Mobile Development Thread

[jmbreland]

Originally Posted by Port_of_Bama

LOL I Found the pic through Google and it had Mobile Mystic Stripers parade taged to it.

I'm sure that's New Orleans. Mobile's floats don't look that fancy or expensive with the plastic Joker head! Besides, I've never seen floats pulled by tractors in Mobile. (I've never seen MG parades in New Orleans, and don't care to see one. Much too wild and rowdy over there and there are certainly things I really don't want to see. I love Mobile's family-friendly atmosphere at the parades.)

[Port_of_Bama]

Originally Posted by jmbreland

I'm sure that's New Orleans. Mobile's floats don't look that fancy or expensive with the plastic Joker head! Besides, I've never seen floats pulled by tractors in Mobile. (I've never seen MG parades in New Orleans, and don't care to see one. Much too wild and rowdy over there and there are certainly things I really don't want to see. I love Mobile's family-friendly atmosphere at the parades.)

LOL well this one is definitely Mobile !! I`ll be changing my avatar periodically as the season rolls through !! It`s Mardi Gra in Mobile !!!!!!

[jmbreland]

Originally Posted by Port_of_Bama

LOL well this one is definitely Mobile !! I`ll be changing my avatar periodically as the season rolls through !! It`s Mardi Gra in Mobile !!!!!!

PERFECT! Laissez les bons temps rouler!

[SouthSky]

That's definitely Mobile... you can see the Battle House Hotel behind the float.

Another bit of news from the recent Lagniappe:
Link Here

The Mobile economy is performing at the level of the last quarter of 2005 according to Dr. Don Epley of the University of South Alabama. But according to Epley, the economic impact of Austal’s $5 billion Navy contract will be huge.

Epley projects the Austal contract will create a total of 5,454 new jobs in Mobile County alone, including the 1,800 direct jobs at Austal. "This translates into a new local payroll of $179 million,” says Epley. "This is going to have a big impact on a small market like Mobile. These are Houston, Dallas, Seattle-size numbers.”

Epley says a study by the National Association of Realtors showed that for every two new jobs created in a local economy, one house would be sold. "This Austal contract has the potential,” he said "to wipe out the inventory of homes in the Mobile market. Prices will go up.”

[elb401]

That would be awesome. Hopefully, we can add the +1000 jobs from EADS to that. This is why we need some good urban planning policies now, just in case.

[Port_of_Bama]

Originally Posted by elb401

That would be awesome. Hopefully, we can add the +1000 jobs from EADS to that. This is why we need some good urban planning policies now, just in case.

Yes New Urbanism defiantly need to be in effect. Hopefully urban Mobile will be the ideal place for the new comers.

[SouthSky]

Originally Posted by elb401

That would be awesome. Hopefully, we can add the +1000 jobs from EADS to that. This is why we need some good urban planning policies now, just in case.

If EADS gets this tanker contract, we'll see ~4,000 Airbus employees in Mobile. Using the same ratio that was used for Austal (I know it could be way off) it creates 12,000 jobs in Mobile county. This would create ~17,000 new jobs in Mobile county just between these new companies and would be a 10+% increase in total jobs in Mobile county as of June 2010.

[SpawnOfVulcan]

I don't think it's unreasonable to count Mobile as one of the boomtowns of this recovery. After each economic setback, there is always a boom period where certain areas experience unprecedented growth and expansion. It's gonna be hard for the city to cope. Look for support for the bridge to pick up.

[SouthSky]

Originally Posted by tredici

Look for support for the bridge to pick up.

Speaking of the bridge, I think when they build it the DOT should really consider an HOV lane on the new bridge and Bayway. The increase commuter traffic and truck traffic might necessitate this line of thinking.

When this is finally built we will need an 8-laned Bayway... but is it economically feasible?

