Metro Jacksonville

This is our closest to bird in the hand Mass Transit project. Let's push for this to gain the momentum it needs to overcome any bumps that may come along.

Oak, from St. Vincent's to 5 Points.  The first phase doesn't go all the way downtown? 
To continue DT from Oak at Margaret, there are a few options, since I don't think you could get under I-95 on Oak, due to the on/off ramps for Park.  Thus, either a shift to Park at Post; or follow Margaret and College under I-95, which has the advantage of going by Annie Lytle.  Then over to Park to get to the Osborn/Ock Terminal Center.

The first phase would possibly go all the way from Park & King to Newnan St in DT.   Through Riverside, my preferred path would be Oak Street between King and Post Streets.  Its the path of the original line, the street is wide enough to accommodate it, there are a mix of uses along the corridor and there are some great infill TOD opportunities in the vicinity of St. Vincents.

Regarding I-95, my preferred alignment would be running from Oak over to Riverside Avenue, via Post Street.  Riverside Avenue would give the line direct access to the Cummer, RAM, Fidelity's campus, BCBS, Everbank and the new Brooklyn Central Park.  In Brooklyn, crossing over to either Park or Myrtle makes sense on some level.  At the end of the day, I think Brooklyn would be the main winner with the ultimate implementation of this project.

I agree with using Riverside for the reasons you said - it could use the reserved right-of-way along the west side of Riverside.

For reasons that are more closely related to how I feel about this website than to how I may or may not feel about a streetcar within Riverside, I am planning not to post any messages on this thread as Dashing Dan.

If anyone thinks that this is because I am taking a position either for or against streetcars in general or this streetcar line in particular, then that would be a mistake.

It's simply because I don't feel comfortable taking a position on this website that would prejudice or possibly conflict with a position that I might end up taking in real life.

I do plan to follow this thread closely, and I am also planning to post on other threads.

Now let's see if I can stick to my plans.

PS - I have already voted in this poll.

The following is an edited reprint of my 2007 story on why streetcar would be good for Jacksonville. Most of what I had to say then, from a condo in Medellin, Colombia no less, is still true today. Jacksonville has always had the ability to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory, and if she has a victory it's a fading victory much like Japanese historians refer to Pearl Harbor.  

With a new mayor, new council, and a mobility plan in hand, we might not be shovel ready...yet, but we're streetcar ready. Let's make this THE STREETCAR STARTER THREAD!

photos by Lunican
models by Jason

Quote

(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/images/trolleys/trolley_leader.jpg)

Which system would better serve the central business district? Which of the combination's would better the quality of life and connectivity to the new Transportation Center at Jacksonville Terminal? The City of Jacksonville, is at a crossroads. The Jacksonville Transportation Authority (or JTA), has proposed closing off certain downtown lanes and they continue to loop buses through the downtown, wasting 20 minutes making this circuit. The citizens of the City are pushing  for a return to streetcars and a completed Skyway system, as a clean answer to the same problem. Either system might provide the connectivity to future commuter rail plans, which begs the question, “Which is the best fit for a modern boom town?

I believe the Skyway should be completed into the City’s vibrant San Marco, Riverside, and stadium-East side urban neighborhoods. Consideration should be given to extensions the Woodstock Park, Farmers Market, Edward Waters College area.  Coupled with a system of large well lit parking garages, with ground floor retail and food establishments, good security,  bus and streetcar transfer platforms, the Skyway, would become as popular and vital, as Miami’s Metro-Rail, or Metro-Mover systems. There is no reason why the Skyway couldn’t go down to ground level for these transfer stations, making an across the platform transfer possible. I am confident a system of bus free bus transfers at the end of the Skyway routes would make it the downtown trunk line of Jacksonville‘s transit system

The rider data comes under the microscope again when compared to Tuscon, Arizona’s,  â€œOld Pubelo Trolley.Ӡ In the roughly Jacksonville size City of Tuscon, they have a system of real heritage trolleys, on trolley tracks, and a system of trolley-look-alike buses. They have found that even though the trolleys only operate a few days a week, and at a higher fare, they are running with capacity loads.

The trolley-look-alike buses which run early morning until late evening, have fallen behind the real trolley’s weekly passenger counts. So real trolleys, even with high fares and limited operations are exceeding the performance of the fakes. Those cost numbers are equally suspect. JTA simply shopped for the most expensive LRT projects in the nation, then released the misleading information. Certainly no one would argue that Buffalo’s new LRT system was expensive, it was built as a subway! St. Louis, Boston, Pittsburgh and Newark, also have elements of Subway or other high dollar construction in them.

(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-1587-springfield_main_street.jpg)

Other cities have opened a starter streetcar system without the super high expenses.  Memphis, Tampa, Little Rock, and Kenosha have heritage systems, Portland, Oregon and Albuquerque, New Mexico both have modern streetcar systems under construction or in operation. All of these cities are on tracks for less then JTA plans to spend on a bus.

What are the positives for the return of what was once Florida’s largest streetcar network. The old Jacksonville Traction Company once reached into every corner of the City. Its sale was part of a national conspiracy funded by highway, oil and automaker interests that ended with the sale of the nations largest urban electric railroad in Los Angeles. This was duly noted in the famous movie, “Who framed Roger Rabbit”.

Today, the finished Skyway in concert with a clean, quiet, electric streetcar system, would give Jacksonville the connectivity that would support it’s booming core and set the stage for future commuter rail service.

Starting at the corner of Lee and Water Streets in front of the grand old depot, the line would travel East on Water and Independence, less then a block from the St. Johns river and the Riverwalk.  North on Newnan  moves the line away from the River towards Springfield, crossing Duval Street in the process. Turning East on Beaver  to Randolph takes the trolleys into the heart of the stadium district. While there is a gap in Beaver, it is a two or three block area, bisected by Hogan’s Creek and a beautiful urban woods.

(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-1591-pcc.jpg)

(http://fpc.dos.state.fl.us/postcard/pc1558.jpg)
It was called the most beautiful streetcar line in the world, and it was in JACKSONVILLE.

This small section would give us the opportunity to prove to the masses, that trolleys run on track and can thus be landscaped, leaving only the running rails visible in a garden-like setting.

To set up a future extension into the City’s historic Springfield preservation district, the Newnan Street line could continue North to First Street, hence West to Main or Pearl, and Westward on 8Th. There could be a fantastic museum, car house and tourist attraction.  From this point it would be a simple task to take the line right on up to the 8th Street hospital district, perhaps on a reconstruction of the old Main or Pearl Street Trolley lines, once considered, “The most beautiful Trolley line in the World”.

A new Skyway station at Newnan and Bay Streets on a Sport’s area extension would further compliment the connectivity of the whole network. A joint Trolley, Skyway, bus transfer facility at the sports district would enhance every venue at the ball fields and even allow for limited conversion of surface parking lots into green spaces.

The popularity of streetcars and the mobility plan development dollars they generate is thought to stem from the fact that the route is fixed, unchangeable without much expense, and effort. Unlike buses, where if the route fails the bus can be re-routed, the newly returned streetcar lines in the nation have spurred billion’s of dollars in development. Further, unlike buses, or trolley-like buses, the streetcar draws real tourists and provides more riders due to a child-like desire screams, “Mommy, I want to ride that one”!

(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/index.php)

(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-1579-trollymap-4.jpg)

A development that would have a major impact on the City and be a natural fit for the streetcars could be located along that wooded gap in Beaver Street and along Hogan’s Creek.  This little creek runs through an urban forest and abandoned industrial building and rail right-of-way mix from the State/Union Street freeway, South to the St. Johns River.

This urban creek could be channeled and built into a tour boat route with a Oklahoma City or San Antonio like River (or Creek) Walk. The abandoned warehouses could be recycled as condos and shopping centers, a Hogan’s Creek walk could put a whole new dimension in Jacksonville’s popular Riverwalk system.

At the empty wooded lot at the Beaver Street gap, is an opportunity for a return of Jacksonville’s once famous “Dixieland Amusement Park”. This park once located in the City’s South-bank featured a sort of permanent combination Carnival-Worlds Fair-Tropical Expo, complete with midway and themed rides. Being the North Anchor to a Creek-Walk with two streetcar crossings, a Skyway crossing and sandwiched between the urban core and sports district should bode well for any recreational development.

Access to historic Riverside-Avondale could use the Myrtle Avenue underpass, or the Lee-Park Street viaduct. Just as the original Jacksonville Traction Company had done, Forest Street could be used to bring everything into the heart of Riverside Drive. A line into Riverside opens the door to future reconstruction of the original Murray Hill-Kent, Fairfax-Ortega, a Roosevelt Plaza or Post Street lines.

(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/images/trolleys/trolley_leader2.jpg)

Imagine, a light rail train in Downtown Jacksonville travels down Newnan Street, passes by the Florida Theater, just before heading down Water Street to the Prime Osborn Transportation Center. Could this be the future of Jacksonville Transportation?

(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-1592-%5Bb%5Dsanantonioriverwalkumbrellaslg.jpg)

(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-1592-sanantonioriverwalkumbrellaslg.jpg)
Hogans Creek? It could happen with streetcar.

QuoteA ride on the new streetcar’s would not only be fun, it would serve a transportation purpose.

Leaving from connecting park and ride lots, bus, or train service, at Jacksonville Terminal, one would notice the beauty of the historic streetcars or the sleek large modern-streetcars. The first thing that is noticed is when the doors open - the car is silent, except for the hum of the air-conditioner, and the occasional thump of the air compressor.

Fare is collected, a seat found, and the car starts with a slight jolt. It squeaks in protest at the sharp curves out of the station and around the Lee and Water Street corner. The ride is glass smooth as we quickly accelerate under the Skyway and head East. To the right is the Federal Reserve Building, CSX headquarters and Times-Union Performing Arts center. On the left we pass the Omni Hotel and Wachovia Bank.

We pull up in front of the Jacksonville Landing Complex and the crowd changes,  many tourists are seen enjoying the shops, food and stunning river views. Re-boarding we roll past the Modis Building, and under the Main Street Bridge to Newnan Street. Swinging North, the old streetcar claws its way up the hill from the river without the expected hesitation, in fact leaving the nearby buses in its dust. Clattering through the switch at Duval and a switch at Beaver.

At Beaver, it swings right and duck’s into a beautiful wooded park. It looks like another typical Jacksonville neighborhood party, everywhere people enjoying the Creek Walk, the shopping, and  theme park carnival atmosphere.

Again the crowd changes, and we move off across Hogan’s Creek, and enter the Sports area. Racing down Randolph, we pass historic churches, manicured green space and wrought iron fences. Some venue at the Ball Park has just ended and the transfer station is packed with riders. Buses are lined up in a bus lane, across the platform is a four car Skyway train, busy transferring the crowd. Our big streetcar stops in line with a few others as it takes on dozens of happy fans. Leaving the station, it paw’s its way over the bridge re-crossing Hogan’s Creek, and merges into the Duval Street traffic lanes.

