As Jacksonville Grows...

[thelakelander]

Interesting?  I figured the most difficult aspect of passenger rail on existing tracks would be acquiring lease agreements or purchasing rail ROW from freight companies, not the St. Johns River. Jax isn't the only American city with a river dividing it.  If places like St. Louis and Portland can find away to get rail across their rivers, we should be able to.  Imo, the St. Johns River is not even an obstacle worth talking about.

[Steve]

To me, that's no different than competing with freight or amtrak on any freight line.  The bridge is no different than any other section of track, except the beidge has to be raised and lowered whenever there is a crossing.  Ocklawaha - do you have any idea the actual traffic on that line?

Not to mention - explain to me how that would be a factor on any line except the Phillips Hwy Line?  How many trains from the north or west would need to cross the river.

We just come up with any excuse possible to fight rail.

[avonjax]

Sadly Getreal is of the same mind set of much of Jacksonville, and the JTA for that matter. We look for  any obstacle we can find to shoot down any progressive idea involving mass transit other than buses. And interestingly even he calls crossing the river a minor detail.
And we surely can't be worried about cost because anyone with half a brain has to realize that the BRT cost is going to be shocking when the cost skyrockets over the next 15 or so years.

[MWisdom]

Interesting?  I figured the most difficult aspect of passenger rail on existing tracks would be acquiring lease agreements or purchasing rail ROW from freight companies, not the St. Johns River. Jax isn't the only American city with a river dividing it.  If places like St. Louis and Portland can find away to get rail across their rivers, we should be able to.  Imo, the St. Johns River is not even an obstacle worth talking about.

I had not even considered the problem of crossing the river.  But, now that it has been pointed out that seems a considerable obsticle.  In comparing costs of BRT to LR, that single factor -- that there is only one rail bridge across the river -- could inflate the price to an astronimical amount.  Consider the cost and time it would take to span the river with another rail bridge!

There may be other solutions, perhaps the line that travels to the southside has a termination point in San Marco and riders transfer to the Skyway.  But, sharing the current rail bridge seems like it would be a very difficult task. The sheer volume of commuter trains would increase the traffic on that bridge to a point that the draw bridge would be in a perpetually down position.

While on the subject of sharing facilities, what kind of strain would adding commuter trains add to the currently heavy use of the rails?  I live near the rails in Orange Park and hear the trains passing all night and day, I have been stopped at rail crossings inumerous times and have counted as many as six trains traveling the 17/Roosevelt line as I drive to or from work.  As it is, the trains snarl traffic causing many driver headaches. Add to this commuter trains traveling between stations at a rate of twenty minutes between stops.  In my unscientific estimation that would add around six trains to the rails along 17/Roosevelt causing the crossing arms to come down six more times an hour for an average of two minutes each time.  That works out to twelve additional minutes of traffic interuption due to trains.

Also, one has to consider how the addition of commuter trains will disrupt freight and Amtrak service.  Adding regular commuter service would necissitate a very delicate ballet indeed for the rail traffic controllers at CSX (I know one of these guys and he says the rails are already quite congested).  Right now there are two sets of tracks along 17/Roosevelt, with several side rails for trains to pass one another.  Think of the congestion adding rapid transit trains to a line that already carries both short, rapid Amtrak trains and longer, slower-moving freight trains.  That would be one complicated game of leap frog.

A solution to this is to use the exisitng right-of-way and add additional track, but that is costly, too.  St. Louis used a combination of new and exisitng track for the majority of its original line.  The line runs from the St. Louis airport to downtown and only goes underground once it is in the city.  Even then, the underground portion used mostly pre-exisiting, abandoned tunnels which were renovated for the new use.  St. Louis extensively used exisitng infrastructure to keep the costs of construction low.  Even at that the cost came in around $16.5 million per mile in early 1990's dollars. 

