STREETCAR NOW JACKSONVILLE!

[ChriswUfGator]

even if you use all local dollars, you still need to do some level of route planning and ridership study....if not, good luck getting financing from either the public or private sector.

The last thing we need is another study. The streetcar is funded by the mobility plan, it's our money, spend it on the streetcar instead of spending half of it on studies. Wasn't there a big study done on the Skyway, predicting great success? Just build the streetcar along the old routes, it worked 100 years ago, it'll work the same now.

[iMarvin]

Park St. because it has a direct connection to the JRTC, goes to 5 points and can turn down King (Park & King) to go to St. Vincent's. Plus, it won't get in the way or duplicate the route a skyway extension would serve (Riverside Ave.)

[ChriswUfGator]

Park St. because it has a direct connection to the JRTC, goes to 5 points and can turn down King (Park & King) to go to St. Vincent's. Plus, it won't get in the way or duplicate the route a skyway extension would serve (Riverside Ave.)

I thimk Park St. might be too narrow in Riverside to extend the streetcar past the park in 5 points. There are areas where the ROW can't be expanded much, Riverside Ave is much wider. I want to see the streetcar through to Herschel Street, somewhere in the area of the Publix on 17, to give the neighborhood full coverage. That will likely be impossible on Park.

[urbanlibertarian]

Oak St because it would conflict less with automobiles and if you made it a transit/bike path it would be safer for bikes.

[urbanlibertarian]

Wouldn't a ridership/route study help keep it from being screwed up by political considerations?

[ChriswUfGator]

Oak St because it would conflict less with automobiles and if you made it a transit/bike path it would be safer for bikes.

The problem with Oak is the streetcar would have to bisect the parks when it is expanded. Riverside is a clean shot through all of Riverside/Avondale with no dead-ends and has plenty of room for the tracks.

[ChriswUfGator]

Wouldn't a ridership/route study help keep it from being screwed up by political considerations?

Quite the reverse, is how those normally go.

No study is needed on this, the neighborhoods in question want it, the money will be there, just do it.

If there is a disagreement on route, hold a public input session for Riverside/Avondale and go with the majority.

[thelakelander]

Here is one of Ock's old maps showing the original streetcar network.

[cline]

Does RAP have a preferred routing through Riverside?  I tend to lean towards the Oak Street alignment.

[tufsu1]

even if you use all local dollars, you still need to do some level of route planning and ridership study....if not, good luck getting financing from either the public or private sector.

The last thing we need is another study. The streetcar is funded by the mobility plan, it's our money, spend it on the streetcar instead of spending half of it on studies. Wasn't there a big study done on the Skyway, predicting great success? Just build the streetcar along the old routes, it worked 100 years ago, it'll work the same now.

so I guess it doesn't matter what the potential ridership or revenue would be?

[Ocklawaha]

Ideally it would be BOTH, running from Myrtle or Park street turning east onto Forest, to Riverside, to Post, to Oak, to King. Riverside is too narrow and WAY too busy, on the other hand it will need to pass in front of the BCBS/FIDELITY complexes, thus a short piece on Riverside is needed. Park Street from Forest I-95 southward is also way too busy, and whoever builds through 5-points is going to take out the little blinking light...which might cause a war. SKYWAY into riverside makes all the sense in the world but only as far south as Forest, if somehow we built both the Skyway extension down to Forest AND the streetcar up Myrtle or Park, with our BRT routed down the center at Park Street, I predict we'd create a new downtown within 10 years. In fact based on the national numbers with that type of transit in place little Brooklyn would start to look like big BROOKLYN!

As for studies, yes it would help, but no it doesn't have to take a year like JTA'S 'streetcar study' in which they paid someone a couple hundred thousand to copy, cut and paste, even using some of our photos and graphics, what myself and MJ have been saying, for what amounts to 31 years. This is why I'd lay a 90 day limit on the studies (all of them), then roll with the best possible results. Even so I don't think we could go wrong just following the original as close as possible right down the road.

No parks would be bisected, but even if they were, streetcar is the most compatible means of transportation infrastructure anyone could want in a park.


OCKLAWAHA

[ChriswUfGator]

even if you use all local dollars, you still need to do some level of route planning and ridership study....if not, good luck getting financing from either the public or private sector.

The last thing we need is another study. The streetcar is funded by the mobility plan, it's our money, spend it on the streetcar instead of spending half of it on studies. Wasn't there a big study done on the Skyway, predicting great success? Just build the streetcar along the old routes, it worked 100 years ago, it'll work the same now.

so I guess it doesn't matter what the potential ridership or revenue would be?

Why study something we already know works? All the proposed routes are within 6 blocks of each other. Just pick one and do it. A study would be a waste of money, ridership will be what it's going to be regardless of what route is chosen, since they're all so close. Consultants would simply add delay and costs.

[tufsu1]

fine chris...so what is your guestimated daily ridership for a streetcar line from Riverside to downtown...with trains running every 15 minutes?

[ChriswUfGator]

fine chris...so what is your guestimated daily ridership for a streetcar line from Riverside to downtown...with trains running every 15 minutes.

Who cares, I want it built regardless.

Not to mention those ridership studies are often woefully inaccurate, want to start comparing the skyway study again? There is a limited amount of money here, not enough to waste half of it on consultants who rip their work off this website. Just build it already, then we'll have a streetcar instead of a study. Sadly, I can't ride a study to work.

[tufsu1]

ok...so let's hypothesize...

Suppose the system got 4000 riders per day with 10-20 minute headways running from 7a - 11p

Should it be built?  
How much would the fare need to be to be operationally functional?  
Is there a need for an endowment?  
How long would that endowment last to cover operations cost (beyond farebox recovery?  
Would hours need to be cut or headways made longer?

Now, what if the system only got 1000 riders a day using the same assunmptions.

These are important questions to ask...now a study of this would likely cost about 1% of the total cost of constructing the line....the actual design work would be another 10-20%.