We clatter over the streetcar switch at the corner of Duval and Newnan and head back to the quiet of Riverside.

As the Streetcar pulls away, it’s bell fades in the distance, I note the City Hall’s upper window. A curtain is pulled back and I think, if but for a second, I see the figure of the new mayor and transit director looking down upon us, smiling knowingly. I find myself wondering; if I look back on my life years from now,  how would I feel if I had not promoted the streetcars return? My friends we can hold our heads high secure in the knowledge that this is more then an idea, this is a concept that captures the soul of a City.

OCKLAWAHA

The streetcar starter thread has been merged into this thread which was about ready for publication. Thanks for the Poll, nice job.

OCKLAWAHA

Park. I think its important for it to roll down the more commercial streets rather than the streets that are more residential for a number of reasons.

Riverside would work too. Although there's more housing stock there (around the starter line), it would roll it past Memorial Park, then up through the entire commercial district of 5 Points & eventually the rest of Riverside Ave. Which is much more pleasant & "alive" looking than going through the Brooklyn neighborhood up to downtown.

Although...a streetcar line going through Brooklyn could lead to a revitalization of that area too. That line would also put it going past the old transit station & where the new one is supposed to be going.

Hmmm.

A streetcar study was done by JTA a few years ago...followed by the North Flroida TPO's LRTP and the COJ Mobility Plan...all of these studies looked at the potential route

from memory I believe it goes down King from Park to Oak...then east on Oak to 5 points...a quick jog over to Riverside Avenue and then up Riverside to the Brooklyn area.

That said, the next thing that needs to happen with streetcar is a more detailed route planning, ridership, and financial study.

(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa111/Ocklawaha/CRITICAL%20Maps/BROOKLYN-TRANSIT-DELIMA.jpg)

This schematic map of BROOKLYN illustrates some of the strengths and weaknesses of each route. It is not geographically accurate or to scale.

It would actually be possible to route each of these prime modes through Brooklyn on the way south or west. As a general rule Myrtle Avenue passengers could also easily walk to Park if they so desired, fewer would make the trek all the way from Myrtle to Riverside AV. Likewise people on Riverside could easily walk to Park, but fewer would go to Myrtle. Park has the best of both worlds with easy access on either side to streetcar or Skyway, if someone didn't want to ride the BRT.

By using the Myrtle Avenue Subway tunnel, the streetcar is the only mode that could easily get into the transportation center from either the south or from Durkeeville to the north.

The Skyway to Blue Cross is the only mode with a direct link into the CBD WITHOUT going into transportation center.

The best of all worlds we'd simply get all three, it's not overkill as the river crowds the streets around the city, just ask anyone from Orange Park or Middleburg about the many routes they can choose. It's not Clay's fault that there simply isn't a place for another road, and it isn't Brooklyn's fault that 3 modes converging just above the neighborhood should traverse the area.

Think not about streetcars or Skyways, think in terms of walking, of flow, of lineal distances and calculate yourself from each and where you might go on each.

OCKLAWAHA

)

Quote from: tufsu1 on May 30, 2011, 07:16:56 PM
A streetcar study was done by JTA a few years ago...followed by the North Flroida TPO's LRTP and the COJ Mobility Plan...all of these studies looked at the potential route

from memory I believe it goes down King from Park to Oak...then east on Oak to 5 points...a quick jog over to Riverside Avenue and then up Riverside to the Brooklyn area.

That said, the next thing that needs to happen with streetcar is a more detailed route planning, ridership, and financial study.

I would argue that there is every evidence that we will self finance a heritage streetcar line I'd say doing FTA type studies at this point (even if we had cash in hand) is a waste of time and resources. REASON? First this isn't going to be federally funded until somewhere down the road when we might need help with a large scale expansion. Meanwhile, had the rubber tired villains not destroyed the streetcar system it would still be with us, and we know exactly where that would have been, Oak, Riverside, Myrtle, Edison etc. We'd still be running it and we wouldn't need to study it to see if people would ride. So let's rebuild, it's as simple as that. A few streets have become primary and a few secondary compared to what they were in 1919, for example FOREST is now the EAST-WEST link from Brooklyn west, and in 1919 it was ELECTRIC AVENUE (what we call EDISON today). But most still sit in place, wider then most other streets it's a given where the streetcar went, where it should go and even where it was to go, but never got the chance (merely check out St. Johns Avenue where it pulls away from Herschel south of Fishweir Creek, never got an inch of track but it's pretty damn obvious what it was built in anticipation of.

Also Mayor Brown has 4 years certain, if he is not there for 4 more, if we get a Tea Party type,  all we'll have is another pile of paper to tell us what we already know.

Lastly, certain savings can sometimes be obtained by on site salvage and reuse of old track materials, at the very least the heart cypress ties that are making Oak Street A corduroy mess can be sold. Rail can often be reused, and if its not "T" rail and instead is girder rail we could REALLY save a pile of cash rebuilding in place.

If the city's ordinances require a study or two, I'd give them a maximum number of days and trust me, it wouldn't be much, 90 day wonders? IT COULD HAPPEN. Meanwhile save the studies for when we need Uncle Sam to give us a boost, as he is likely to do when we can toss 30-60 million worth of streetcar at him and it up and running.


OCKLAWAHA

Part of the problem of skipping Federal-standard studies, is that if you ever intend to seek Federal funds, all of your groundwork has to be to Federal standards.  But, if the City plays it right, your approach can work - just so the City (or JTA) doesn't say anything about wanting Federal funds later.  Build it with local dollars from the Mobility Fee.  Then, at some point in the future, once the Jacksonville Streetcar has been in operation for a few years, seeking Federal funds for a major extension might be appropriate.

Quote from: Charles Hunter on May 30, 2011, 10:24:37 PM
Part of the problem of skipping Federal-standard studies, is that if you ever intend to seek Federal funds, all of your groundwork has to be to Federal standards.  But, if the City plays it right, your approach can work - just so the City (or JTA) doesn't say anything about wanting Federal funds later.  Build it with local dollars from the Mobility Fee.  Then, at some point in the future, once the Jacksonville Streetcar has been in operation for a few years, seeking Federal funds for a major extension might be appropriate.

BINGO!

OCKLAWAHA

even if you use all local dollars, you still need to do some level of route planning and ridership study....if not, good luck getting financing from either the public or private sector.

Quote from: tufsu1 on May 31, 2011, 08:20:54 AM
even if you use all local dollars, you still need to do some level of route planning and ridership study....if not, good luck getting financing from either the public or private sector.

The last thing we need is another study. The streetcar is funded by the mobility plan, it's our money, spend it on the streetcar instead of spending half of it on studies. Wasn't there a big study done on the Skyway, predicting great success? Just build the streetcar along the old routes, it worked 100 years ago, it'll work the same now.

Park St. because it has a direct connection to the JRTC, goes to 5 points and can turn down King (Park & King) to go to St. Vincent's. Plus, it won't get in the way or duplicate the route a skyway extension would serve (Riverside Ave.)

Quote from: iMarvin on May 31, 2011, 08:56:11 AM
Park St. because it has a direct connection to the JRTC, goes to 5 points and can turn down King (Park & King) to go to St. Vincent's. Plus, it won't get in the way or duplicate the route a skyway extension would serve (Riverside Ave.)

I thimk Park St. might be too narrow in Riverside to extend the streetcar past the park in 5 points. There are areas where the ROW can't be expanded much, Riverside Ave is much wider. I want to see the streetcar through to Herschel Street, somewhere in the area of the Publix on 17, to give the neighborhood full coverage. That will likely be impossible on Park.

Oak St because it would conflict less with automobiles and if you made it a transit/bike path it would be safer for bikes.

Wouldn't a ridership/route study help keep it from being screwed up by political considerations?

Quote from: urbanlibertarian on May 31, 2011, 09:56:58 AM
Oak St because it would conflict less with automobiles and if you made it a transit/bike path it would be safer for bikes.

The problem with Oak is the streetcar would have to bisect the parks when it is expanded. Riverside is a clean shot through all of Riverside/Avondale with no dead-ends and has plenty of room for the tracks.

Quote from: urbanlibertarian on May 31, 2011, 09:59:13 AM
Wouldn't a ridership/route study help keep it from being screwed up by political considerations?

Quite the reverse, is how those normally go.

No study is needed on this, the neighborhoods in question want it, the money will be there, just do it.

If there is a disagreement on route, hold a public input session for Riverside/Avondale and go with the majority.

Here is one of Ock's old maps showing the original streetcar network.
(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa111/Ocklawaha/100_0582.jpg)

Does RAP have a preferred routing through Riverside?  I tend to lean towards the Oak Street alignment.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on May 31, 2011, 08:40:58 AM

Quote from: tufsu1 on May 31, 2011, 08:20:54 AM
even if you use all local dollars, you still need to do some level of route planning and ridership study....if not, good luck getting financing from either the public or private sector.

The last thing we need is another study. The streetcar is funded by the mobility plan, it's our money, spend it on the streetcar instead of spending half of it on studies. Wasn't there a big study done on the Skyway, predicting great success? Just build the streetcar along the old routes, it worked 100 years ago, it'll work the same now.

so I guess it doesn't matter what the potential ridership or revenue would be?

Ideally it would be BOTH, running from Myrtle or Park street turning east onto Forest, to Riverside, to Post, to Oak, to King. Riverside is too narrow and WAY too busy, on the other hand it will need to pass in front of the BCBS/FIDELITY complexes, thus a short piece on Riverside is needed. Park Street from Forest I-95 southward is also way too busy, and whoever builds through 5-points is going to take out the little blinking light...which might cause a war. SKYWAY into riverside makes all the sense in the world but only as far south as Forest, if somehow we built both the Skyway extension down to Forest AND the streetcar up Myrtle or Park, with our BRT routed down the center at Park Street, I predict we'd create a new downtown within 10 years. In fact based on the national numbers with that type of transit in place little Brooklyn would start to look like big BROOKLYN!

As for studies, yes it would help, but no it doesn't have to take a year like JTA'S 'streetcar study' in which they paid someone a couple hundred thousand to copy, cut and paste, even using some of our photos and graphics, what myself and MJ have been saying, for what amounts to 31 years. This is why I'd lay a 90 day limit on the studies (all of them), then roll with the best possible results. Even so I don't think we could go wrong just following the original as close as possible right down the road.

No parks would be bisected, but even if they were, streetcar is the most compatible means of transportation infrastructure anyone could want in a park.


