bicycle lane (n, y) n, 50%, y n Outside lane width (n, t, w) t t Pavement condition (d, t, u) t On street parking ( n, y ) Sidewalk (n, y) n, 50%, y Sidewalk/roadway separation (a, t, w) t Sidewalk protective barrier (n, y) n LEVEL OF SERVICE THRESHOLDS Level of Service Freeways Highways Arterials Bic ycle Ped Bus Density Two Lane Multilane Class I Class II Score Score Buses/hr. %ffs Density ats ats B > 83.3 > 31 mph > 22 mph C > 75.0 > 23 mph > 17 mph D > 66.7 > 18 mph > 13 mp h < 3 E > 58.3 > 15 mph > 10 mph < 2 % ffs = Percent f ree f low s peed ats = Average t ravel s peed 2013 QUALITY/LEVEL OF SERVICE HANDBOOK
FDOT DESIGN STANDARD 546
FDOT DESIGN STANDARD 301
FDOT DESIGN STANDARD 310
rfnt Appendix B: Suggested Plant List BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAMEACER BUERGERANUM TRIDENT MAPLE ACER CAMPESTRE SCHICHTELS UPRIGHT HEDGE MAPLE ACER RUBRUM RED MAPLE ACER SACCHARUM ASTIS STEEPLE SUGAR MAPLE BETULA NIGRA RIVER BIRCH CEDRUS ATLANTICA ATLAS CEDAR CEDRUS DEODARA DEODAR CEDAR CELTIS LAEVIGATA ALL SEASONS ALL SEASONS SUGARBERRY FRAXINUS PENNSYLVANICA GREEN ASH GINKGO BILOBA GINKGO TREE GORDONIA LASIANTHUS LOBLOLLY BAY JUNIPERUS SILICICOLA SOUTHERN RED CEDAR JUNIPERUS VIRGINIANA EASTERN CEDAR LIQUIDAMBAR STYRACIFLUA SWEETGUM LIRIODENDRON TULIPFERA TULIP TREE MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA PINUS ELLIOTTII FLORIDA SLASH PINE PINUS GLABRA SPRUCE PINE PINUS PALUSTRIS LONGLEAF SOUTHERN YELLOW PINE PISTACIA CHINENSIS CHINESE PISTACHIO PLATANUS OCCIDENTALIS SYCAMORE PYRUS CALLERYANA BRADFORD PEAR QUERCUS ALBA WHITE OAK QUERCUS LYRATA OVERCUP OAK QUERCUS LAURIFOLIA LAUREL OAK QUERCUS NUTTALLI NUTTALL OAK QUERCUS PHELLOS WILLOW OAK QUERCUS SHUMARDII SHUMARD RED OAK QUERCUS VIRGINIANA LIVE OAK TAXODIUM ASCENDENS POND CYPRESS TAXODIUM DISTICHUM BALD CYPRESS ULMUS ALATA WINGED ELM ULMUS PARVIFOLIA EMER II ALLEE ELMCANOPY TREES APPENDIX B: SUGGESTED PLANT LIST rfnt Appendix B: Suggested Plant List ULMUS PARVIFOLIA DRAKE DRAKE ELM ULMUS PARVIFOLIA BOSQUE LACEBARK ELM ZELKOVA SERRATA GREEN VASE ZELKOVA BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAMECERCIS CANADENSIS FOREST PANSY FOREST PANSY REDBUD CHIONANTHUS VIRGINICUS WHITE FRINGETREE CORNUS FLORIDA FLOWERING DOGWOOD ILEX CASSINE DAHOON HOLLY ILEX X ATTENUATA EAST PALATKA EAST PALATKA HOLLY ILEX X ATTENUATA FOSTERI FOSTERS HOLLY ILEX X ATTENUATA SAVANNAH SAVANNAH HOLLY ILEX HYBRID NELLIE STEVENS NELLIE STEVENS HOLLY ILEX VOMITORIA YAUPON HOLLY LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA CRAPE MYRTLE LIGUSTRUM JAPONICUM TREE-FORM LIGUSTRUM MAGNOLIA X SOULANGIANA SAUCER MAGNOLIA BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAMEBUTIA CAPITATA PINDO PALM PHOENIX CANARIENSIS CANARY ISLAND DATE PALM PHOENIX DACTYLIFERA MEDJOOL MEDJOOL DATE PALM SABAL PALMETTO CABBAGE PALM TRACHYCARPUS FORTUNEI WINDMILL PALM WASHINGTONIA ROBUSTA MEXICAN FAN PALMSUB-CANOPY TREES PALMS TREES CANOPY TREES (CONT.) BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME
