Brown's Team Suggests Trolley System in DT; Would It Be Another Skyway?

[thelakelander]

This article, as written irks me because I can clearly tell there is still a huge lack of understanding on this project, not only from Brown's administration, but the TU writers and even JTA....which happens to be the major reason I had transportation committee completely remove JTA's name from being associated with it.  At this point, I'd prefer they not have access to any mobility fee funds expected to be generated over the next decade to pay for a number of city projects, including this particular streetcar line.  Anyway, given the write up, I expect the normal naysayers on the TU board to pop up today, so the comments should be interesting.  I just got back into town from California last night, what a welcome back to Jax .

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2011-08-15/story/browns-team-suggests-trolley-system-downtown-jacksonville-would-it-be#comment-455306

Also, here is my reply I just posted to the TU board:

Let's add a few rational facts into the discussion:

1. The streetcar project is a project of the 2030 mobility plan and mobility fee that was recently adopted by City Council for a particular urban mobility zone in the city. This project would alleviate traffic congestion expected to develop along Park Street and Riverside Avenue (and other streets over the next two decades).

2. Comparing the streetcar to the skyway makes little sense. The skyway struggles for multiple reasons, including the fact that it doesn't penetrate neighborhoods outside of DT. The streetcar would be one of several mass transit projects in the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan that would provide for better efficient mass transit options across areas of the city with the proper density where more expensive roadway widening projects would destroy the communities and neighborhoods surrounding it.

3. The $71 million price tag is wrong. The mobility plan cost estimate is $50 million for a streetcar running from DT to the Park & King district in Riverside, connecting St. Vincents Medical Center, Five Points, Cummer Museum, Fidelity, BCBS, Brooklyn, Convention Center, CSX, the Landing, Hyatt, the Skyway and a bunch of other destinations.

4. The project would not be paid with taxpayer dollars. The cost of the project would be generated by mobility fees from future development constructed in that particular mobility zone.

5. To learn more about this and other mobility plan funded projects (bike, ped, roadway and transit facilities) , all of which have been discussed publicly for the last 5 years or so, visit:

http://www.coj.net/Departments/Planning-and-Development/Community-Planni...

6. As far as Brown's transition team goes, there's a lot of things in these reports. Transportation wise, there's BRT, dredging the river (that's an $800 million project by itself), and suggestions like not only building the Outer Beltway ($2 billion) but also possibly constructing a Northern Outer Beltway (who knows how many extra billions?). Why cherry pick non-taxpayer funded project (that costs less than the recent overpass at Beach & Kernan) and take it out of content?

Also, what the hell is this?

Davis and Mann argue that a fixed-route streetcar system with a track is better than the existing buses. A streetcar will attract economic development, encourage people to live and work downtown, and get cars off the road, they say.

But Blaylock, who was also on the transition committee, cautions that Brown will have limited dollars.

"Improving the port will be the No. 1 priority," Blaylock said, "and there's not a lot of money for infrastructure projects right now."

The streetcar project will be funded 100% by the mobility fee over a five to ten year period for this particular mobility zone.  This is a completely separate funding mechanism that can't be used for the port.  Out of all people and entities in the city, I'd expect my transit authorities to know this and not openly work to torpedo community backed projects like this.  Add this to the list of why I'd personally like to see this and other mobility plan projects stay completely within the hands of the City.

[iMarvin]

The comments on the TU are crazy!

[thelakelander]

I wouldn't expect the TU comments to be any other way.  Luckily, no one is asking taxpayers to pay for this particular mobility plan project.  Unfortunately, the article makes it seem differently and confuses it with past and proposed JTA projects (such as BRT and the skyway) that have been funded or maintained with taxpayer dollars.

Talk about a culture shock being in places that argue about where the next transit line will be instead of if is viable at all, to then come back to Jax.  I know I lost three hours flying across the country but it feels like that flight may have been a time warp back to 1980, lol.

[iMarvin]

Yeah, the article was confusing. Thankfully, I know enough about it (thanks to MJ) to understand the project.