New track cost on other projects around the country averge around $68 million per mile.  Some cost more to the tune of nearly $100 million per mile and others cost less at around $25 million per mile.  If we look at those costs and take the lower end price tag -- $25 million per mile -- we are still looking at over $375 million (not including cost over-runs which average nearly 41% nationally -- which could see the project cost skyrocket to over $528 million) for just one line running from Orange Park to downtown.  And these are not one-time costs.  Just like roads, rail must be maintained and replaced over time.  Currently rail systems last between 20 and 30 years, necessitating replacement within that time period at significantly inflated costs. 

Rail is a wonderful idea, but there are many things to think about before we commit fully to the idea.  As I said in a previous post, every idea and argument should be listened to carefully.  For every good idea there will several reasons why it will not work.  For every argument against there will be many solutions.  We all need to stand back from our various postions onthe issue and truly consider the cost in not only today's dollars, but tomorrow's.

[Pavers]

I work right next to the rail at the Aetna building, and that bridge goes up and down a lot during the day.  I can't say I've timed it, but I would guess that crossings/day are accessible through some public record.

I don't know how much of a bottleneck our lone river bridge is to your ideas, but I wouldn't dismiss it offhandedly.  The river bridge is already a pain in the butt for those that commute around the San Marco or Baptist areas (can you imagine being in an ambulance having to wait for the train to get to the emergency room?), so I wonder what that would do to the area if you had light rail trains running through there every 3-5 minutes.

I may be wrong, but I assume other cities with rivers (ie St Louis) have rail bridges that are elevated.  Our low-level rail bridge that hugs the water may be unique among large metro areas.  That would likely cost a pretty penny to alter.

[Pavers]

One more thing to consider - sorry to be a rail party pooper...

How would the planned mega-expansion of the port affect rail traffic locally (and thus light rail)?  If the commericial rails are moderately strained now, those new port ships are going to be unloading a bunch of containers - that will be heading on truck and rail toward its ultimate destination.  If the port is going to grow like gangbusters as planned/hoped, what does that mean for the current rail system in the area?

[copperfiend]

The sad thing about that picture of OP in front of the mall is it could have been taken at any time of day. That is one of the most congested roads I have ever been on. It is one of the reasons I moved from OP a few years ago.

[thelakelander]

Interesting?  I figured the most difficult aspect of passenger rail on existing tracks would be acquiring lease agreements or purchasing rail ROW from freight companies, not the St. Johns River. Jax isn't the only American city with a river dividing it.  If places like St. Louis and Portland can find away to get rail across their rivers, we should be able to.  Imo, the St. Johns River is not even an obstacle worth talking about.

I had not even considered the problem of crossing the river.  But, now that it has been pointed out that seems a considerable obsticle.  In comparing costs of BRT to LR, that single factor -- that there is only one rail bridge across the river -- could inflate the price to an astronimical amount.  Consider the cost and time it would take to span the river with another rail bridge!

The Metro Jacksonville plan calls for using EXISTING rail corridors, not creating new ones.  With just the CSX "A" (parallels Roosevelt) and the S-Line (the Northside), you could have a +20 mile rail trunk line serving most of the city's densest communities and the river is not a factor at all.  Any lease agreement with FEC would involve using the downtown rail bridge, which is already double tracked, so the St. Johns River should be the least of anyone's worry, unless they're trying to create new rail corridors, which then makes the concept cost prohibitive.

There may be other solutions, perhaps the line that travels to the southside has a termination point in San Marco and riders transfer to the Skyway.  But, sharing the current rail bridge seems like it would be a very difficult task. The sheer volume of commuter trains would increase the traffic on that bridge to a point that the draw bridge would be in a perpetually down position.

Commuter rail lines all across the country share tracks with busy freight lines.  Coordination is the key in this situation.  

While on the subject of sharing facilities, what kind of strain would adding commuter trains add to the currently heavy use of the rails?  I live near the rails in Orange Park and hear the trains passing all night and day, I have been stopped at rail crossings inumerous times and have counted as many as six trains traveling the 17/Roosevelt line as I drive to or from work.  As it is, the trains snarl traffic causing many driver headaches. Add to this commuter trains traveling between stations at a rate of twenty minutes between stops.  In my unscientific estimation that would add around six trains to the rails along 17/Roosevelt causing the crossing arms to come down six more times an hour for an average of two minutes each time.  That works out to twelve additional minutes of traffic interuption due to trains.