JACKSONVILLE DESIGN GUIDELINES SUGGESTED PLANT LIST rfnt Appendix B: Suggested Plant List BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAMEABELIA EDWARD GOUCHER PINK ABELIA ABELIA X GRANDIFLORA GLOSSY ABELIA BUXUS MICROPHYLLA BOXWOOD CALYCANTHUS FLORIDUS CAROLINA ALLSPICE CAMELLIA JAPONICA JAPANESE CAMELLIA CAMELLIA SASANQUA SASANQUA CAMELLIA CEDRUS ATLANTICA FASTIGIATA COLUMNAR ATLAS CEDAR CLEYERA JAPONICA CLEYERA CRYPTOMERA JAPONICA YOSHINO YOSHINO CRYPTOMERA CUPRESSOCYPARIS LEYLANDII LEYLAND CYPRESS CUPRESSUS SEMPERVIRENS ITALIAN CYPRESS DAPHNE ODORA FRAGRANT DAPHNE DURANTA ERECTA GOLDEN DEWDROP ELAEAGNUS PUNGENS SILVERTHORN ELAEOCARPUS DECIPIENS JAPANESE BLUEBERRY ERIOBOTRYA DEFLEXA COPPERTONE COPPERTONE FEIJOA SELLOWIANA PINEAPPLE GUAVA FORSYTHIA INTERMEDIA BORDER FORSYTHIA GAMOLEPIS CHRYSANTHEMOIDES AFRICAN BUSH DAISY GARDENIA AUGUSTA GARDENIA HAMELIA PATENS FIREBUSH HYDRANGEA QUERCIFOLIA OAKLEAF HYDRANGEA ILEX CORNUTA BURFORDII BURFORD HOLLY ILEX CORNUTA ROTUNDA ROTUNDA HOLLY ILEX HYBRID MARY NELL MARY NELL HOLLY ILEX HYBRID NELLIE STEVENS NELLIE STEVENS HOLLY ILEX GLABRA INKBERRY ILEX GLABRA SHAMROCK SHAMROCK INKBERRY ILEX OPACA GREENLEAF AMERICAN HOLLY ILEX VOMITORIA PENDULA WEEPING YAUPON HOLLY ILLICIUM FLORIDANUM FLORIDA ANISE ILLICIUM PARVIFLORUM YELLOW ANISESHRUBS rfnt Appendix B: Suggested Plant List ITEA VIRGINICA VIRGINIA SWEETSPIRE JUNIPERUS CHINENSIS BLUE POINT BLUE POINT JUNIPER JUNIPERUS CHINENSIS BLUE VASE BLUE VASE JUNIPER JUNIPERUS CHINENSIS HETZII HETZII JUNIPER JUNIPERUS CHINENSIS SEA GREEN SEA GREEN JUNIPER JUNIPERUS CHINENSIS TORULOSA TOROLUSA JUNIPER JUNIPERUS SILICICOLA SOUTHERN RED CEDAR LIGUSTRUM JAPONICUM WAX PRIVET LOROPETALUM CHINENSE FRINGE FLOWER MYRICA CERIFERA WAX MYRTLE MYRCIANTHES FRAGRANS SIMPSONS STOPPER NANDINA DOMESTICA HEAVENLY BAMBOO NANDINA DOMESTICA COMPACTA DWARF HEAVENLY BAMBOO OSMANTHUS FRAGRANS SWEET TEA OLIVE PITTOSPORUM TOBIRA GREEN PITTOSPORUM PITTOSPORUM TOBIRA VARIEGATA VARIEGATED PITTOSPORUM PODOCARPUS MACROPHYLLUS JAPANESE YEW PRUNUS CAROLINIANA CAROLINA LAUREL PYRACANTHA COCCINEA FIRETHORN RHAPHIOLEPIS INDICA INDIAN HAWTHORN RHODODENDRON spp. AZALEA SERENOA REPENS SAW PALMETTO VIBURNUM OBOVATUM WALTERS VIBURNUM VIBURNUM ODORATISSIMUM SWEET VIBURNUM VIBURNUM SUSPENSUM SANDANKWA VIBURNUMSHRUBS (CONT.) BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME
REFERENCESCDM Smith. City of Jacksonville Master Stormwater Plan Update. http://www.lsjr.org/pdf/pdf2008meetings/MSMP_2008-12_Update_ver3.pdf City of Jacksonville Planning & Development Department. City of Jacksonville 2030 Comprehensive Plan. http://www.coj.net/departments/planning-and-development/ docs/community-planning-division/2030-comp-plan-postings/post-as-of-march-5---2014/2030-infrastructure-element_november-2010.aspx Davis, Ennis. The Evolution of the Arlington Expressway. Metro Jacksonville. 31 Jan. 2013. http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2013-jan-the-evolution-of-thearlington-expressway Dunham-Jones, Ellen, and June Williamson. Retrofitting Suburbia: Urban Design Solutions for Redesigning Suburbs Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2009. FGDL Search/ Download Data. FGDL Search/ Download Data. N.p., n.d. Web. http://www.fgdl.org/metadataexplorer/explorer.jsp FLAGG Design Studio, LLC. Community Visioning Charrettes: Arlington Planning District http://www.coj.net/departments/planning-and-development/docs/communityplanning-division/plans-and-studies/gab-charrette-summary.aspx