[fsujax]

Consider the writer and who he writes for Lake. They always have to equate every transit project with the Skyway. Either way it's frustrating. You are right the streetcar does not have to be a JTA capital project. Someone will have to operate it though, either the City, JTA or some other entity.

[jcjohnpaint]

Yeah it is pretty sad reading the posts in and around your post Lake.  Most of these people care about facts-  they just want to bitch.  Most are so informed that it makes me really sad.  Diamonds that prefer to be coal. 

[tufsu1]

actually I don't think the article is that bad...at least it keeps the conversation going

[thelakelander]

It keeps the conversation going but kind of spins things in a bad confusing light.  For example, the transportation committee never suggested a trolley for downtown.  Our recommendation was to support the priority projects in the mobility plan which happen to impact every area in Jacksonville.  Although, it penetrates DT, this particular streetcar project deals with future traffic congestion leading into downtown in a different mobility zone (Riverside/Murray Hill, etc.).

There was a recommendation for a narrow gauge trolley in downtown by the downtown committee but that is a circus train (a different animal) , not the real thing being funded by the mobility plan and fee.  Last, the article attempts to compare the streetcar project with the skyway.  They are two totally different animals altogether from their funding and planning to operation.

For us, we can see the difference because we have greater in-depth knowledge on this particular issue.  However, for the common person, council representative or Brown administration, I seriously doubt they know the difference on any of these points to make a right decision to take either path.  Spins like this could easily result in someone in power attempting to kill the concept even though they have no rational nexus to do so (ex. the skyway extension to San Marco getting taken out of the mobility plan, Rick Scott and HSR, etc.).  With that said, I'd rather have no press than bad press.

[fsujax]

I actually just saw the paper and the title of the article is completely different from the one on the website. Streetcar is used in the title of the paper version.

[Tacachale]

Lakelander, you should write up your response and send it to the opinions page. This doesn't seem like a condemnation of the idea so much as a misunderstanding of some parts of the proposal. Obviously no one should pay attention to the comments section over there.

Additionally you could point out that the appropriate comparison for the streetcar isn't the skyway, a better one would be the transport we have running between downtown and Riverside already, including the trolley buses.

[Bativac]

Yeah I don't see how the JTA director can talk about the expense involved in a streetcar given their absurd transportation center proposal. And surely he knows where the money is coming from.

The article seems written to incite anger. It brings up the Skyway and doesn't make it clear enough that the money isn't coming from taxpayers.

There's some segment of society you are never, ever going to please if it involves spending money. I'm as conservative as the next guy but give me a break. Unless we want the whole city to look like the University Blvd and Arlington intersection, we have to dump a little money into it. It's like Life After People out here.

[urbanlibertarian]

Based on what the Brown administration has said generally so far, I would expect a streetcar project to be built and operated by a public-private partnership.

[thelakelander]

"and there's not a lot of money for infrastructure projects right now."

I agree with this Blaylock statement.  I also believe this style of thinking should be applied to local BRT planning.  We don't need a massive influx of federal dollars to implement JTA's proposed BRT plan.  I'd like to see us take the approach of improving our bus system through system and operation modification, privately funded bus shelters and elimination of duplicate routing.



Btw, I was just in LA last week and spent some time on their Silver Line BRT.  It runs on regular streets/expressway HOV lanes like a regular bus, does not have enhanced stations at all stops, no automatic fare collection system and no real time travel information.  However, you knew the bus was coming every 15 minutes (during the weekdays...reliability), it was a different color from other buses (branding), only made stops at limited locations (improved travel time), the route was a nearly a straight line (no route confusion) and every stop had a route map (reliability, no confusion).  It was basically a bare bones, no-frills BRT system, yet still worked because of decent headways, branding and reliability.

There is simply no reason that we can't implement such a BRT system on our streets right now, without federal dollars.  Imo, doing such would be a great example of working to improve our existing transit by not tapping into already limited infrastructure funds for improvements that can be made without them.

[thelakelander]

I can send maps.  I have access to all of them .

[fsujax]

Thanks for following up on this. Good work.