FTU Staff Editorial: Jax Can't Afford Mobility Plan's Streetcar

[peestandingup]

Typical.

You know what I've learned after working years in mainstream local news outlets (TV, radio & newspapers)?? Only the stupid & uninformed use them.

[Noone]

We are getting a Navy Ship 2010-675 with one Finance Amendment. Not in Waterways. WHY?

RAM will be given a potential 30 year lease for a buck a year. 2011-364 and its too bad that the brand new floating dock will only be used when they are open.  Not in Waterways. WHY?

2010-604-Shipyards- Time is running out and any council member can introduce legislation to have the Promised 680 Downtown Public Pier separate. Somebody on the council Make It Happen. Did anyone for a second think that you would not be allowed to use the brand new dock at RAM? This was discussed at Waterways Aug.10 I'll post more about this on another thread.

This is accurate information.

I'm warming to the idea of a streetcar. I won't pretend that I know a lot about rail but I've thought from the Prime Osborn straight to the stadium. We have had to rip up the road in front of the Landing not once but twice and it would be a 3rd time if a track had to go around the round about with the Andrew Jackson statue. Imagine the streetcar line outlining the perimeter of the Shipyards property. Just a thought. Blank canvas.

The pier is a single.

[Dashing Dan]

The collective MJ response here does not bode well for the future of streetcars in Jacksonville.  It won't do any good to assume that this columnist is acting out of ignorance.  Take his concerns one by one and address each of them directly.

[thelakelander]

^That's basically what I did in the email sent last night.  Hopefully, I'll hear back from them today.  I'm willing to talk mobility plan, downtown revitalization, Brown transportation committee team or even gaining better utilization out of the skyway and more.

Btw, I don't think the columnist wrote that opinion piece with a good understanding of the project.  I base that on a inaccurate project price being mentioned, as well as a thought that taxes will be raised to fund this, no mention of the eight other mobility projects (commuter rail and 7 roadway widenings) and a thought that this mobility plan project was cooked up by Brown's transition team for downtown revitalization.  All those thoughts, which were all major points in the opinion piece are clearly false, which would mean either a level of ignorance on the project exists or its a propaganda piece (which I doubt). 

Now, if there are questions about its validity based on Jax's experience with the skyway, then lets have that conversation.  However, that's a completely different animal altogether and can be discussed with the provided facts concerning the other points as well.  It's the 21st century and the facts are a simple google search or visit to the city's site.  There's no reason to remain in the dark on this and form/sway public opinion based on false data.

[Dashing Dan]

You're not going to change this guy's mind by correcting the inaccurate facts in his column.   He raised some legitimate points that deserve a more direct response.

[tufsu1]

so wait...is this a staff editorial...or just letter to the editor?

If from staff, perhaps a meeting with the editorial board is in order

[Garden guy]

We did'nt need and could'nt afford that massive hidious monstrosity that's now our courthouse..yet somewhere that cash was pulled out of someones butt....so...why not a program that's going to help the city and that's needed...heck...i'll be suprised if that new court house will ever be to capacity....who's to say what's more important..us?...not...that court house was'nt wanted but the rich boy got him and his daddy a contract...that's the only thing that's important right?

[Tacachale]

That looks good, Lakelander, well stated. Keep us posted if and when they reply.

[Tacachale]

We did'nt need and could'nt afford that massive hidious monstrosity that's now our courthouse..yet somewhere that cash was pulled out of someones butt....so...why not a program that's going to help the city and that's needed...heck...i'll be suprised if that new court house will ever be to capacity....who's to say what's more important..us?...not...that court house was'nt wanted but the rich boy got him and his daddy a contract...that's the only thing that's important right?

Actually, we did need the courthouse, and were required to build it. And some of the cost overruns were unavoidable (but manageable). It didn't need to be as expensive as it was.

[Dashing Dan]

so wait...is this a staff editorial...or just letter to the editor?

If from staff, perhaps a meeting with the editorial board is in order

I couldn't find this blog on the TU website this morning.  But there are still issues that were raised.  Apart from the mobility plan, the streetcar idea will need more study before these issues can be sufficiently addressed.

[acme54321]

Yeah we definitely needed a new courthouse.  The current one is a shit hole.

[tufsu1]

It is there...and I confirmed that they are just letters to the editor.

[thelakelander]

Dan, no doubt. Every single project in it will need more study and design before being constructed. That's typical for transit and road projects and should be with ped and bike, regardless of if it is a mobility plan funded project or not.

[thelakelander]

It is there...and I confirmed that they are just letters to the editor.

Which one? Two appear to be letters to the editor and one appears to be an opinion piece by Phil Fretz. Regardless of how anyone feels about the concept, all are clearly based on bad information. All I want to do is provide needed answers to allow each individual reading to make their own logical decision.

[tufsu1]

guess I missed the opinion piece...would help if I went to Page 1 of the thread