OCKLAWAHA

Quote from: tufsu1 on May 31, 2011, 10:31:02 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on May 31, 2011, 08:40:58 AM

Quote from: tufsu1 on May 31, 2011, 08:20:54 AM
even if you use all local dollars, you still need to do some level of route planning and ridership study....if not, good luck getting financing from either the public or private sector.

The last thing we need is another study. The streetcar is funded by the mobility plan, it's our money, spend it on the streetcar instead of spending half of it on studies. Wasn't there a big study done on the Skyway, predicting great success? Just build the streetcar along the old routes, it worked 100 years ago, it'll work the same now.

so I guess it doesn't matter what the potential ridership or revenue would be?

Why study something we already know works? All the proposed routes are within 6 blocks of each other. Just pick one and do it. A study would be a waste of money, ridership will be what it's going to be regardless of what route is chosen, since they're all so close. Consultants would simply add delay and costs.

fine chris...so what is your guestimated daily ridership for a streetcar line from Riverside to downtown...with trains running every 15 minutes?

Quote from: tufsu1 on May 31, 2011, 10:45:19 AM
fine chris...so what is your guestimated daily ridership for a streetcar line from Riverside to downtown...with trains running every 15 minutes.

Who cares, I want it built regardless.

Not to mention those ridership studies are often woefully inaccurate, want to start comparing the skyway study again? There is a limited amount of money here, not enough to waste half of it on consultants who rip their work off this website. Just build it already, then we'll have a streetcar instead of a study. Sadly, I can't ride a study to work.

ok...so let's hypothesize...

Suppose the system got 4000 riders per day with 10-20 minute headways running from 7a - 11p

Should it be built?  
How much would the fare need to be to be operationally functional?  
Is there a need for an endowment?  
How long would that endowment last to cover operations cost (beyond farebox recovery?  
Would hours need to be cut or headways made longer?

Now, what if the system only got 1000 riders a day using the same assunmptions.

These are important questions to ask...now a study of this would likely cost about 1% of the total cost of constructing the line....the actual design work would be another 10-20%.

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/476316125_aN64D-M.jpg)
Amazing photo illustrating how a trolley can roll through a park without upsetting the picnic baskets... HINT-You just bury the track and landscape it like this new line in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Gee I wonder where they got THAT idea?

(http://lh3.ggpht.com/_bQsuhPJduqQ/SyLN9iX6xkI/AAAAAAAABls/lmGmwpVWvRw/streetcar%2520Main%2520Street%2520Jax.jpg)
Jacksonville circa 1912. "THE MOST BEAUTIFUL STREETCAR LINE IN THE WORLD".

While it would be super to have the streetcar on a long stretch of this type of trackage, it should be remembered that all one has to do to avoid the park is turn a corner.


OCKLAWAHA

Isn't the JTA Streetcar study already completed?

At a minimum, there would have to be some sort of public involvement for the route selections.  While I would venture to guess there is pretty good public support for a streetcar through the neighborhood, I would bet that there are plenty of people that live alongs some of those streets that would oppose it.

Quote from: tufsu1 on May 31, 2011, 10:53:18 AM
ok...so let's hypothesize...

Supopose the system got 4000 riders per day with 10-20 minute headways running from 7a - 11p

Should it be built?  
How much would the fare need to be to be operationally functional?  
Is there a need for an endowment?  
How long would that endowment last to cover operations cost (beyond farebox recovery?  
Would hours need to be cut or headways made longer?

Now, what if the system only got 1000 riders a day using the same assunmptions.

Who cares, I want it built regardless.

The $160mm available should be enough to build it and set aside a fund to cover all operating costs for a lengthy period, regardless of whether it gets even 1 rider or not. So just do it already. The more money wasted on consultants who charge the city a million dollars to copy and paste material from MetroJacksonville (literally) the less will be available to actually fund the streetcar. I'm sick of half of every project budget going to high-paid consultants to generate studies that take 2 years to come up with the conclusion that was already obvious. It's generally a complete waste. Just build it, ASAP.

Quote from: Ocklawaha on May 31, 2011, 10:55:31 AM

(http://lh3.ggpht.com/_bQsuhPJduqQ/SyLN9iX6xkI/AAAAAAAABls/lmGmwpVWvRw/streetcar%2520Main%2520Street%2520Jax.jpg)
Jacksonville circa 1912. "THE MOST BEAUTIFUL STREETCAR LINE IN THE WORLD".

Ok I guess we have our first Promo image.

Quote from: JeffreyS on May 31, 2011, 10:56:37 AM
Isn't the JTA Streetcar study already completed?

Of course it is, since all they did was literally rip off a bunch of posts and articles from this website, combine it with Ocklawaha's renderings and p-chops, and then present it as their own work to COJ along with a bill for half a million dollars. I'm not kidding, by the way.

QuoteJust build it, ASAP

Unfortunately we could be  waiting a while until we start collecting mobility fees.  We need some sort of development ASAP to move this thing along.

Quote from: cline on May 31, 2011, 10:56:46 AM
At a minimum, there would have to be some sort of public involvement for the route selections.  While I would venture to guess there is pretty good public support for a streetcar through the neighborhood, I would bet that there are plenty of people that live alongs some of those streets that would oppose it.

I agree, hold a public input session to figure out where most people want the route, and go from there.

Quote from: JeffreyS on May 31, 2011, 10:56:37 AM
Isn't the JTA Streetcar study already completed?

All it was an initial feasibility study...similar to the one they finished for commuter rail...before you go to design you need to do some level of "environmental" study...and you'll need ridership forecasts to figure out things like many cars need to be purchased or where station platforms might be needed and how big they should be.

We already have the JTA study, Metropolitan Planning Organization input, TPO input and an approved mobility plan. I am not anti study but this thing is ready to go.

If every 15 min isn't enough go to 7 if it is too much go to 20 and so on  and so forth.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on May 31, 2011, 10:57:54 AM
The $160mm available should be enough to build it and set aside a fund to cover all operating costs for a lengthy period, regardless of whether it gets even 1 rider or not.

umm...you do know there is no $160mm right?

Fact is the mobility plan estimates costs for projects between now and 2030...I believe the initial streetcar line is something like $50 million....and that was for construction, not operations.

BUT....none of that money exists....it requires new development to come in, get permitted, and pay their fee first....which will likely take many years.

And no, the money can not be bonded up front and paid back later with mobility fee collections.

Quote from: JeffreyS on May 31, 2011, 11:08:22 AM
We already have the JTA study, Metropolitan Planning Organization input, TPO input and an approved mobility plan. I am not anti study but this thing is ready to go.

I suggest folks read the JTA initial study...then decide for yourself if we're "ready for construction"

http://www.jtafla.com/pdf/Streetcars/finalReport-Streetcar2-092608.pdf

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on May 31, 2011, 09:01:02 AM

Quote from: iMarvin on May 31, 2011, 08:56:11 AM
Park St. because it has a direct connection to the JRTC, goes to 5 points and can turn down King (Park & King) to go to St. Vincent's. Plus, it won't get in the way or duplicate the route a skyway extension would serve (Riverside Ave.)

I thimk Park St. might be too narrow in Riverside to extend the streetcar past the park in 5 points. There are areas where the ROW can't be expanded much, Riverside Ave is much wider. I want to see the streetcar through to Herschel Street, somewhere in the area of the Publix on 17, to give the neighborhood full coverage. That will likely be impossible on Park.

I think the farthest a streetcar would go in the neighborhood is the Shoppes of Avondale. Now about Park St, if the skyway wasn't already on Riverside, I would agree, but it only makes sense to to extend the skyway down Riverside. I don't like Oak St because it's not a commercial street and IMO wouldn't get as many riders whereas Park is a more important street and hits more destinations.

I am a little suprised and happy that no one has voted to start someplace else.  I thought the Landing going out or Shands going the other way would get some votes.  I like Oak it is wide and can serve Park and Riverside and go through 5 points without gumming up the works.

Quote from the Mobility Plan (Section 10.4 - Pg 40 on priority project funding)

QuoteBecause it is uncertain exactly where and on what schedule development will occur in the City of Jacksonville between 2011 and 2021, it is recommended that these projects be considered for year five of the CIE.  As the fees are collected and allocated to the projects, project phases can be advanced to earlier years and implemented as funding becomes available.

It's a 10-year priority project, which basically means its estimated to take 10-years to generate the $50 million.  With that said, my suggestion would be as the money comes in, go ahead and get your studies, public feedback, design & engineering out of the way.  This stuff doesn't cost much so hopefully there will be funds for this over the next 2 or 3 years, if only relying on mobility fee funds.  Having these things completed as soon as possible, gives us the opportunity to go after other financial pots and opportunities as they present themselves (like public/private partnerships and the Fed's Urban Circulator or TIGER I & II grants from the last couple of years).  

Also, the $50 million breaks down to something like $14 million/mile.  Realistically speaking, it doesn't take that much to build a streetcar system.  We should be able to build a streetcar for $10 million or under, which means we won't need the full $50 million if we design a style of system that can be built for less (ex. single track with passing sidings, simple stops instead of stations, initially heritage instead of modern cars, etc.).  As proof, Kenosha's 2-mile line cost $5 million and Little Rock's was around $8 million/mile.  So at the end of the day, the time line can be flexible and be as fast or slow to implement, depending on the style of operations and design we're shooting for (both of which impact capital and O&M costs).

Btw, Oak between Five Points and King Street is pretty ideal.  It has a good mix of multifamily residential, offices, commercial and mixed use buildings (most were originally TOD due the streetcar that operated along that stretch).  Here are a few images of buildings along this stretch of Oak Street.

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/744874994_PagT2-M.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/744875188_c87Ck-M.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/744875561_oWyDa-M.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/744875770_nJYoP-M.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/744875955_87Pok-M.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/744875911_vNQuP-M.jpg)

Given the street's width, you could get your streetcar back in there, still leave it open for automobile use and cram a bikeway in there, which would help reduce auto/bike conflict on Park Street and Riverside Avenue.  It would also provide a huge boost to the underutilized commercial properties along this stretch that haven't been the same since the original streetcar system was removed 75 years ago.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on May 31, 2011, 10:00:51 AM

Quote from: urbanlibertarian on May 31, 2011, 09:56:58 AM
Oak St because it would conflict less with automobiles and if you made it a transit/bike path it would be safer for bikes.

The problem with Oak is the streetcar would have to bisect the parks when it is expanded. Riverside is a clean shot through all of Riverside/Avondale with no dead-ends and has plenty of room for the tracks.

I completely agree. Space considerations.........causing the least displacement and most direct route seems the most efficient use of scarce resources. And since these routes are all close together, the ridership differences should be minimal.

What is it about the people in charge of getting things done in this city? This study crap goes on and on and brings in OUTSIDE consultants so often that I am convinced that the people in charge should be let go immediately and a group of chimps hired to pound out the decisions.