Do you know that a significant portion of trains using the rails near Orange Park may soon be relocated to the line running between Baldwin and Central Florida, because of Orlando's commuter rail deal?  The capacity that move would free up could open the door from passenger rail between downtown, Orange Park and perhaps Green Cove Springs.

Also, one has to consider how the addition of commuter trains will disrupt freight and Amtrak service.  Adding regular commuter service would necissitate a very delicate ballet indeed for the rail traffic controllers at CSX (I know one of these guys and he says the rails are already quite congested).  Right now there are two sets of tracks along 17/Roosevelt, with several side rails for trains to pass one another.  Think of the congestion adding rapid transit trains to a line that already carries both short, rapid Amtrak trains and longer, slower-moving freight trains.  That would be one complicated game of leap frog.

Coordination and scheduling is the key.  That's what makes commuter rail on freight tracks in places like New Jersey and South Florida work.

A solution to this is to use the exisitng right-of-way and add additional track, but that is costly, too.  St. Louis used a combination of new and exisitng track for the majority of its original line.  The line runs from the St. Louis airport to downtown and only goes underground once it is in the city.  Even then, the underground portion used mostly pre-exisiting, abandoned tunnels which were renovated for the new use.  St. Louis extensively used exisitng infrastructure to keep the costs of construction low.  Even at that the cost came in around $16.5 million per mile in early 1990's dollars.

St. Louis' plan was light rail and it still came in at $10 million/less per mile than JTA's current BRT proposal.  Commuter rail using existing rail, such as the line through Orange Park can be as cheap as $5 to $10 million a mile.  When you already own the right-of-way (like we do with the S-Line), your overall costs can drop to less than $5 million/mile, like Austin's ($3.5 million/mile or 32 mile line that will open in 2008). 

New track cost on other projects around the country averge around $68 million per mile.  Some cost more to the tune of nearly $100 million per mile and others cost less at around $25 million per mile.  If we look at those costs and take the lower end price tag -- $25 million per mile -- we are still looking at over $375 million (not including cost over-runs which average nearly 41% nationally -- which could see the project cost skyrocket to over $528 million) for just one line running from Orange Park to downtown.  And these are not one-time costs.  Just like roads, rail must be maintained and replaced over time.  Currently rail systems last between 20 and 30 years, necessitating replacement within that time period at significantly inflated costs.

Ock can explain much better than me, but when you come up with a number like $68 million/mile, you're adding systems like the Skyway, subways, elevated rail to the mix.  Using existing rail and eliminating the "bells & whistles" can put you in a whole new ballpark price wise.  Believe it or not, but right-of-way acquisition and the construction of infrastructure is what makes the cost of a project balloon, not whether its a bus, car or train.  Take a look at these recent Metro Jacksonville articles for proof of recent rail systems (since 2006) that came in under $4 million a mile:

Nashville's Music City Star: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/content/view/588/116/

Austin's Capital MetroRail:  http://www.metrojacksonville.com/content/view/589/116/

Rail is a wonderful idea, but there are many things to think about before we commit fully to the idea.  As I said in a previous post, every idea and argument should be listened to carefully.  For every good idea there will several reasons why it will not work.  For every argument against there will be many solutions.  We all need to stand back from our various postions onthe issue and truly consider the cost in not only today's dollars, but tomorrow's.

You pose some great arguments.  However, the ease at answering them further validates that we should seriously consider mixing rail with the current BRT purposal or adding more expressways to our road network.  Also, remember "rail" is just as diverse as "bus" or "car".  There's several different forms that come with different price tags, so you shoot yourself in the foot when you assume it averages $68 million a mile, without evaluating what specific items make up the $68 million.






[/quote]

[thelakelander]

I work right next to the rail at the Aetna building, and that bridge goes up and down a lot during the day.  I can't say I've timed it, but I would guess that crossings/day are accessible through some public record.

