STREETCAR NOW JACKSONVILLE!

[thelakelander]

Park is a mere two blocks from Oak.  If you're not willing to walk two blocks from Park to Oak (0.12 miles) then you certainly can't expect anyone to use a Park Street streetcar to access St. Vincent's (front door is 0.30 miles from Park), Publix or any other major destination along Riverside.  That means, your ridership just took a huge dive because you've taken out the lines attractiveness for residents who live outside Riverside or the ability to resolve St. Vincent's space contraints.  As mentioned earlier, Riverside is not dense or populated enough to support a $50 million streetcar line on its own.  So whatever is developed has to be put together with the foresight that it needs to appeal to a much larger population than the immediate area.

[thelakelander]

What would be the harm in having a line down Riverside and another down, say, Post (ideally speaking, of course)?

Not enough funds to double up.  Make things too complicated and expensive and you risk the chance of nothing happening (ex. the skyway extensions).  However, I agree with cline.  These streets aren't miles apart and there is one in the middle of the two main streets that was built for a streetcar (meaning its already wide enough), is easily accessible to destinations on Park & Riverside, and could use a little revitalization of its own.

[thelakelander]

Anyway, all this goes to show why those ridership, route planning studies tufsu1 mentioned are important, even if you play with local money.

[iMarvin]

^But is it really worth it? The only thing Oak St has going for it, IMO, is being more cost efficient. But then again, estimates haven't been made so Oak might not be the most cost efficient.

And did you vote for Oak, Park, or Riverside?

I believe most of us agree on the KING to OAK to POST to RIVERSIDE to PARK AND/OR MYRTLE routing, the only part that is really a question mark to me is Myrtle or Park. IF the BRT comes south on Park, or if the Skyway is going to someday have a station at Riverside and Forest, then I'd prefer Myrtle.

Myrtle offers a unique opportunity to:

Revitalize a very historic and remaining section of Brooklyn's business area.

To reuse (and fix the drainage) in the historic Myrtle Avenue Subway, the only one in Florida.

Go right by the gate of the JTA yard, where it might be possible to establish a streetcar storage or maintenance yard.

Access Durkeeville, The Small Ballpark and open the possibility of access to Edward Waters College while still maintaining good access to the JRTC.

Now if nothing is planned for Park, and if the Skyway is dead (not just sleeping) then yes, Park makes sense provided FDOT will completely reconstruct the Lee Street Viaduct. This could allow for double streetcar tracks across the new bridge while providing clearance for Amtrak, Commuter Rail and the Florida East Coast trains.

If I was a developer of office towers I'd be pushing all three modes through Brooklyn as they go through the squeeze coming out of the station prior to fanning out across the city.

I'm also VERY fond of Post Street beyond King and on into Murray Hill, Normandy, Orange Park or where ever the future takes it, Post also appears to have been designed with streetcar expansion in mind, using gentle curves as opposed to corners.


OCKLAWAHA

How far would the streetcar go on Myrtle? Would that be the only street it travels on?

^If I was on the streetcar on Oak, I wouldn't walk over to Park. I don't think many people would. Park wouldn't serve Riverside or Oak, it would serve Park. It's in a more central area than the other streets and goes more places.

Fair point about location.

And by looking at Google Earth and taking into account some of Lake's and Chris' previous points, you've got that cluster of RAM/Cummer etc on Riverside.  It would be a shame to bypass those. 

Riverside isn't as centralized as Park or even Oak, but it's a straight shot that has culture, a big hospital, and a successful-if-small commercial area in the Shoppes of Avondale.  Yes Oak is more ready to accommodate a streetcar line width-wise, but there's more on Riverside and more on Park.

Didn't multiple lines run through the area, if I remember Ock's old maps correctly?  What would be the harm in having a line down Riverside and another down, say, Post (ideally speaking, of course)?

I agree but, going back to the skyway, I feel streetcar shouldn't be on Riverside because the skyway is there. So that's another reason why I like Park the most.

^If I was on the streetcar on Oak, I wouldn't walk over to Park. I don't think many people would. Park wouldn't serve Riverside or Oak, it would serve Park. It's in a more central area than the other streets and goes more places.

The area of Oak that the Streetcar would be running is less then 550 ft. (2 short blocks) from Park.  It is also 1 block from Riverside.  We're not talking miles away here. 

I know that. It's not like the streetcar stop would be right where someone needs to be on Park if it's on Oak.

[iMarvin]

Park is a mere two blocks from Oak.  If you're not willing to walk two blocks from Park to Oak (0.12 miles) then you certainly can't expect anyone to use a Park Street streetcar to access St. Vincent's (front door is 0.30 miles from Park), Publix or any other major destination along Riverside.  That means, your ridership just took a huge dive because you've taken out the lines attractiveness for residents who live outside Riverside or the ability to resolve St. Vincent's space contraints.  As mentioned earlier, Riverside is not dense or populated enough to support a $50 million streetcar line on its own.  So whatever is developed has to be put together with the foresight that it needs to appeal to a much larger population than the immediate area.

The streetcar would go down to St. Vincents on King, right?

And some people won't walk two block walks no matter how short. And like I said, any stop on Oak wouldn't be directly where someone needed to be on Park.