Case in point: A while back an outside firm was paid big bucks to evaluate our library system. WTF? We have a highly educated, well traveled, speaking circuit Director of our library system who cannot, on her own, develop the same information for which someone paid big bucks? You can't use the excuse that the study was paid for by ?Friends of the Library? or a source not our tax dollars. The fact is the study was done and it was NOT done in house by supposedly competent people already on the payroll.

If that 's how we must operate, then we really don't need directors or in house planning staffs. Just save the payroll and benefits packages and have a secretary hire an outside firm every time a decision must be made.

Back to the streetcar study:

If it is true that all previous studies have been cobbled together from MJ facts and study results and presented as original work for large bucks then something smells like my garbage can in full sunlight - BAD! It appears that all the competent works has already been done and has been published and debated and modified and published again and again -for FREE - right here on MJ.

All those little monkeys sitting hunched over behind their desks jealously guarding their own pitiful piles of sh!t.  ???(I had a cartoon of that somewhere). ;D

Taking a stab in the dark, I'd say there would be a huge difference in ridership between Park and Riverside.  Riverside directly hits several major cultural and employment destinations like BCBS, Fidelity, Everbank, Cummer, St. Vincent's, Memorial Park, Publix, etc.  Don't underestimate the value of having mass transit get you as close to as many major destinations as possible. A number of these places have actual parking problems and would directly benefit from improved mass transit past their front door.  Going down Park gets you closer to the heart of the residential district but ridership to the major employment destinations would drop off (there is a huge difference in between being right next door and a three block walk in the Florida sun while dressed in a suit or casual, imo).  

Oak is the straightest line. Drive Oak it was designed as a streetcar lane because it had a streetcar.  

Here is my study. Actual streetcar in Jax has been (not forecast or predicted) so successful that giant corporations (GM and Ford) bought them and scrapped them so they could actually sell some buses.  This is not hypothetical we have the true real life proof of viability. 

Would there be much ridership difference between the routes depending on the times the streetcar would be running? For instance if it continued running at night vs. running only during the day as the current trolley buses do?

Quote from: Tacachale on May 31, 2011, 12:04:16 PM
Would there be much ridership difference between the routes depending on the times the streetcar would be running? For instance if it continued running at night vs. running only during the day as the current trolley buses do?

This is the main reason for a quick study on route selection, something going on down on Riverside at 9pm may not be something going on over on Park. Knowing what rolls when would be helpful as TUFSU has said with ordering cars and obtaining operators.

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1133041924_Yyg9K-M.jpg)

I think Tampa and Little Rock to some extent did this the hard way, this isn't BRT it is STREETCAR, as in 'STREET', private right-of-way is nice and would make for faster schedules but at a cost to those who must drive. The best answer I believe is the passive streetcar lanes, where the area along the track is paved much like the new Laura Street intersections downtown, cobblestone, or brick, that way you MAY drive on it if you need to get around someone broke down, or stuck in traffic, but you sure as hell won't drive on it long.

OCKLAWAHA

QuoteThis is the main reason for a quick study on route selection, something going on down on Riverside at 9pm may not be something going on over on Park. Knowing what rolls when would be helpful as TUFSU has said with ordering cars and obtaining operators.

Another reason that Oak makes a lot of sense.  You're closer to the dense residential while still being in very close proximity of the employment/entertainment/cultural generators. I think the Jacksonville Traction Company got it right so we may not need to overthink this.  

QuoteThe best answer I believe is the passive streetcar lanes, where the area along the track is paved much like the new Laura Street intersections downtown, cobblestone, or brick, that way you MAY drive on it if you need to get around someone broke down, or stuck in traffic, but you sure as hell won't drive on it long.

Things like adding brick and pavers into the project could raise the cost, so perhaps going green makes more sense?

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3443/3900750253_eab3463a61_b.jpg)
Strasbourg, France (by GEO.Hellas - http://www.flickr.com/photos/13616754@N03/3900750253/)

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3100/3122764727_41910cb046_z.jpg)
Paris tram by gunzel412 at http://www.flickr.com/photos/gunzel412/3122764727/

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/558077646_bktsm-M.jpg)
Fort Collins, CO trolley. Image by Makeesha at http://www.flickr.com/photos/inhiscourts/249816107/

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/558077832_UYBiP-M.jpg)
Fort Collins, CO trolley. Image by snowride007 at http://www.flickr.com/photos/snowride007/2840172954/

Quote from: thelakelander on May 31, 2011, 11:53:09 AM
Taking a stab in the dark, I'd say there would be a huge difference in ridership between Park and Riverside.  Riverside directly hits several major cultural and employment destinations like BCBS, Fidelity, Everbank, Cummer, St. Vincent's, Memorial Park, Publix, etc.  Don't underestimate the value of having mass transit get you as close to as many major destinations as possible. A number of these places have actual parking problems and would directly benefit from improved mass transit past their front door.  Going down Park gets you closer to the heart of the residential district but ridership to the major employment destinations would drop off (there is a huge difference in between being right next door and a three block walk in the Florida sun while dressed in a suit or casual, imo).  

If a streetcar is built down Riverside, it doesn't mean the people working along the street would use it. It depends on where they live. You could use the same argument for the skyway but I prefer skyway on Riverside over streetcar because the skyway is already there. That's why I like Park

Quote from: Ocklawaha on May 31, 2011, 01:00:10 PM

I think Tampa and Little Rock to some extent did this the hard way, this isn't BRT it is STREETCAR, as in 'STREET', private right-of-way is nice and would make for faster schedules but at a cost to those who must drive. The best answer I believe is the passive streetcar lanes, where the area along the track is paved much like the new Laura Street intersections downtown, cobblestone, or brick, that way you MAY drive on it if you need to get around someone broke down, or stuck in traffic, but you sure as hell won't drive on it long.

OCKLAWAHA

I agree. The streetcar doesn't need an exclusive lane. So no need for any road widening. Park could potentially get more traffic from TOD's and hi-rises, but most would just use the streetcar.

Quote from: iMarvin on May 31, 2011, 02:10:25 PM
If a streetcar is built down Riverside, it doesn't mean the people working along the street would use it. It depends on where they live. You could use the same argument for the skyway but I prefer skyway on Riverside over streetcar because the skyway is already there. That's why I like Park

Of course.  However, from a holistic viewpoint, this line is much larger than Riverside and Riverside certainly can't support it on its own.  Its part of a series of mass transit improvements intended to one day be a part of a regional integrated system.  With that in mind, connections to major employers, retail districts, medical centers, parks, etc. have to be a major consideration in final route selection.  In addition, feeder routes via modifying regular city bus routes and adding bike/pedestrian facilities to provide better access to other parts of the neighborhood also have to be considered and integrated.

Quote

Quotethink Tampa and Little Rock to some extent did this the hard way, this isn't BRT it is STREETCAR, as in 'STREET', private right-of-way is nice and would make for faster schedules but at a cost to those who must drive. The best answer I believe is the passive streetcar lanes, where the area along the track is paved much like the new Laura Street intersections downtown, cobblestone, or brick, that way you MAY drive on it if you need to get around someone broke down, or stuck in traffic, but you sure as hell won't drive on it long.

OCKLAWAHA

I agree. The streetcar doesn't need an exclusive lane. So no need for any road widening. Park could potentially get more traffic from TOD's and hi-rises, but most would just use the streetcar.

There is definitely no need for road widening.  I'd suggest reducing lane widths on several of the streets in areas like Riverside, DT and Springfield to provide space for additional modes like streetcar and bikes.

We fully agree Lake, you know I've never given up the hope to see the return of the "Most BEAUTIFUL..." again, and I think we could pull it off for a bargain price. Pavers are expensive true, but impressed asphalt and/or concrete can be stained with color mixed in, and applied probably for less then the extra curb or other sepperators would cost.

This Belgin block driveway is just simple concrete with color.

Where do y'all think we could steal enough room to create a green median? Park between the Lee Street Viaduct and Forest if we went to 2 traffic lanes, Park in Riverside offers some chances for side of the road running in the grass between pavement and sidewalk. Stockton, Edgewood, Main, maybe Newnan, Water west of Jefferson and west Bay between the Jacksonville Terminal THROUGH Myrtle to about 3 blocks south of Dennis. Myrtle north all the way to 'GEORGIA!'

OCKLAWAHA

Quote from: thelakelander on May 31, 2011, 02:16:25 PM

Quote from: iMarvin on May 31, 2011, 02:10:25 PM
If a streetcar is built down Riverside, it doesn't mean the people working along the street would use it. It depends on where they live. You could use the same argument for the skyway but I prefer skyway on Riverside over streetcar because the skyway is already there. That's why I like Park

Of course.  However, from a holistic viewpoint, this line is much larger than Riverside and Riverside certainly can't support it on its own.  Its part of a series of mass transit improvements intended to one day be a part of a regional integrated system.  With that in mind, connections to major employers, retail districts, medical centers, parks, etc. have to be a major consideration in final route selection.  In addition, feeder routes via modifying regular city bus routes and adding bike/pedestrian facilities to provide better access to other parts of the neighborhood also have to be considered and integrated.

Quote

Quotethink Tampa and Little Rock to some extent did this the hard way, this isn't BRT it is STREETCAR, as in 'STREET', private right-of-way is nice and would make for faster schedules but at a cost to those who must drive. The best answer I believe is the passive streetcar lanes, where the area along the track is paved much like the new Laura Street intersections downtown, cobblestone, or brick, that way you MAY drive on it if you need to get around someone broke down, or stuck in traffic, but you sure as hell won't drive on it long.

OCKLAWAHA

I agree. The streetcar doesn't need an exclusive lane. So no need for any road widening. Park could potentially get more traffic from TOD's and hi-rises, but most would just use the streetcar.

There is definitely no need for road widening.  I'd suggest reducing lane widths on several of the streets in areas like Riverside, DT and Springfield to provide space for additional modes like streetcar and bikes.

Top quote: If the skyway wasn't already on Riverside, I would agree with you. Putting it on Park would give it direct access to the JRTC and would be more centralized. In 5-10 years when they do the re-evaluation thing, they will add a skyway extension after they see the success of the streetcar going down Park. Riverside is a busy road and all, but with the skyway already there, there's no reason not to extend it down the street.

Bottom quote: I agree. Plenty of streets throughout the urban core could be reduced to make room for bike lanes, etc.

STOP BY FACEBOOK AT:
http://ko-kr.connect.facebook.com/pages/Jacksonville-Traction-Company/166218746770525?v=info

TEE SHIRTS AND STUFF COMING SOON...

OCKLAWAHA

I'd like to see a streetcar.