I don't know how much of a bottleneck our lone river bridge is to your ideas, but I wouldn't dismiss it offhandedly.  The river bridge is already a pain in the butt for those that commute around the San Marco or Baptist areas (can you imagine being in an ambulance having to wait for the train to get to the emergency room?), so I wonder what that would do to the area if you had light rail trains running through there every 3-5 minutes.

I may be wrong, but I assume other cities with rivers (ie St Louis) have rail bridges that are elevated.  Our low-level rail bridge that hugs the water may be unique among large metro areas.  That would likely cost a pretty penny to alter.

Again, I doubt it.  We could run a pretty efficient rail system in this community and not even have to cross the river at all, in the event that FEC is not open to the idea (the opposite appears to be the case).  However, in depth negotiations with FEC would hatch out exactly what would have to be done to the rail bridge crossing (if it were an issue).  If it is, then we as a community have to decide if it's viable to have a rail line running from Clay to potentially Fernandina Beach and some other form of mass transit (perhaps BRT) to serve the sprawling Southside.

[thelakelander]

One more thing to consider - sorry to be a rail party pooper...

How would the planned mega-expansion of the port affect rail traffic locally (and thus light rail)?  If the commericial rails are moderately strained now, those new port ships are going to be unloading a bunch of containers - that will be heading on truck and rail toward its ultimate destination.  If the port is going to grow like gangbusters as planned/hoped, what does that mean for the current rail system in the area?

Remember "rail" DOES NOT have to be "light rail".  Using existing lines would be a form of "commuter rail" with potential DMU vehicles because those lines would also carry freight trains as well.

As for the port you're talking about timing their, just like with any other typical commuter rail operation.  If you don't want to deal with timing, then you're looking at running parallel track for about a six mile segment between Panama Park and just South of I-295, which will cost more than using the existing track, but less than building a road or busway.

Timing is not really a factor on the S-Line (Gateway to Downtown) because the city owns the ROW and would have to install new track and the CSX A line may not be a significant issue, because of the Orlando commuter rail deal.

For those who are interested in seeing how far this rail thing has come along and where it's about to go, feel free to join us at our weekly meetings at Starbucks in 11 East, from 6 to 8pm on Tuesdays.

[Lunican]

Here are the Coast Guard regulations regarding the FEC's St. Johns River Bridge.

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS--Table of Contents

Subpart B--Specific Requirements

Sec. 117.325  St. Johns River.

(c) The draw of the Florida East Coast automated railroad bridge,
mile 24.9, shall operate as follows:
    (1) The bridge shall be constantly tended and have a mechanical
override capability for the automated operation. A radiotelephone shall
be maintained at the bridge for the safety of navigation.
    (2) The draw is normally in the fully open position, displaying
flashing green lights to indicate that vessels may pass.
    (3) When a train approaches, large signs on both the upstream and
downstream sides of the bridge flash ``Bridge Coming Down,'' the lights
go to flashing red, and siren signals sound. After an eight minute
delay, the draw lowers and locks if there are no vessels under the draw.
The draw remains down for a period of eight minutes or while the
approach track circuit is occupied.
    (4) After the train has cleared, the draw opens and the lights
return to flashing green.

This amounts to: Train comes, bridge goes down. After train crosses, bridge goes up.

[Steve]

Out of curiosity, what would be the implications if the bridge operated opposite that, and normally had the bridge down.  Then, when a boat needed to come by, the bridge opened?

[gatorback]

Bottom line ROI.  If CSX does't get better then a 25% return on their investment they don't do the project.  Post 911 cost of building plus global ecomomic comprtion for natural resources makes having a chance of getting the return 0. This leaves governments doing projects since they dont care about roi. 

[thelakelander]

The bridge is owned by FEC, not CSX.

[Lunican]

Out of curiosity, what would be the implications if the bridge operated opposite that, and normally had the bridge down.  Then, when a boat needed to come by, the bridge opened?

I don't think there is any benefit to operating like that. The trains don't wait for the bridge to come down, it is put down in advance of the train.

According to those rules, there are no limitations to the amount of time the bridge can be down, so if you've got trains coming, it stays down. There is also no limit to the number of times it goes down.