Charleston, SC: Rail backers work to keep idea rolling

[Charleston native]

At some point, you reach a level where its not cost efficient or environmentally friendly to keep expanding expressways, especially through the city.  This is where spending money on mass transit as an alternative option becomes feasible.  Does this mean that no highway should be improved?  No.  But it does mean that it makes little sense to widen I-95 to an Atlanta-like 12 lane freeway through town and then dump additional money into building mass transit systems that serve the same destinations.

Why doesn't it make sense? As I said in the comment section of the article, many people in this country will continue to use the automobile because of the independence it gives. Therefore, regardless of how many people use light rail, commuter rail, or bus transit, the amount of cars on the road will increase as the population increases. We need to prepare for the increase of residents and transient travelers that will inevitably occur within the next 40-50 years. As far as enviromentally friendliness, I think it's a moot point when you're talking about an area that has already been altered from its natural landscape.

Its not a theory of mine, its the conclusion of several studies on traffic congestion.  Quite frankly widening roads to a point is just as effective as buying a longer belt to tuck in a growing belly because of a refusal to change eating and workout habits to lose weight as the doctor suggested.  Not to mention its super expensive.

During the 1920s, Urban Jacksonville had twice as much density as it has now and traffic moved just fine with streetcars as an alternative source of transit.  If reducing traffic congestion is really a goal for roads, the best thing you can do is to develop a grid system.  You'll be better off having a grid of two lane roads spaced every mile or so, as opposed to one or two eight land highways spaced every five miles.

I'm not saying there are spots where road enhancements aren't necessary, but if you want successful mass transit, it not a good idea to keep developing roads in the fashion that we have for the past 50 years.

Lake, it sounds like what has to be done is to let traffic deteriorate for drivers in order to force them into living downtown or into using mass transit. Many proponents of strictly mass transit have used the same "longer belt" analogy, and I just don't buy it. What truly alleviates the "obesity" problem is population control, and I don't think you're proposing that. However, that is the only true option that will eliminate the growth. Reducing cars on the road can be accomplished with mass transit, but the effect will only be temporary as the population will inevitably grow, unless a catastrophic event occurs. I think providing a street grid is a good alternative, but not as 2-lane streets. If there is any form of an obsolete road, 2-lane roads are it.

BTW, if highways are so "50 years ago", why do approximately 150 million drivers still use them for commuting and traveling? Highways are still a much preferred method of transportation. However, this does not mean eliminating options. The only way for efficient and effective transportation in the city is to provide multiple venues for transportation: highways, light rail, commuter rail, and buses. ALL of these things combined will help the traffic problem.

[Ocklawaha]

BTW, if highways are so "50 years ago", why do approximately 150 million drivers still use them for commuting and traveling? Highways are still a much preferred method of transportation. However, this does not mean eliminating options. The only way for efficient and effective transportation in the city is to provide multiple venues for transportation: highways, light rail, commuter rail, and buses. ALL of these things combined will help the traffic problem.

I think you've answered your own question here. Highways are the enemy of green, livable space, yet they do offer freedom. So the best solution is a matrix of transit choices, like a woven fabric, it needs to serve the WHOLE City and most of the burbs. In the core, there needs to be many choices. Jacksonville is well positioned to make such a system in short order: Example: Skyway, Bus, (electric shuttle buses or vans), Streetcars, Commuter Rail and Water Taxi's. Once people have a choice of modes and a choice of connections and schedules, they'll go transit. Ask anyone which City in America is known for it's Highway-Auto-Love Affair? Los Angeles! Yet once Metro-Link, Metro-Rail, BRT, got dense enough to form a network, no businessman or woman in their right mind would commute on those freeways if they can avoid it. It happened overnight, after an earthquake. I saw it... Lived it. A City transformed by emergency rail equipment sent in because 1/2 the freeways were in shambles. Ridership boomed, then exploded when the freeways got fixed and new connector links come on line. My last trip, I went all over the LA basin and NEVER TOUCHED A CAR!
Unreal. Charleston, or Jacksonville, and I firmly believe Ocala, or Palatka, could have the same success with a well connected mix, scaled to the size of the town.