Ock, Lake, I was at Hogans Creek the other day behind the old St. Lukes hospital and a yard crew pulled up and I was talking with them and the part they were mowing belonged to CSX. Really! Showed me the old railroad ties. Also there is a pole and I'm wondering if its one of the old original streetcar poles with the cables. Have you guys documented any of the existing ones in other parts of the city? Just curious. Where in Jax would you see the closest thing to what this city once had as far as a streetcar track and pole?

Quote from: iMarvin on May 31, 2011, 02:32:49 PM
If the skyway wasn't already on Riverside, I would agree with you. Putting it on Park would give it direct access to the JRTC and would be more centralized. In 5-10 years when they do the re-evaluation thing, they will add a skyway extension after they see the success of the streetcar going down Park. Riverside is a busy road and all, but with the skyway already there, there's no reason not to extend it down the street.

The skyway isn't available along the portion of Riverside I'm talking about.  The skyway's Riverside ROW ends at Forest.  The stretch I'm talking about is between Post and Forest.  You would only hit Riverside to pick up the major destinations in that short stretch.  After that, it would hit either Park or Myrtle to connect with the JRTC.

Btw, here is a map of the route within the TPO's 2035 LRTP:

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Other/mi/i-vLg5rjG/0/O/Transit-Projects-Map.jpg)
The Riverside streetcar route shown appears to start at Park & King, down King to Oak to Post to Riverside Avenue to Forest to Park (to the JRTC) and down Water Street into downtown.

Here is a list of the transit projects included in the 2035 LRTP:

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Other/mi/i-2crzWsz/0/XL/LRTP-Transit-Projects-XL.jpg)

Quote from: thelakelander on May 31, 2011, 03:18:52 PM

Quote from: iMarvin on May 31, 2011, 02:32:49 PM
If the skyway wasn't already on Riverside, I would agree with you. Putting it on Park would give it direct access to the JRTC and would be more centralized. In 5-10 years when they do the re-evaluation thing, they will add a skyway extension after they see the success of the streetcar going down Park. Riverside is a busy road and all, but with the skyway already there, there's no reason not to extend it down the street.

The skyway isn't available along the portion of Riverside I'm talking about.  The skyway's Riverside ROW ends at Forest.  The stretch I'm talking about is between Post and Forest.

So no ROW could be purchased? No buildings would have to be destroyed for a skyway to be built above the sidewalk like on Hogan St.

^You could put a skyway extension into the median of Riverside south of Forest and a few elevated stations.  The question would then become if its worth paying the additional millions for it instead of coordinating both projects together to kill two birds with one stone.

and there's the pesky problem of how you stay above Riverside Avenue but under the I-95 bridge...it seems tall enough, but looks could be deceiving

According to that Lake they want to build from downtown out.  I think that is a mistake Phase One should be in Riverside. IMO

I do like the Oak street past five points, Riverside in Brooklyn (connect with new skyway), Forest to park (connect JRTC) then water street into downtown.

Quote from: tufsu1 on May 31, 2011, 03:44:18 PM
and there's the pesky problem of how you stay above Riverside Avenue but under the I-95 bridge...it seems tall enough, but looks could be deceiving

And you need to check with RAP first they are a strong association and may prefer historic streetcar.  Specifically it is truly historic for Riverside.

Quote from: thelakelander on May 31, 2011, 03:37:54 PM
^You could put a skyway extension into the median of Riverside south of Forest and a few elevated stations.  The question would then become if its worth paying the additional millions for it instead of coordinating both projects together to kill two birds with one stone.

So the skyway can go farther than Forest. Good. And I think it would be worth paying millions. If the skyway and streetcar met up at Five Points and the JRTC, you have two different methods of transit going to completely different places. I like to keep things simple. Just run down one street. Park St hits the destinations. Riverside Ave hits some other destinations.

Quote from: JeffreyS on May 31, 2011, 03:50:05 PM
According to that Lake they want to build from downtown out.  I think that is a mistake Phase One should be in Riverside. IMO

I do like the Oak street past five points, Riverside in Brooklyn (connect with new skyway), Forest to park (connect JRTC) then water street into downtown.

The mobility plan combines both and provides a funding mechanism to build them as a single first phase (DT to Park & King in Riverside).

Quote from: JeffreyS on May 31, 2011, 03:51:52 PM

Quote from: tufsu1 on May 31, 2011, 03:44:18 PM
and there's the pesky problem of how you stay above Riverside Avenue but under the I-95 bridge...it seems tall enough, but looks could be deceiving

And you need to check with RAP first they are a strong association and may prefer historic streetcar.  Specifically it is truly historic for Riverside.

If the city wanted to do it right, they would ask the citizens of Riverside-Avondale which route they would like and choose the majority. Everyone in Riverside might not agree with what RAP wants.

Regarding the skyway, in the past there was been strong opposition to extending it inside Riverside.  Also, you couldn't extend it down Riverside Avenue into the historic district without dropping it to grade, closing off access to side streets and a few properties as well as ripping some 100-year old oaks down.  The simple option would be to get the skyway under I-95 on the west side of Park Street.  The bad thing is that this would close off access to Riverside Park on the east side.  In short, I'd think you'd trigger a ton of opposition extending the skyway south of I-95.

Skyway extension to Forest.

Streetcar picks up from Forest, passes Everbank, BCBS, Fidelity, RAM, and the Cummer, swings past Memorial Park and rides all the way down to King, in front of St. Vincents.  

In phase 2, the line is extended up King to at least Post, where it turns east and runs all the way back to Riverside (can Post St. handle it?).  Or maybe even College St.?  Now you've got a loop/circulator.  

In phase 3, it extends down St. Johns Ave via the dogleg on King all the way to Herschel (thus serving the Shoppes of Avondale).

Riverside doesn't need to be six lanes.  They could put a street car in the middle of the road and landscape around it.  Why do we need a train in the air?

Quote from: thelakelander on May 31, 2011, 04:05:16 PM
Regarding the skyway, in the past there was been strong opposition to extending it inside Riverside.  Also, you couldn't extend it down Riverside Avenue into the historic district without dropping it to grade, closing off access to side streets and a few properties as well as ripping some 100-year old oaks down.  In short, I'd think you'd trigger a ton of opposition extending the skyway south of I-95.

I don't see why it would have to be dropped to grade. Like other threads have said, the skyway would have to be extended other places before people start backing off, but in the next 15 years (assuming a skyway extension is built to the stadium or San Marco) people will not be so mean to the skyway. I think it would be a huge mistake to put the streetcar down Riverside.

Quote from: Kay on May 31, 2011, 04:12:53 PM
Riverside doesn't need to be six lanes.  They could put a street car in the middle of the road and landscape around it.  Why do we need a train in the air?

We need a train in the air because we already have it.

How would you get it under I-95 without dropping the elevation., which in turn restricts access to adjacent properties?  Also, running an elevated system into a historic district filled with mature oaks would require taking them down, which completely changes the character of the district.  I think its important to keep in mind that the skyway is a downtown circulator.  Just because its in downtown doesn't mean that it makes the most sense to extend it deep into every neighborhood.  Well planned mass transit networks tend to contain several different types of modes all designed to properly fit and integrate into the context they are intended to serve.

Quote from: thelakelander on May 31, 2011, 04:21:18 PM
How would you get it under I-95 without dropping the elevation., which in turn restricts access to adjacent properties?  Also, running an elevated system into a historic district filled with mature oaks would require taking them down, which completely changes the character of the district.  I think its important to keep in mind that the skyway is a downtown circulator.  Just because its in downtown doesn't mean that it makes the most sense to extend it deep into every neighborhood.  Well planned mass transit networks tend to contain several different types of modes all designed to properly fit and integrate into the context they are intended to serve.

The skywas was for downtown, but also the surrouning neighborhoods. That's why it was planned to go to 5 points, San Marco, the stadium, and Shands. I envision the skyway going down Riverside to Lomax to Five Points. There won't be many trees cut down and the character will hardly change. A streetcar can do the rest, but the skyway needs to go to 5 points.

The Skyway goes over the river, iMarvin.  That ain't nothing.  If the streetcar lines are used to feed the existing Skyway strengths, that would be great. 

I think it's politically unfeasible to expand the Skyway at this time.  Best to work on projects that have a chance of happening.

Quote from: Jimmy on May 31, 2011, 04:37:23 PM
The Skyway goes over the river, iMarvin.  That ain't nothing.  If the streetcar lines are used to feed the existing Skyway strengths, that would be great. 

I think it's politically unfeasible to expand the Skyway at this time.  Best to work on projects that have a chance of happening.

Ok then, say we had a streetcar (using the route that is planned). If you didn't have to go to San Marco, the chances of you riding the skyway are slim. Am I wrong?

Pretty slim.  Unless I needed to get up to Rosa Parks station to changeover to a bus.  Or FSCJ was at or near my final destination.  Hard to say.

Quote from: Jimmy on May 31, 2011, 04:45:08 PM
Pretty slim.  Unless I needed to get up to Rosa Parks station to changeover to a bus.  Or FSCJ was at or near my final destination.  Hard to say.

Exactly, which is why I think the skyway needs to be expanded into Riverside. MJ even had a map showing what I would like to happen. Go down Riverside then to 5 Points. A streetcar going down another road would benefit from the skyway and the skyway would benefit from the streetcar. That's all I'm saying

Quote from: JeffreyS on May 31, 2011, 11:58:48 AM
Here is my study. Actual streetcar in Jax has been (not forecast or predicted) so successful that giant corporations (GM and Ford) bought them and scrapped them so they could actually sell some buses.  This is not hypothetical we have the true real life proof of viability. 

Yeah, pretty much. I mean, everyone at this point knows what happened. Do we really need another wasteful study that will just inject more bureaucratic mumbo jumbo into this to hold it up??

They worked before. They'll work again. The landscape has remained relatively unchanged. They should of course take into account new transit hubs & stuff like that. But if the main line once rolled down Oak, then put it right down Oak again.

Like Ock said, this should be looked at as rebuilding & making up for the mistakes of the past. Not something totally new.

Yeah, I like Oak for this.  And like PSU said, we're just getting back to where we used to be. 

Let's keep this as simple as possible.

Quote from: iMarvin on May 31, 2011, 04:58:07 PM

Quote from: Jimmy on May 31, 2011, 04:45:08 PM
Pretty slim.  Unless I needed to get up to Rosa Parks station to changeover to a bus.  Or FSCJ was at or near my final destination.  Hard to say.

