A new look for Brooklyn's Park Street

[thelakelander]

A road diet could be coming to Brooklyn's Park Street. Here is a glimpse into would could lead to a resurgence of another historic walkable commercial corridor in Jacksonville's city center.

Read More: https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/a-new-look-for-brooklyns-park-street/

[Steve]

I'm a little surprised they went with the Shared lanes for Bikes and Cars, but otherwise I like it.

Remind me how this is going to be paid for?

[Charles Hunter]

I, too, am surprised at the Sharrow solution; but, given the low volumes, makes sense.
I am more surprised, and disappointed, the plan does not include undergrounding the existing utilities. Doing so would remove several impediments in the sidewalk, and may allow larger trees.
It is unclear to me where the streetlights are, and whether they will be street-oriented cobra heads, pedestrian-oriented acorns, or some combination.
Did they look at combining, eliminating, or narrowing driveways? What about potential future needs for driveways to accommodate new development?  Also, the electrical supply business, between Stonewall and Jackson, has a loading dock that large semi-trucks currently back into, temporarily blocking Park Street. Will the design accommodate this maneuver?

[Captain Zissou]

I, too, am surprised at the Sharrow solution; but, given the low volumes, makes sense.
I am more surprised, and disappointed, the plan does not include undergrounding the existing utilities. Doing so would remove several impediments in the sidewalk, and may allow larger trees.
It is unclear to me where the streetlights are, and whether they will be street-oriented cobra heads, pedestrian-oriented acorns, or some combination.
Did they look at combining, eliminating, or narrowing driveways? What about potential future needs for driveways to accommodate new development?  Also, the electrical supply business, between Stonewall and Jackson, has a loading dock that large semi-trucks currently back into, temporarily blocking Park Street. Will the design accommodate this maneuver?

I don't have inside knowledge of this project, but based on prior history i'd say the answer to all of your questions is NO.

[tufsu1]

I am sadly a bit surprised by some of the concepts presented. While I love the wide pedestrian space, it is at the expense of cyclists...which is an issue given the connection to the Emerald Trail. Sharrows were all the rage...10 years ago. They also are not ideal with 10' travel lanes and a narrow on-street parking lane.

I'm also a bit skeptical about the use of mini-circles at some of the intersections.

[bl8jaxnative]

Sharrows are perfect for Park.

[Tacachale]

I am sadly a bit surprised by some of the concepts presented. While I love the wide pedestrian space, it is at the expense of cyclists...which is an issue given the connection to the Emerald Trail. Sharrows were all the rage...10 years ago. They also are not ideal with 10' travel lanes and a narrow on-street parking lane.

I'm also a bit skeptical about the use of mini-circles at some of the intersections.

Yeah, sharrows are the wrong move there. Should be separated bike lanes.

[fieldafm]

I am more surprised, and disappointed, the plan does not include undergrounding the existing utilities. Doing so would remove several impediments in the sidewalk, and may allow larger trees.

It is my understanding that JEA did not want to pay for removing the overhead utilities.  My understanding, is that JEA will be upgrading the lighting with the new LEDs, as part of this streetscape reconstruction.

The primary developer that has assembled most of the existing parcels along this roadway is very interested in keeping most of the remaining building stock intact, and it was found that some of those buildings would have been encroached upon if the existing utilities were modified. 

As an aside, most of the remaining housing stock West of Park are not hooked into the City's sewer system.

It is unclear to me where the streetlights are, and whether they will be street-oriented cobra heads, pedestrian-oriented acorns, or some combination.

Currently, that section of Park has a mixture of the old (actual) historic streetlights, and the new COJ approved historic lookalikes. It is my understanding that the new poles will remain in place, while the old poles will come down.  It is my understanding that the standard yellow beacons are being added to crosswalks at each of the proposed traffic circles, with ladder striping or brick crosswalks (ladder striping is used throughout Brooklyn, but the actual brick crosswalks are preferred for Park)... all consistent with current COJ streetscape standards for the CBD.  My understanding, is that there won't be Park Street-specific wayfaring signage (like you'd see along Gaines Street in Tallahassee, for example).  There will be one mid-block crossing added where the old red brick building was (the Communist prison-looking structure that was torn down a few years ago), and a marked section of the Emerald Trail begins near the Gliddens building.

Did they look at combining, eliminating, or narrowing driveways? What about potential future needs for driveways to accommodate new development?

