Can a Streetcar cost less than a Faux Trolley?

[Ocklawaha]

It is true that the PCC CARS have an amazing ride, the paper wheels, and deferential axles make them quite special. But I love the old gals.

Velvet and brass, rose and mahogany, etched glass and enclosed passenger compartment, 2+1 seating, THIS IS MC KINNEY AVENUE'S 102 year old "Rosie", the little American made car repatriated from O'Port, Portugal.

On her 100th Birthday, UPTOWN DALLAS threw a party complete with a long parade and dozens of bands... You'll remember the statement at the JTA BRT meeting? "The people HATE RAIL, they love the BUS!" Yeah, looks like it to me too.

OCKLAWAHA

[Dashing Dan]

I might disagree with some of your thinking, but I have a soft spot for almost anything on rails. 

I was on a train when I learned to walk.

[Dashing Dan]

Well the trolley companies were bought out and destroyed by GM.

Go ahead and blame GM but I blame the feds. 

The feds paid most of the cost of the postwar highways, and they also subsidized mortgages for new suburban houses at the same time that in-town neighborhoods were being red-lined.

[Dashing Dan]

What is the #1 goal of blood?

The primary goal of blood is to keep us alive.  The secondary goals of blood are to keep us healthy and functioning at some level. 

So even if it's not fulfilling either of its secondary goals, we still need blood for its primary goal, or we'd be dead.

[thelakelander]

^However, you're dead if blood is being isolated on its own to keep you alive.  The same goes with mass transit.

[thelakelander]

Yes.  I disagree with this initial statement:

Call me crazy but my view is that transportation facilities should be designed primarily to provide transportation, rather than to promote development.

There should be no primary and secondary goal if you want a successful, well used reliable mass transit system that gets the most bang out of your buck.  These two items come joined at the hip.

By definition there can be only one #1 goal.

By who's definition?

The primary goal of transportation facilities should be to provide transportation.  There are a number of closely linked secondary goals and/or constraints, including development, environmental quality, and safety, all of which should be addressed at the same time that a transportation facility is being designed.

The primary goal should be the creation of a cost efficient transportation network that accomplishes many things.  Once we force ourselves into isolating the benefits of a well integrated transportation network, we set ourselves up for failure (especially in a dense urban core environment).

Personally, I favor the development pattern that allows the most people to circulate most freely, whether on foot, by bicycle, by transit, or if all else fails, by car.

This is what we should be shooting for and what is being strived for as the goal of the mobility plan.  However, you'll never reach this point with a one-size fits all mentality, discrediting or not focusing on the impact that good transit investment can have on the build environment, which directly affects the end user.

For transit to work, it must meet the needs of those who it is intended to serve.

Yes.  However, meeting the needs of those it is intended to serve also means laying the foundation for sustainable growth patterns that support the use of the system provided and the needs of its users.  These things aren't mutually exclusive.

[thelakelander]

I dunno dan.

I would have to disagree with you just simply on the grounds that it seems to be that you seem to be considering 'transportation' as a separate thing unto itself.  But transportation is really a relationship between two or more things.

This is pretty much my disagreement.  Quite frankly, you really shouldn't attempt to isolate anything on its own in an urban setting.

[dougskiles]

To me, it is all about which type of development do you want to promote?  When we only build systems to meet current needs then we are choosing to continue the existing development patterns.  Many patterns will only change when the transportation system changes.

So the question isn't really do we want streetcars, commuter rail, or a skyway extension - but what type of neighborhoods do we want to have?

[Dashing Dan]

^However, you're dead if blood is being isolated on its own to keep you alive.  The same goes with mass transit.

This comment makes no sense to me.

[Dashing Dan]

I don't know how ranking objectives can be seen as the same as isolating or ignoring any of them, and I don't see where I've said anything that is really different from what everyone else is saying. 

Logically, or by nearly any accepted definition of the word "one," you can't have more than one #1 goal unless you are coaching a middle school soccer team.  Transit is too important for a "let's all be winners" approach.   So is urban development.

I'm done with this thread.  Let's start a fresh one on a different topic.  I'm game.