Exactly, which is why I think the skyway needs to be expanded into Riverside. MJ even had a map showing what I would like to happen. Go down Riverside then to 5 Points. A streetcar going down another road would benefit from the skyway and the skyway would benefit from the streetcar. That's all I'm saying

You're not designing a mass transit system to force people to use the skyway.  You design the system to give people a viable alternative to using their cars to access a multitude of destinations throughout town.  Thus, I may hop on a streetcar in Riverside and transfer to BRT to get to Arlington, commuter rail to get to the airport, another streetcar line to get to Springfield, the skyway to get to the Southbank or a regular bus to get to Lackawanna.  Or I could hop on the streetcar at St. Vincents and get off at Five Points.  There is nothing wrong with any of these scenarios.  This is simply the result of a well planned mass transit network designed to get residents across town efficiently.

Quote from: thelakelander on May 31, 2011, 05:31:35 PM

Quote from: iMarvin on May 31, 2011, 04:58:07 PM

Quote from: Jimmy on May 31, 2011, 04:45:08 PM
Pretty slim.  Unless I needed to get up to Rosa Parks station to changeover to a bus.  Or FSCJ was at or near my final destination.  Hard to say.

Exactly, which is why I think the skyway needs to be expanded into Riverside. MJ even had a map showing what I would like to happen. Go down Riverside then to 5 Points. A streetcar going down another road would benefit from the skyway and the skyway would benefit from the streetcar. That's all I'm saying

You're not designing a mass transit system to force people to use the skyway.  You design the system to give people a viable alternative to using their cars to access a multitude of destinations throughout town.  Thus, I may hop on a streetcar in Riverside and transfer to BRT to get to Arlington, commuter rail to get to the airport, another streetcar line to get to Springfield, the skyway to get to the Southbank or a regular bus to get to Lackawanna.  Or I could hop on the streetcar at St. Vincents and get off at Five Points.  There is nothing wrong with any of these scenarios.  This is simply the result of a well planned mass transit network designed to get residents across town efficiently.

Lake, I'm not saying I don't want streetcars in Riverside, I do. I'm saying I don't want them on Riverside because of a possible skyway extension. I would love to see streetcars in Riverside, but Riverside Ave is not the smartest choice. That wouldn't force people to use the skyway, it would just be what's on that street.

But the Skyway won't be extended down Riverside Avenue so I don't see the conflict.  There is not the money.  There is not the political will.  And without one or preferably both of those things, there won't be any extension of the Skyway.

Politics is the art of the possible.  A starter streetcar line is possible.  Go with that, wherever it can be done.

If I remember correctly (Ock? Lake?) the original "Riverside" line of the Skyway ended at Blue Cross/Blue Shield - that is, Forest, or maybe Edison Street.  It was never intended to cross I-95 into the Riverside neighborhood.  An elevated structure - even if they go to the Disney mono-beams, instead of the massive structure they have no - is a non-starter south of I-95.

So, Streetcar from the JTC via the Lee Street Viaduct, then Oak (could cut at an angle across some of that vacant property in exchange for a station to serve the development), to Forest or Edison to link with the Skyway (eventually - and if the Skyway is never extended, as Jimmy said, it is still close enough to serve both Riverside and Park), under I-95 on Riverside, then back over to Oak at a convenient spot (Post? Lomax?).

The possible skyway extension would terminate at Forest Street.  In the event that this ever happens that terminal spot would just tie in to where the streetcar would use Forest to gain access to a corridor like Park to get to the JTC.  In this case, there is no duplication.  With that said, I question if its worth spending the money on two fixed transit systems running parallel so close to each other.  To me, I'd abandon the idea of running the skyway to Forest, design the streetcar to serve Riverside/Brooklyn and use whatever money you want to spend on that skyway extension, extending the skyway to Atlantic Blvd in San Marco (they are about the same distance).

Yes!

If you check my previous posts, you'll see I said a skyway extension wouldn't happen until they re-evaluate the mobility plan. If a streetcar is successful, why wouldn't the skyway be? That's why I think it should run down Park and why we shouldn't forget about the skyway in Riverside.

^The skyway extension down Riverside isn't a part of the mobility plan.  When the plan is evaluated, the only skyway extension under consideration will be in San Marco, which is a completely different mobility zone.  In Riverside's mobility zone, the commuter rail corridor down Roosevelt came in second.  My guess is it would be the next transportation project to become a priority in that particular mobility zone once the streetcar project is completed.

^ If a streetcar does good in Riverside, and a commuter rail line is successful, I think they will see what they can do about skyway extensions in Riverside. That might be 15 years away but I'm hopeful.

I think once we get a couple of successful lines operating, anything will be possible (even actual skyway extension to spots like San Marco and the farmer's market area). Every city with our negative political will has done a complete 180, after seeing the benefits of fixed transit up close and personal.

Quote from: thelakelander on May 31, 2011, 06:48:54 PM
I think once we get a couple of successful lines operating, anything will be possible (even actual skyway extension to spots like San Marco and the farmer's market area). Every city with our negative political will has done a complete 180, after seeing the benefits of fixed transit up close and personal.

That's what I've been trying to say. I'm not saying that the skyway is going to be extened immediately, it just needs to happen.

Agree with you, lake.  Which is why I'm glad we're going for the low-hanging fruit first.  And then, maybe, down the road... who knows.

Quote from: peestandingup on May 31, 2011, 05:01:51 PM
Yeah, pretty much. I mean, everyone at this point knows what happened. Do we really need They worked before. They'll work again. The landscape has remained relatively unchanged.

except for that minor little thing called the automobile

Quote from: tufsu1 on May 31, 2011, 07:06:04 PM

Quote from: peestandingup on May 31, 2011, 05:01:51 PM
Yeah, pretty much. I mean, everyone at this point knows what happened. Do we really need They worked before. They'll work again. The landscape has remained relatively unchanged.

except for that minor little thing called the automobile

What are you saying? That people just up & ditched the streetcars (and public transit in general) for the automobile?? If you just look on the surface, then sure. And yes, Americans by & large sure did have a giant boner for their cars for a long long time (many still do & they'd go bankrupt before they gave up their giant 12 mpg ride that makes them feel like more of a man).

But things were also def manipulated by big auto & big oil to play out the way they did too. That's not up for debate. You don't think its kinda funny that most modernized countries kept theirs throughout history & built upon what they had while we completely killed ours (and are now slowly putting back the pieces)??

I blame Detroit. They were the heart of our car centric, transit killing, suburban living, highway building culture that we've become. That's why I wouldn't piss on that town if it were on fire (and most nights, it is). Oh well, karma's a bitch ain't it.

Jacksonville had streetcar after the onset of the automobile.  Cars were zooming all around when GM and Ford dismantled our streetcars.
No doubt the auto has become the dominate mode of transportation. That doesn't change that streetcar has been proven here and since proven elsewhere in our auto-centric society.

One of the "cool" things-and vital lesson- about residing at present day Riverside/Aberdeen is to gaze on embedded,clear evidence of former rail.(Former railway depicted with specific red brick alignment)

What tugged at the hearts of those who strived to keep the past so clearly evident???

A sense of destiny.

Quote from: JeffreyS on May 31, 2011, 08:22:13 PM
Jacksonville had streetcar after the onset of the automobile.  Cars were zooming all around when GM and Ford dismantled our streetcars.

true...but Americans didn't have nearly the auto ownership rates that we do now...streetcars started being phased out in the 1930s but transit use was still strong through the 1950s...check these stats...

In 1960 there were around 75 million registered vehicles....and 90 million drivers out of 180 million total pop. (50%)

In 2010 there are around 250 million registered vehicles...and 210 million drivers out of 310 million total pop. (68%)

That is a major shift in auto ownership rates as well as % of Americans that drive.

On my way home tonight on Riverside I saw a possibility.

An extension of the skyway across Forest to a brand new stop atop the portico of the Blue Cross/Blue Shield building. The reason? BCBS has a parking lot down the street, next to the old fire house that is just itching to be developed into real revenue producing and public river access property.

Where would BCBS personnel park? Damned if I know right now but obviously the garage behind the building isn't enough so, if all the employees got a free ride and free parking at some out of the way lot or garage that would also be right at another skyway stop - think King? - it might work. A totally under cover out of the elements trip, each way, instead of a walk across and down the street in the elements.

Additionally, it would look cool to see a skyway station as part of a commercial building.

More to come after I look at a map.

Map says the skyway then hangs a right on Roselle and continues on to Annie Lytle.

And if BCBS doesn't like the front door service and the cool look, build the station around the corner on Roselle but still have covered access to the BCBS parking garage.

At the hey day of the first streetcar epoch America had 21,500,000 horses, a number that would shrink as the animals vanished from the streets at a rate of 500,000 per year throughout the 1920's. (US CENSUS DATA-Current US Populations for wild and domestic horses-historical data) By 1960 the population in the US was 3 million animals. It can be argued that the automobile was the replacement for the horse, and the bus was a trumped up "stand in" for the old streetcars, but a stand in that after the fact, cities almost immediately began to question. Too late to save themselves from the strangulation of asphalt and smog.

In 1900 America had thousands of miles of electric rail transit across the country. The streetcar didn't die because Americans had some natural affection for automobiles over rail transportation, quite the opposite as the population was quite content with it's mass railroad investments and services. So much so that Alfred P. Sloan, JR. THE CEO of General Motors according to GM's own records established a special hit squad aimed at the streetcar industry. Sloan, believed the automobile market was maxed out in 1921. GM had lost $65 million in 1921, and by 1922 the task force was in business. Sloan charged, this force with the task of replacing America's electric railways with cars, trucks and buses Sloan said the only way to increase sales and restore profit was to eliminate the electric railway competition.

QuoteAt the time, 90 percent of all trips were by rail, chiefly electric rail; only one in 10 Americans owned an automobile. There were 1,200 separate electric street and interurban railways, a thriving and profitable industry with 44,000 miles of track, 300,000 employees, 15 billion annual passengers, and $1 billion in income. Virtually every city and town in America of more than 2,500 people had its own electric rail system.

General Motors as the nations largest shipper of freight used that leverage to coheres the railroads into giving up all support to their electric railroad properties. One should recall that the Jacksonville Electric Railroad, forerunner of Jacksonville Traction was owned by railroad magnet Henry B. Plant.

This den of wolves went after Southern Pacific's, Pacific Electric Railway in Southern California, which operated over 1,500 miles of track covering some 75 miles out from Los Angles. They went after the Key System in the Bay Area, Minneapolis-St. Paul, 600 miles of the NY State Railways, in each event refusing to ship over railroads that held electric railway properties.

They pushed for and got a federal law enacted that forbade utility companies from owning electric railways, and as the largest depositor in the USA, GM played the banking industry to withhold badly needed finance to the street railway and interurban industry.

No, people didn't have a boner for the automobile, at least not until they were displaced from their spacious streetcars and packed like sardines into foul smelling, cramped little buses. Then amazingly one by one all of the former streetcar companies which had become bus companies went bankrupt, this forced public ownership of mass transit.