Essentially, one developer controls most of Park Street.  All of the current driveway placements will remain, and future redevelopment will be planned off that traffic placement.


As an aside, COJ put in ADA compliant curbs at each intersection late last year. (as part of the ongoing ADA compliance settlement/corrections going up all around the county)... all of that work will be ripped up when Park St road diet breaks ground (likely not until Q4 of 2022).
Also, JTA plans to install some of their new BRT stations along with the road diet construction.

[fieldafm]

I am sadly a bit surprised by some of the concepts presented. While I love the wide pedestrian space, it is at the expense of cyclists...which is an issue given the connection to the Emerald Trail. Sharrows were all the rage...10 years ago. They also are not ideal with 10' travel lanes and a narrow on-street parking lane.

I'm also a bit skeptical about the use of mini-circles at some of the intersections.

The existing traffic signals are completely worthless.  Hugely in favor of replacing those unnecessary relics with an alternative traffic calming device. 

Also, the primary developer of this area has an overwhelming desire (rightly I might add) to add as much outdoor dining space as possible, and is keenly interested in keeping as much as the existing building stock in place.  As you know, within 60' of ROW... there are choices to be made.  The preferential choice would be to prioritize pedestrian space and redevelopment of existing buildings... over accommodating a cycle track and having to heavily modify existing building stock in order to accommodate the preferred vibrant pedestrian streetscape desired, as a result of constructing a cycle track.

[Steve]

I am sadly a bit surprised by some of the concepts presented. While I love the wide pedestrian space, it is at the expense of cyclists...which is an issue given the connection to the Emerald Trail. Sharrows were all the rage...10 years ago. They also are not ideal with 10' travel lanes and a narrow on-street parking lane.

I'm also a bit skeptical about the use of mini-circles at some of the intersections.

Yea I was expecting something a little more similar to Riverplace Blvd. I realize the ROW isn't nearly as wide on Park but It seems like some of the concepts could have been embraced. It's a somewhat narrow ROW and I wouldn't want to touch any of the buildings so maybe they did what they could do?

In terms of the traffic circle I guess they were trying to calm traffic without keeping the lights.

I do wish the power could be undergrounded, but I bet that would add a LOT to the price of this. Perhaps the design could be done in a way so that if they chose to do it later the entire street/sidewalk wouldn't have to be ripped up?

[Steve]

As an aside, COJ put in ADA compliant curbs at each intersection late last year. (as part of the ongoing ADA compliance settlement/corrections going up all around the county)... all of that work will be ripped up when Park St road diet breaks ground (likely not until Q4 of 2022).
Also, JTA plans to install some of their new BRT stations along with the road diet construction.

Why is this going for Final Approval now if not until late 2022?

[fieldafm]

As an aside, COJ put in ADA compliant curbs at each intersection late last year. (as part of the ongoing ADA compliance settlement/corrections going up all around the county)... all of that work will be ripped up when Park St road diet breaks ground (likely not until Q4 of 2022).
Also, JTA plans to install some of their new BRT stations along with the road diet construction.

Why is this going for Final Approval now if not until late 2022?

Riverplace Blvd streetscape went before DDRB about 2.5/3 years before work began, for context.

[thelakelander]

I am sadly a bit surprised by some of the concepts presented. While I love the wide pedestrian space, it is at the expense of cyclists...which is an issue given the connection to the Emerald Trail. Sharrows were all the rage...10 years ago. They also are not ideal with 10' travel lanes and a narrow on-street parking lane.

I'm also a bit skeptical about the use of mini-circles at some of the intersections.

This is supposed to be a BRT corridor as well. 10' travel lanes, mixed with cars and cyclist aren't ideal for that type of transit service.

[Steve]

As an aside, COJ put in ADA compliant curbs at each intersection late last year. (as part of the ongoing ADA compliance settlement/corrections going up all around the county)... all of that work will be ripped up when Park St road diet breaks ground (likely not until Q4 of 2022).
Also, JTA plans to install some of their new BRT stations along with the road diet construction.

Why is this going for Final Approval now if not until late 2022?

Riverplace Blvd streetscape went before DDRB about 2.5/3 years before work began, for context.

My question still stands:)

[thelakelander]

I also think the mini roundabout things are overkill and a waste of money but I do love the use of chicanes. They are a great way to slow motorized traffic down within a ROW constrained corridor.