[Ocklawaha]

Perhaps it's time for a transit 101 primer article? The TROLLEY PARK PHENOMENON was exactly the type of thing that we are describing Lake. It was usually an end-of-the-line development underwritten by the streetcar and/or utility companies. The reason? Develop, develop and develop, and fill the car seats even on weekends and holidays, in a nation that largely slept on every Sabbath Day. It worked too, some 2,000 "Trolley Parks," sprang to life throughout the nation, Jacksonville was lucky, we had 5!  Roosevelt Park, Masons Park, The Florida Ostrich Farm, Dixieland (which probably had heavy investment by the ferry company in addition to the above principals), and a "Negro Picnic Ground at the edge of a swamp" today we call it 5-Points! Argument could be made that the original Florida Alligator Farm, Jacksonville Zoo (in Springfield), Phoenix Park, and Mann-Jennings Park (later a CCC project on the Ostrich Farm car line) were also "Trolley Parks".

Look at those same sections of town today.
Roosevelt/Masons Parks = Durkeeville
Ostrich Farm = Panama Park
Dixieland = Southbank
Picnic Grounds = 5-Points
Zoo = Springfield
Phoenix Park = Phoenix
Mann-Jennings Park = Long Branch

Ortega Company, laid out the tract, brought it into the city limits, and incorporated the Ortega Traction Company to connect it with Jacksonville Traction in Riverside.  Ortega Village? Fairfax? Avondale? Murray Hill? Fishweir? College & King? College & Stockton? Myra & Stockton? Myra & Margaret? Margaret & Dellwood? Oak & King? Oak & Stockton? Oak and Margaret? 5-Points? Brooklyn? Even the massive expansion of Camp Johnston, which today we call NAS JAX! 100% STREETCAR DEVELOPMENT and today, we apparently don't have a single politician with enough historical smarts or urban skill to realize it.

West of Fairfax all of the development was wrapped around automobiles and bus transit, I challenge anyone to prove to me that Blanding, Normandy or Cassat Avenues are more livable then any of the above.

OCKLAWAHA

[Ocklawaha]

^However, you're dead if blood is being isolated on its own to keep you alive.  The same goes with mass transit.

This comment makes no sense to me.

While I can't answer for Lake, to me he is saying simply, if those blood vessels don't network together, if they are isolated (see Skyway), if they don't go where the body needs them, WHEN THE BODY NEEDS THEM... Your dead and so is your transit system.


OCKLAWAHA

[thelakelander]

^Pretty much. 

[thelakelander]

To me, it is all about which type of development do you want to promote?  When we only build systems to meet current needs then we are choosing to continue the existing development patterns.  Many patterns will only change when the transportation system changes.

I'm not sure we're even doing a good job of meeting present demands now.  From the look of our existing bus system, it appears we can use high frequency spines (something that fixed transit does pretty well).  However, in the one place where the fixed mode exists (DT), we subsidize bus operations to compete against it (ex. downtown loop) and we're planning for more duplication (ex. BRT Southbank).

So the question isn't really do we want streetcars, commuter rail, or a skyway extension - but what type of neighborhoods do we want to have?

Luckily, we've answered these questions over and over again.  Now we just need our leaders to follow the adopted community visioning plans.

[thelakelander]

I don't know how ranking objectives can be seen as the same as isolating or ignoring any of them, and I don't see where I've said anything that is really different from what everyone else is saying.  

Logically, or by nearly any accepted definition of the word "one," you can't have more than one #1 goal unless you are coaching a middle school soccer team.  Transit is too important for a "let's all be winners" approach.   So is urban development.

This approach has led to the disfunctional transit system we have in place today.  Its time to go back to what actually works.

If forced to identify the #1 goal, I guess it would be to develop a sustainable community.  To achieve this goal there are several things that have to implemented and integrated with each other correctly.  Transit, like land use, density, walkability, street level connectivity, etc. are the things that help get us to that goal.  

You're not going to get anywhere near that goal by substituting fixed transit with faux trolleys.  Even within the realm of transit planning, they serve two completely different roles.  In a true integrated network that is designed for the end user, buses and rail actually end up supporting and complementing each other instead of being either/or options.  We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.