If you have never seen it, PLEASE get a copy of the film 'WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT?' A feature length cartoon/comedy that wraps it's entire plot into murder and intrigue surrounding the streetcar conspiracy in Los Angeles. You'll laugh yourself silly, but you'll learn a great deal about how it was done.

Here's your proof... You see it WAS settled in court and General Motors was found guilty.








All of these companies and all of the evil clowns above were found guilty of conspiracy. So you can argue this any way you want, judgment supported the plaintiffs, all defendants got flushed when they were FOUND GUILTY of deliberately dismantling the transit systems in order to FORCE the ownership of Automobiles. Few went to prison, and the fines were fixed at a couple thousand dollars per company... the fix was in and the government threw in the towel. Had you been a Councilman in Jacksonville, the day after announcing the streetcar company was bought out by motor transit, GM announced Jacksonville as a location of the first REGIONAL full line parts warehouse. Had you been in Tampa, you would have been driving a brand new LaSalle Automobile.

Yeah, tell me how this was a natural death...

Key scene from Roger Rabbit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gURUMv7qZW0&feature=related

OCKLAWAHA

Quote from: tufsu1 on May 31, 2011, 10:02:51 PM

Quote from: JeffreyS on May 31, 2011, 08:22:13 PM
Jacksonville had streetcar after the onset of the automobile.  Cars were zooming all around when GM and Ford dismantled our streetcars.

true...but Americans didn't have nearly the auto ownership rates that we do now...streetcars started being phased out in the 1930s but transit use was still strong through the 1950s...check these stats...

In 1960 there were around 75 million registered vehicles....and 90 million drivers out of 180 million total pop. (50%)

In 2010 there are around 250 million registered vehicles...and 210 million drivers out of 310 million total pop. (68%)

That is a major shift in auto ownership rates as well as % of Americans that drive.

I would have thought there would have been a much bigger shift than 18%.  Look at it this way according to your numbers we went from 90 million non drivers to 100 million. The need for transit grew.

Add to that, the very same taxpaying citizens that GM screwed over by forcing them all to drive ended up bailing them out before they could meet their just demise. Whatta country! I bet if you traveled back in time to the early 30s & told someone living in the city how this was all gonna unfold, they'd think you were joking.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=68X2MWAE Taken For A Ride. An out of print, seldom shown on TV 1996 PBS documentary on the destruction of our transportation system. Watch it, study it, get mad, fix things.

Oh, and yes. Also watch Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Study it too. Not for the streetcar scandal, but to find out if you really can see Jessica Rabbit's bare nether regions in that one frame shot. ;D

Quote from: peestandingup on May 31, 2011, 11:30:53 PM
Oh, and yes. Also watch Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Study it too. Not for the streetcar scandal, but to find out if you really can see Jessica Rabbit's bare nether regions in that one frame shot. ;D

Jessica was Hot!  :o

Otherwise...

In the case of who stole our streetcars, this from the trial transcripts of United States v National City Lines
Page 334 U. S. 575

The suit was brought by the United States against nine corporations [Footnote 2] for alleged violation of §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. 26 Stat. 209, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2. The basic charge is that the appellees conspired to acquire control of local transportation companies in numerous cities located in widely different parts of the United States, [Footnote 3] and to restrain and monopolize interstate commerce in motor busses, petroleum supplies, tires and tubes sold to those companies, contrary to the Act's prohibitions. [Footnote 4]

[Footnote 3]Forty-four cities in sixteen states are included. The states are as widely scattered as California, Florida, Maryland, Michigan, Nebraska, Texas, and Washington. The larger local transportation systems include those of Baltimore, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, Los Angeles and Oakland. The largest concentrations of smaller systems are in Illinois, with eleven cities; California with nine (excluding Los Angeles), and Michigan with four. The local operating companies were not named as parties defendant.


OCKLAWAHA

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5100/5593586597_574311ce1e_z.jpg)

By the way, apparently the 5 cent fare never happened either! What a gaggle of vultures.

OCKLAWAHA

- St. Johns to King (Corner of St. Vincents)  allows for extension west along St. Johns
- King to Park (allows for extension down King)
- Park to JTC (via 5 points)
- JTC to Landing via Water Street
- Water to Main Street
- Main to 8th and on to Shands


I like Park street because it is more central to Riverside and would be more accessible by pedestrians, is a more commercial corridor giving direct access to more buisnesses and maintains a more direct route to the JTC and on into downtown.  Oak is too residential and Riverside is too isolated.

There is quite a bit of commercial along Oak that would be well served and revitalized by a streetcar line down that road.  Also, it has the width to accomodate streetcars as well as cars.  Park does not have that luxury in some areas. 

Quote from: Jason on June 01, 2011, 10:37:30 AM
- St. Johns to King (Corner of St. Vincents)  allows for extension west along St. Johns
- King to Park (allows for extension down King)
- Park to JTC (via 5 points)
- JTC to Landing via Water Street
- Water to Main Street
- Main to 8th and on to Shands


I like Park street because it is more central to Riverside and would be more accessible by pedestrians, is a more commercial corridor giving direct access to more buisnesses and maintains a more direct route to the JTC and on into downtown.  Oak is too residential and Riverside is too isolated.

That's exactly what I was thinking.

The advantages that automobiles will continue to have over mass transit (except places like Manhattan and the Loop) is convenience and autonomy.  IMO, those are the qualities that people value most about their cars and transit can't really compete with that.  I don't think people have been coerced or bamboozled into automobiles, they chose them because it made their lives better.

(http://www.tobaccouse.info/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/bilde.jpg)
OCALA STREET RAILWAY WHICH RAN FROM OCALA TO MARTI CITY.

The mystery is the rampant growth of the highway industry as a whole was directly proportional to the demise of the nations electric railways. The single thing that most people miss is found in your statement (except places like Manhattan and the Loop) the fact is we were ALL Manhattan and the Loop 80 years ago. Palatka, Fernandina and Amelia Island all had streetcar companies. So did places like Longwood, Altamonte Springs, and Green Cove Springs. Once that was dismantled then yes, the freedom was gone and we were FORCED to use the automobile. It's a bit of both actually, but legally the automobile industry was found guilty of a crime.

Shall we all discuss airships next? Same story different address...

OCKLAWAHA

Oak, Park and Riverside have commercial.  Oak would gain the most from revitalization cost the least in length and road renovation.  Oak is one block from Riverside two from Park that route could serve all three streets from King through five points.  Then a shift to riverside to Forrest then to park and the JTC.  That route would maximize people and places served and be the easiest to implement. imo

While a streetcar is supposed to revitalize areas they are also supposed to help what's already there. None of the routes should be based solely on revitalization.

^You're right.  However, that short stretch of Oak accomplishes several items, including helping what's already there, being more cost efficient, accessible to major destinations and revitalization.

^But is it really worth it? The only thing Oak St has going for it, IMO, is being more cost efficient. But then again, estimates haven't been made so Oak might not be the most cost efficient.

And did you vote for Oak, Park, or Riverside?

I voted for Oak but I agree with Lake only on that short stretch. After 5 points I like a breif stint on Riverside then up Forrest to park.  I really do think Oak from Kings to 5 points serves all three roads and would not impact traffic.  I may be partial as I think that stretch of Oak is one of the best streets in Riverside and it is already wide enough.

^If I was on the streetcar on Oak, I wouldn't walk over to Park. I don't think many people would. Park wouldn't serve Riverside or Oak, it would serve Park. It's in a more central area than the other streets and goes more places.

Quote from: iMarvin on June 01, 2011, 02:59:25 PM
^If I was on the streetcar on Oak, I wouldn't walk over to Park. I don't think many people would. Park wouldn't serve Riverside or Oak, it would serve Park. It's in a more central area than the other streets and goes more places.

The area of Oak that the Streetcar would be running is less then 550 ft. (2 short blocks) from Park.  It is also 1 block from Riverside.  We're not talking miles away here. 

Quote from: iMarvin on June 01, 2011, 02:59:25 PM
^If I was on the streetcar on Oak, I wouldn't walk over to Park. I don't think many people would. Park wouldn't serve Riverside or Oak, it would serve Park. It's in a more central area than the other streets and goes more places.

Fair point about location.

And by looking at Google Earth and taking into account some of Lake's and Chris' previous points, you've got that cluster of RAM/Cummer etc on Riverside.  It would be a shame to bypass those.  

Riverside isn't as centralized as Park or even Oak, but it's a straight shot that has culture, a big hospital, and a successful-if-small commercial area in the Shoppes of Avondale.  Yes Oak is more ready to accommodate a streetcar line width-wise, but there's more on Riverside and more on Park.

Didn't multiple lines run through the area, if I remember Ock's old maps correctly?  What would be the harm in having a line down Riverside and another down, say, Post (ideally speaking, of course)?

Quote from: iMarvin on June 01, 2011, 02:31:48 PM
^But is it really worth it? The only thing Oak St has going for it, IMO, is being more cost efficient. But then again, estimates haven't been made so Oak might not be the most cost efficient.

And did you vote for Oak, Park, or Riverside?

I believe most of us agree on the KING to OAK to POST to RIVERSIDE to PARK AND/OR MYRTLE routing, the only part that is really a question mark to me is Myrtle or Park. IF the BRT comes south on Park, or if the Skyway is going to someday have a station at Riverside and Forest, then I'd prefer Myrtle.

Myrtle offers a unique opportunity to:

Revitalize a very historic and remaining section of Brooklyn's business area.

To reuse (and fix the drainage) in the historic Myrtle Avenue Subway, the only one in Florida.

Go right by the gate of the JTA yard, where it might be possible to establish a streetcar storage or maintenance yard.

Access Durkeeville, The Small Ballpark and open the possibility of access to Edward Waters College while still maintaining good access to the JRTC.

Now if nothing is planned for Park, and if the Skyway is dead (not just sleeping) then yes, Park makes sense provided FDOT will completely reconstruct the Lee Street Viaduct. This could allow for double streetcar tracks across the new bridge while providing clearance for Amtrak, Commuter Rail and the Florida East Coast trains.

If I was a developer of office towers I'd be pushing all three modes through Brooklyn as they go through the squeeze coming out of the station prior to fanning out across the city.

I'm also VERY fond of Post Street beyond King and on into Murray Hill, Normandy, Orange Park or where ever the future takes it, Post also appears to have been designed with streetcar expansion in mind, using gentle curves as opposed to corners.


OCKLAWAHA

Park is a mere two blocks from Oak.  If you're not willing to walk two blocks from Park to Oak (0.12 miles) then you certainly can't expect anyone to use a Park Street streetcar to access St. Vincent's (front door is 0.30 miles from Park), Publix or any other major destination along Riverside.  That means, your ridership just took a huge dive because you've taken out the lines attractiveness for residents who live outside Riverside or the ability to resolve St. Vincent's space contraints.  As mentioned earlier, Riverside is not dense or populated enough to support a $50 million streetcar line on its own.  So whatever is developed has to be put together with the foresight that it needs to appeal to a much larger population than the immediate area.