[thelakelander]

^Money, LRTP aside, the skyway isn't planned to extend down Riverside beyond Forest.  All the streetcar alignment talk inside the actual historic district would have no bearing on the skyway's alignment, regardless of whether it becomes a reality or not.

[thelakelander]

The streetcar would go down to St. Vincents on King, right?

No.  The current conceptual alignment is Oak to King and King to Park, in that particular area.

And some people won't walk two block walks no matter how short. And like I said, any stop on Oak wouldn't be directly where someone needed to be on Park.

Although I don't think there are enough major destinations on Park between Five Points and Park & King that would put it over St. Vincent's and Riverside Square in terms of attracting ridership, the rule of thumb is 1/4 mile radius (a five minute walk) from a transit stop.  Out of the three discussed, Oak is the only one that gets all and destinations along them well within that radius.

[iMarvin]

^Money, LRTP aside, the skyway isn't planned to extend down Riverside beyond Forest.  All the streetcar alignment talk inside the actual historic district would have no bearing on the skyway's alignment, regardless of whether it becomes a reality or not.

Like I said yesterday, skyway extensions might not be brought up for 15 years. I don't care, we need to still wait.

The streetcar would go down to St. Vincents on King, right?

No.  The current conceptual alignment is Oak to King and King to Park, in that particular area.

And some people won't walk two block walks no matter how short. And like I said, any stop on Oak wouldn't be directly where someone needed to be on Park.

The rule of thumb is 1/4 mile radius (a five minute walk) from a transit stop.

Top: That doesn't make sense. That's not even St. Vincent's, it's King.

Bottom: That depends all on who it is walking. Stops on Oak might not make sense for places where stops should be on Park.

[cline]

^Money, LRTP aside, the skyway isn't planned to extend down Riverside beyond Forest.  All the streetcar alignment talk inside the actual historic district would have no bearing on the skyway's alignment, regardless of whether it becomes a reality or not.

Like I said yesterday, skyway extensions might not be brought up for 15 years. I don't care, we need to still wait.

The streetcar would go down to St. Vincents on King, right?

No.  The current conceptual alignment is Oak to King and King to Park, in that particular area.

And some people won't walk two block walks no matter how short. And like I said, any stop on Oak wouldn't be directly where someone needed to be on Park.

The rule of thumb is 1/4 mile radius (a five minute walk) from a transit stop.

Top: That doesn't make sense. That's not even St. Vincent's, it's King.

Bottom: That depends all on who it is walking. Stops on Oak might not make sense for places where stops should be on Park.

The plan does not call for any south alignment down King to St. Vincents.  The plan would be that the Streetcar would travel west on Oak and jogs north at the King and Oak intersection to Park.  You could get off there and walk to two blocks south to St. Vincents.  Or, you could walk two blocks north and be in the Park and King district.  Either way it is less than a quarter mile walk, which as Lake mentioned is the standard for typical acceptable walking distance to a transit stop.

[iluvolives]

If you aren't willing to walk 2 blocks, public transit, in any form, probably isn't for you. Guess what it's not going to pick you up at your front door either.

I think Oak makes the most sense- it's allows people to be a short distance from both Park and Riverside. Because Oak doesn't connect all the way through avondale the traffic on it is far less than Park and Riverside. If an extension is ever added I think it could cut up from Oak to St. Johns towards the shops.

[JeffreyS]

I thought it was 1/2 mile for fixed transit and 1/4 mile for bus. I guess you learn something all the time.

This was my hope with this thread. We argue over which transit mode and route we should have not if we should have transit. I love it.

Streetcar Now!!!

[cline]

I thought it was 1/2 mile for fixed transit and 1/4 mile for bus. I guess you learn something all the time.

This was my hope with this thread. We argue over which transit mode and route we should have not if we should have transit. I love it.

Streetcar Now!!!

The typical standard is 1/4 mile however, some advocate that people are willing to walk further for rail.  However, in Jax, where not many people have experience with walking to transit it is probably best to stick with the more conservative 1/4 mile distance.

[tufsu1]

I thought it was 1/2 mile for fixed transit and 1/4 mile for bus. I guess you learn something all the time.

this is the generally accepted range nationally...but given the heat and humidity of Florida (and our aging population) many feel the radii should be reduced....personally I'm good with 1/3 mile for rail and 1/4 mile for bus

[iMarvin]

If you aren't willing to walk 2 blocks, public transit, in any form, probably isn't for you. Guess what it's not going to pick you up at your front door either.

I think Oak makes the most sense- it's allows people to be a short distance from both Park and Riverside. Because Oak doesn't connect all the way through avondale the traffic on it is far less than Park and Riverside. If an extension is ever added I think it could cut up from Oak to St. Johns towards the shops.

Guess what, I know that! Thinking about it now, a two-block walk is fine, but a stop on Oak isn't guaranteed to be the ideal stop for Park.

[JeffreyS]

I thought it was 1/2 mile for fixed transit and 1/4 mile for bus. I guess you learn something all the time.

this is the generally accepted range nationally...but given the heat and humidity of Florida (and our aging population) many feel the radii should be reduced....personally I'm good with 1/3 mile for rail and 1/4 mile for bus

That makes sense. My sister in law lives about 1/2 mile from Damon station in Wicker Park and that seems like such an easy walk.  Of course it is one of the most interesting neighborhoods to walk through.