[Port_of_Bama]

Originally Posted by SouthSky

If EADS gets this tanker contract, we'll see ~4,000 Airbus employees in Mobile. Using the same ratio that was used for Austal (I know it could be way off) it creates 12,000 jobs in Mobile county. This would create ~17,000 new jobs in Mobile county just between these new companies and would be a 10+% increase in total jobs in Mobile county as of June 2010.

With the above figures + supplier jobs I assume that Mobile could possibly look at a gain of about 40-50K.

[SpawnOfVulcan]

Originally Posted by SouthSky

Speaking of the bridge, I think when they build it the DOT should really consider an HOV lane on the new bridge and Bayway. The increase commuter traffic and truck traffic might necessitate this line of thinking.

When this is finally built we will need an 8-laned Bayway... but is it economically feasible?

They really should go ahead and construct it as an 8 lane bridge, cause three lanes between large suburbs and downtown aren't gonna cut it in the future. I mean, look at I 65 between Birmingham and Alabaster. That's what it's gonna be like.

[Port_of_Bama]

Originally Posted by tredici

They really should go ahead and construct it as an 8 lane bridge, cause three lanes between large suburbs and downtown aren't gonna cut it in the future. I mean, look at I 65 between Birmingham and Alabaster. That's what it's gonna be like.

Yeah and we don`t need that over water !

[buckett5425]

Originally Posted by tredici

They really should go ahead and construct it as an 8 lane bridge, cause three lanes between large suburbs and downtown aren't gonna cut it in the future. I mean, look at I 65 between Birmingham and Alabaster. That's what it's gonna be like.

More roads/wider roads = More Traffic.

Its called "Induced Demand," and will only exacerbate Mobile's traffic problems, not solve them.

[SpawnOfVulcan]

Originally Posted by buckett5425

More roads/wider roads = More Traffic.

Its called "Induced Demand," and will only exacerbate Mobile's traffic problems, not solve them.

There are currently 7 lanes running between Baldwin and Mobile Counties in either direction. Current plans would increase that to 8. The area has enough trouble as it is with the 7, and simply increasing it to 8 won't even make that go away.

I understand what you mean, a wider road allows for an easier commute which just makes it easier for more people from a longer distance away to get to Mobile. The problem is, there's no other solution. Rail isn't feasible, and the ferries that they're expecting won't fix things.

I tend to believe that allowing a problem to fester while only allowing for a slightly better situation won't lead to too much future improvement.

Additionally, many of the travelers that experience the bottleneck at the tunnel are simply traveling through town (save for rush hour commuters). Are we suddenly going to see a jump in the number of companies that want to ship something between say Jacksonville and Houston?

Last but not least, aren't we trying to encourage development, and foster more exchange between the two counties? If we decide not to improve because of "induced demand," we also stymie growth in Baldwin County, tourism in Baldwin County, tourism in Mobile, and other various things.

I seriously doubt that officials in New Orleans second guessed expansion of the Lake Pontchartrain Bridge on the grounds that it might have lead to worsened traffic conditions.

[Port_of_Bama]

Originally Posted by tredici

I seriously doubt that officials in New Orleans second guessed expansion of the Lake Pontchartrain Bridge on the grounds that it might have lead to worsened traffic conditions.

Great point !

[SouthSky]

Well, based on some plans I found online it looks like the Mobile River section of the bridge will be 6 total lanes and the Bayway section will be 8 total lanes. The Wallace tunnel stays in and gets signed differently... the prevailing feeling is that it might become an alternate 90/98.

I-10 at Texas Street will be 14 lanes across.
7 Eastbound lanes - 3 go onto bridge - 4 split off and go towards the new Canal Street exit
7 Westbound lanes - 3 from the bridge - 4 from Canal street - these 7 westbound lanes will taper off to 4 around the Michigan Ave overpass

The new 8 lane I-10 will be to and through Daphne with 6 lanes to the AL181 exit and possibly the AL59 exit.