Ocklawaha

[thelakelander]

At some point, you reach a level where its not cost efficient or environmentally friendly to keep expanding expressways, especially through the city.  This is where spending money on mass transit as an alternative option becomes feasible.  Does this mean that no highway should be improved?  No.  But it does mean that it makes little sense to widen I-95 to an Atlanta-like 12 lane freeway through town and then dump additional money into building mass transit systems that serve the same destinations.

Why doesn't it make sense? As I said in the comment section of the article, many people in this country will continue to use the automobile because of the independence it gives.

That's fine, but that does not mean that freedom should come over trampling the urban neighborhoods the construction of wider roads in the inner city cause or the continued destruction of greenspace.  Driving is a privilege, not a right. 

Therefore, regardless of how many people use light rail, commuter rail, or bus transit, the amount of cars on the road will increase as the population increases. We need to prepare for the increase of residents and transient travelers that will inevitably occur within the next 40-50 years.

I think were already prepared as far as road construction goes.  Its the alternative modes we need to be putting a majority of our investments into if we really want a true integrated system.  You're also overlooking the importance that land use and zoning plays in this discussion.  The reorganization of this alone can have a dramatic affect on the amount of road and mass transit construction needed.

As far as enviromentally friendliness, I think it's a moot point when you're talking about an area that has already been altered from its natural landscape.

I don't agree here.  The land in Riverside has been altered from its natural landscape.  However, this does not mean we should go into that historic district and widen Park to four lanes because more cars are on the way.  We also still have plenty of natural greenspaces that are being leveled on an everyday basis.  Just look at Nocatee. 

Its not a theory of mine, its the conclusion of several studies on traffic congestion.  Quite frankly widening roads to a point is just as effective as buying a longer belt to tuck in a growing belly because of a refusal to change eating and workout habits to lose weight as the doctor suggested.  Not to mention its super expensive.

During the 1920s, Urban Jacksonville had twice as much density as it has now and traffic moved just fine with streetcars as an alternative source of transit.  If reducing traffic congestion is really a goal for roads, the best thing you can do is to develop a grid system.  You'll be better off having a grid of two lane roads spaced every mile or so, as opposed to one or two eight land highways spaced every five miles.

I'm not saying there are spots where road enhancements aren't necessary, but if you want successful mass transit, it not a good idea to keep developing roads in the fashion that we have for the past 50 years.

Lake, it sounds like what has to be done is to let traffic deteriorate for drivers in order to force them into living downtown or into using mass transit.[/quote]

No, I realize we have a limited supply of tax dollars that can be used for transportation.  Traffic will continue to deteriorate no matter how many lanes you put in, as long as the same land use mentalities stay in effect.  On the other hand, its cheaper to invest more in mass transit and less in asphalt highway construction in the long run.  Its also easier to increase capacity when the time comes, as opposed to taking people's homes, businesses and destroying their neighborhoods for additional highways and freeways.

Many proponents of strictly mass transit have used the same "longer belt" analogy, and I just don't buy it. What truly alleviates the "obesity" problem is population control, and I don't think you're proposing that. However, that is the only true option that will eliminate the growth.

I'd focus on more efficient zoning and land use patterns, as opposed to population control.  With proper planning, Jax could handle a significant population boost without expanding outward at the degree it does today.

Reducing cars on the road can be accomplished with mass transit, but the effect will only be temporary as the population will inevitably grow, unless a catastrophic event occurs.

I'm not advocating reducing road capacity.  I just don't agree that widening roads to an insane number of lanes does anything to improve traffic congestion if we aren't willing to change our growth patterns.

I think providing a street grid is a good alternative, but not as 2-lane streets. If there is any form of an obsolete road, 2-lane roads are it.

You're focusing only on highways.  I consider local and collector streets as being just as important in moving and diffusing traffic flow and congestion.

BTW, if highways are so "50 years ago", why do approximately 150 million drivers still use them for commuting and traveling? Highways are still a much preferred method of transportation. However, this does not mean eliminating options.

I think Ock's response answers this question.

The only way for efficient and effective transportation in the city is to provide multiple venues for transportation: highways, light rail, commuter rail, and buses. ALL of these things combined will help the traffic problem.

Well we have highways covered pretty well.  We've proven we can build them with the best of them, without any regard to how they interact with the neighborhoods they slice through.  Now its time to invest a lot more in integrating alternative transportation solutions.