Jacksonville Transit Authority. BRT East Corridor Project Scoping Booklet. http://futureplans.jtafla.com/Bus/Media/PDF/JTA_BRT_East_Corridor_Scoping_Booklet_Final. pdf Jacobs, Allan B., Elizabeth Macdonald, and Yodan Rof. T he Boulevard Book: History, Evolution, Design of Multiway Boulevards Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2002. McCann, Barbara A., and Suzanne Rynne. Complete Streets: Best Policy and Implementation Practices. Chicago: American Planning Association, 2010. Miller Sellen Conner & Walsh. Jacksonville Design Guidelines & Best Practices Handbook http://www.coj.net/departments/planning-and-development/docs/currentplanning-division/final-design-guidelines---1-2-3-4-5.aspx State of Florida Department of Transportation. 2013 Quality/ Level of Service Handbook. http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/programs/SM/los/pdfs/2013%20 QLOS%20Handbook.pdf Zyscovich Architects, and FLAGG Design Studio, LLC. Greater Arlington/Beaches Vision Plan. http://www.coj.net/departments/planning-and-development/docs/ community-planning-division/plans-and-studies/0736-ar-final-vision-4-small.aspx Zyscovich Architects, and FLAGG Design Studio, LLC. Greater Arlington/Beaches Vision Plan: Existing Conditions Report http://www.coj.net/departments/planning-anddevelopment/docs/community-planning-division/plans-and-studies/gab-existing-conditions.aspx
IMAGE REFERENCESCity of Jacksonville Planning & Development Department. Duval County Census Map Resource Book. http://mhcre.com/reports/Demographic%20Maps-Duval.pdf -Page 45 Fisher, Robert E. http://www.floridamemory.com/items/show/166901 -Page 17 Fisher, Robert E. http://www.floridamemory.com/items/show/167603 -Page 17 Fisher, Robert E. http://www.floridamemory.com/items/show/166916 -Page 15 Fisher, Robert E. http://www.floridamemory.com/items/show/166917 -Page 19 Fisher, Robert E. http://www.floridamemory.com/items/show/166918 -Page 19 Fisher, Robert E. http://www.floridamemory.com/items/show/166735 -Page 17 Fisher, Robert E. http://www.floridamemory.com/items/show/166737 -Page 19 Guerra, Emilio. https://www.flickr.com/photos/emilio_guerra/6055209110/in/set-72157622471907008/ -Page 51 Guerra, Emilio. https://www.flickr.com/photos/emilio_guerra/6018459204/in/set-72157622471907008/ -Page 47 Guerra, Emilio. https://www.flickr.com/photos/emilio_guerra/7228676656/in/photolist-c1LRJ9-c1pUtA-ae5wH5-c1Lxqb-8D1kHg-btZQz5-8D4v31-btZQmQ-btZUKmbGUGSc-btZS3W-btZRF9-btZRtW-8D4t4f-bGUEGv-btZSWW-bGUDpP-bGUDcT-9Fo1eF-8Bup91-c1EVdA-c1LwjC-839b4R-7KRJVv-9kEPiT-9kEMzg-83couJ-83cnbUbF23sx-7KRMmF-9xGZS5-8EdKxW-aaQbf1-aaQdzW-9dzq9j-bs7aoA-8EaGTi-8EdQV1-7KRJcR-83cfbY-8EaDpz-8Brf7R-8EdPD7-7KVJRh-7KVLtj-7KRKCe-7Bt81G8398oz-bs79d1-8ButVS/ -Page 50 Tone, Doug. https://www.flickr.com/photos/dougtone/4331528858/in/photolist-7ALdC3-7ALdwC-7ALdCu-7AGrWV-7ALdzs-3LJziv-3LRuKc-5GGjYh-6hbEWp-5Nn2ig4NoHhV-7pe3p9-7CdU6W-7gLfbu-5NeJrX-5MyoED-j3ESe8-5MyBB2-fq9A4L-7cysy9-njBFHg-njkD6v-5NtBJi-bFrqek-5GGkmy-5GC2Pn-5GC2Uk-5GC3dc-5NrRiJ-5UMLLF3LSGDX-7PqiaR-5Nee8D-7pabmR-4NCKep-5GGjSu-bsCpcJ-5NnzmM-5GC2Zg-6h87uN-5MNRB8-fq9DLw-5MSzRf-6h51RR-5MNL1r-5NnyGZ-bswGbJ-2RykT4-njE7u53LX4aG -Page 49 *All other images personally taken by Mark Koenig or compiled using GoogleEarth software.