My quick paint design:

[buckett5425]

Originally Posted by tredici

I understand what you mean, a wider road allows for an easier commute which just makes it easier for more people from a longer distance away to get to Mobile. The problem is, there's no other solution. Rail isn't feasible, and the ferries that they're expecting won't fix things.

I tend to believe that allowing a problem to fester while only allowing for a slightly better situation won't lead to too much future improvement.

Last but not least, aren't we trying to encourage development, and foster more exchange between the two counties? If we decide not to improve because of "induced demand," we also stymie growth in Baldwin County, tourism in Baldwin County, tourism in Mobile, and other various things.

I seriously doubt that officials in New Orleans second guessed expansion of the Lake Pontchartrain Bridge on the grounds that it might have lead to worsened traffic conditions.

You claim there isn't a solution, but there is! The problem, is, is that people think its okay to live miles away from where they work, in suburbia, where the personal automobile is the only means of effective transportation. You claim that this new bridge will encourage development in Baldwin county, which will only further this unsustainable living arrangement.

This is why it exacerbates the issue, as roads can handle more traffic, more people will move there.

The solution is to let the problem fester, and to spend money on mass transit, and changing zoning ordinances to promote "smart growth." Think of what Mobile could do with a billion dollar investment in mass transit. It will provide for a solution, while a new bridge just postpones the problems for another generation....

(for the record, I didn't support the widening of the Twin Spans on I-10)

[Port_of_Bama]

Glad to know that they will be widening Parts of Baldwin county..... I can see buckett`s point on mass transit and a rail line across the bay would be great along with the Bay Ferries but I-10 across the bay is needed and the tunnels are out of date...I think both opportunities should be pursued.

[SpawnOfVulcan]

Originally Posted by buckett5425

You claim there isn't a solution, but there is! The problem, is, is that people think its okay to live miles away from where they work, in suburbia, where the personal automobile is the only means of effective transportation. You claim that this new bridge will encourage development in Baldwin county, which will only further this unsustainable living arrangement.

This is why it exacerbates the issue, as roads can handle more traffic, more people will move there.

The solution is to let the problem fester, and to spend money on mass transit, and changing zoning ordinances to promote "smart growth." Think of what Mobile could do with a billion dollar investment in mass transit. It will provide for a solution, while a new bridge just postpones the problems for another generation....

(for the record, I didn't support the widening of the Twin Spans on I-10)

I understand what you're talking about, but I simply don't think it's a good idea to cut off Baldwin County.

Besides, my main argument is that it's needed to cope with current traffic. I think that growth is switching towards Mobile anyways, but either way, you can't just tell someone you're not going to improve something because they should have lived nearer.

Would you tell a rural citizen that you're not gonna build a fire station nearer to their community because you're just going to let the problem fester so that all of those citizens will learn a lesson and move closer to town?

Mass transit is a solution, but it simply isn't feasible for the situation that the DOT is attempting to fix.

I'm a semester away from a degree in planning, so I get what you're saying. But, I just don't think it's right to look at citizens of Daphne, Spanish Fort, and other cities on the Eastern Shore and say, "Sorry, maybe you should have lived in Mobile."

Either way, the city needs to bridge, there's no question. The Wallace tunnel has plagued the Bay Area for years. Questions about safety, security, are other reasons beyond simple traffic congestion. Imagine if a dredging project went wrong, or we had another oil rig break loose. Suddenly, you're funneling people across the Cochrane and through Bankhead. The size of the bridge is certainly debatable, as it should be, but the tunnel needs to be replaced no matter what.

[Port_of_Bama]

Originally Posted by tredici

but either way, you can't just tell someone you're not going to improve something because they should have lived nearer.

Would you tell a rural citizen that you're not gonna build a fire station nearer to their community because you're just going to let the problem fester so that all of those citizens will learn a lesson and move closer to town?

I just don't think it's right to look at citizens of Daphne, Spanish Fort, and other cities on the Eastern Shore and say, "Sorry, maybe you should have lived in Mobile."

Hmmm that would be a good idea .