Quote from: Doctor_K on June 01, 2011, 03:06:25 PM
What would be the harm in having a line down Riverside and another down, say, Post (ideally speaking, of course)?

Not enough funds to double up.  Make things too complicated and expensive and you risk the chance of nothing happening (ex. the skyway extensions).  However, I agree with cline.  These streets aren't miles apart and there is one in the middle of the two main streets that was built for a streetcar (meaning its already wide enough), is easily accessible to destinations on Park & Riverside, and could use a little revitalization of its own.

Anyway, all this goes to show why those ridership, route planning studies tufsu1 mentioned are important, even if you play with local money.

Quote from: Ocklawaha on June 01, 2011, 03:06:38 PM

Quote from: iMarvin on June 01, 2011, 02:31:48 PM
^But is it really worth it? The only thing Oak St has going for it, IMO, is being more cost efficient. But then again, estimates haven't been made so Oak might not be the most cost efficient.

And did you vote for Oak, Park, or Riverside?

I believe most of us agree on the KING to OAK to POST to RIVERSIDE to PARK AND/OR MYRTLE routing, the only part that is really a question mark to me is Myrtle or Park. IF the BRT comes south on Park, or if the Skyway is going to someday have a station at Riverside and Forest, then I'd prefer Myrtle.

Myrtle offers a unique opportunity to:

Revitalize a very historic and remaining section of Brooklyn's business area.

To reuse (and fix the drainage) in the historic Myrtle Avenue Subway, the only one in Florida.

Go right by the gate of the JTA yard, where it might be possible to establish a streetcar storage or maintenance yard.

Access Durkeeville, The Small Ballpark and open the possibility of access to Edward Waters College while still maintaining good access to the JRTC.

Now if nothing is planned for Park, and if the Skyway is dead (not just sleeping) then yes, Park makes sense provided FDOT will completely reconstruct the Lee Street Viaduct. This could allow for double streetcar tracks across the new bridge while providing clearance for Amtrak, Commuter Rail and the Florida East Coast trains.

If I was a developer of office towers I'd be pushing all three modes through Brooklyn as they go through the squeeze coming out of the station prior to fanning out across the city.

I'm also VERY fond of Post Street beyond King and on into Murray Hill, Normandy, Orange Park or where ever the future takes it, Post also appears to have been designed with streetcar expansion in mind, using gentle curves as opposed to corners.


OCKLAWAHA

How far would the streetcar go on Myrtle? Would that be the only street it travels on?

Quote from: Doctor_K on June 01, 2011, 03:06:25 PM

Quote from: iMarvin on June 01, 2011, 02:59:25 PM
^If I was on the streetcar on Oak, I wouldn't walk over to Park. I don't think many people would. Park wouldn't serve Riverside or Oak, it would serve Park. It's in a more central area than the other streets and goes more places.

Fair point about location.

And by looking at Google Earth and taking into account some of Lake's and Chris' previous points, you've got that cluster of RAM/Cummer etc on Riverside.  It would be a shame to bypass those. 

Riverside isn't as centralized as Park or even Oak, but it's a straight shot that has culture, a big hospital, and a successful-if-small commercial area in the Shoppes of Avondale.  Yes Oak is more ready to accommodate a streetcar line width-wise, but there's more on Riverside and more on Park.

Didn't multiple lines run through the area, if I remember Ock's old maps correctly?  What would be the harm in having a line down Riverside and another down, say, Post (ideally speaking, of course)?

I agree but, going back to the skyway, I feel streetcar shouldn't be on Riverside because the skyway is there. So that's another reason why I like Park the most.

Quote from: cline on June 01, 2011, 03:04:33 PM

Quote from: iMarvin on June 01, 2011, 02:59:25 PM
^If I was on the streetcar on Oak, I wouldn't walk over to Park. I don't think many people would. Park wouldn't serve Riverside or Oak, it would serve Park. It's in a more central area than the other streets and goes more places.

The area of Oak that the Streetcar would be running is less then 550 ft. (2 short blocks) from Park.  It is also 1 block from Riverside.  We're not talking miles away here. 

I know that. It's not like the streetcar stop would be right where someone needs to be on Park if it's on Oak.

Quote from: thelakelander on June 01, 2011, 03:12:52 PM
Park is a mere two blocks from Oak.  If you're not willing to walk two blocks from Park to Oak (0.12 miles) then you certainly can't expect anyone to use a Park Street streetcar to access St. Vincent's (front door is 0.30 miles from Park), Publix or any other major destination along Riverside.  That means, your ridership just took a huge dive because you've taken out the lines attractiveness for residents who live outside Riverside or the ability to resolve St. Vincent's space contraints.  As mentioned earlier, Riverside is not dense or populated enough to support a $50 million streetcar line on its own.  So whatever is developed has to be put together with the foresight that it needs to appeal to a much larger population than the immediate area.

The streetcar would go down to St. Vincents on King, right?

And some people won't walk two block walks no matter how short. And like I said, any stop on Oak wouldn't be directly where someone needed to be on Park.

^Money, LRTP aside, the skyway isn't planned to extend down Riverside beyond Forest.  All the streetcar alignment talk inside the actual historic district would have no bearing on the skyway's alignment, regardless of whether it becomes a reality or not.

Quote from: iMarvin on June 01, 2011, 03:25:24 PM
The streetcar would go down to St. Vincents on King, right?

No.  The current conceptual alignment is Oak to King and King to Park, in that particular area.

QuoteAnd some people won't walk two block walks no matter how short. And like I said, any stop on Oak wouldn't be directly where someone needed to be on Park.

Although I don't think there are enough major destinations on Park between Five Points and Park & King that would put it over St. Vincent's and Riverside Square in terms of attracting ridership, the rule of thumb is 1/4 mile radius (a five minute walk) from a transit stop.  Out of the three discussed, Oak is the only one that gets all and destinations along them well within that radius.

Quote from: thelakelander on June 01, 2011, 03:27:55 PM
^Money, LRTP aside, the skyway isn't planned to extend down Riverside beyond Forest.  All the streetcar alignment talk inside the actual historic district would have no bearing on the skyway's alignment, regardless of whether it becomes a reality or not.

Like I said yesterday, skyway extensions might not be brought up for 15 years. I don't care, we need to still wait.

Quote from: thelakelander on June 01, 2011, 03:30:29 PM

Quote from: iMarvin on June 01, 2011, 03:25:24 PM
The streetcar would go down to St. Vincents on King, right?

No.  The current conceptual alignment is Oak to King and King to Park, in that particular area.

QuoteAnd some people won't walk two block walks no matter how short. And like I said, any stop on Oak wouldn't be directly where someone needed to be on Park.

The rule of thumb is 1/4 mile radius (a five minute walk) from a transit stop.

Top: That doesn't make sense. That's not even St. Vincent's, it's King.

Bottom: That depends all on who it is walking. Stops on Oak might not make sense for places where stops should be on Park.

Quote from: iMarvin on June 01, 2011, 03:35:44 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on June 01, 2011, 03:27:55 PM
^Money, LRTP aside, the skyway isn't planned to extend down Riverside beyond Forest.  All the streetcar alignment talk inside the actual historic district would have no bearing on the skyway's alignment, regardless of whether it becomes a reality or not.

Like I said yesterday, skyway extensions might not be brought up for 15 years. I don't care, we need to still wait.

Quote from: thelakelander on June 01, 2011, 03:30:29 PM

Quote from: iMarvin on June 01, 2011, 03:25:24 PM
The streetcar would go down to St. Vincents on King, right?

No.  The current conceptual alignment is Oak to King and King to Park, in that particular area.

QuoteAnd some people won't walk two block walks no matter how short. And like I said, any stop on Oak wouldn't be directly where someone needed to be on Park.

The rule of thumb is 1/4 mile radius (a five minute walk) from a transit stop.

Top: That doesn't make sense. That's not even St. Vincent's, it's King.

Bottom: That depends all on who it is walking. Stops on Oak might not make sense for places where stops should be on Park.

The plan does not call for any south alignment down King to St. Vincents.  The plan would be that the Streetcar would travel west on Oak and jogs north at the King and Oak intersection to Park.  You could get off there and walk to two blocks south to St. Vincents.  Or, you could walk two blocks north and be in the Park and King district.  Either way it is less than a quarter mile walk, which as Lake mentioned is the standard for typical acceptable walking distance to a transit stop.

If you aren't willing to walk 2 blocks, public transit, in any form, probably isn't for you. Guess what it's not going to pick you up at your front door either.

I think Oak makes the most sense- it's allows people to be a short distance from both Park and Riverside. Because Oak doesn't connect all the way through avondale the traffic on it is far less than Park and Riverside. If an extension is ever added I think it could cut up from Oak to St. Johns towards the shops.

I thought it was 1/2 mile for fixed transit and 1/4 mile for bus. I guess you learn something all the time.

This was my hope with this thread. We argue over which transit mode and route we should have not if we should have transit. I love it.

Streetcar Now!!!

Quote from: JeffreyS on June 01, 2011, 03:44:47 PM
I thought it was 1/2 mile for fixed transit and 1/4 mile for bus. I guess you learn something all the time.

This was my hope with this thread. We argue over which transit mode and route we should have not if we should have transit. I love it.

Streetcar Now!!!

The typical standard is 1/4 mile however, some advocate that people are willing to walk further for rail.  However, in Jax, where not many people have experience with walking to transit it is probably best to stick with the more conservative 1/4 mile distance.

Quote from: JeffreyS on June 01, 2011, 03:44:47 PM
I thought it was 1/2 mile for fixed transit and 1/4 mile for bus. I guess you learn something all the time.

this is the generally accepted range nationally...but given the heat and humidity of Florida (and our aging population) many feel the radii should be reduced....personally I'm good with 1/3 mile for rail and 1/4 mile for bus

Quote from: iluvolives on June 01, 2011, 03:43:18 PM
If you aren't willing to walk 2 blocks, public transit, in any form, probably isn't for you. Guess what it's not going to pick you up at your front door either.

I think Oak makes the most sense- it's allows people to be a short distance from both Park and Riverside. Because Oak doesn't connect all the way through avondale the traffic on it is far less than Park and Riverside. If an extension is ever added I think it could cut up from Oak to St. Johns towards the shops.

Guess what, I know that! Thinking about it now, a two-block walk is fine, but a stop on Oak isn't guaranteed to be the ideal stop for Park.

Quote from: tufsu1 on June 01, 2011, 03:50:34 PM

Quote from: JeffreyS on June 01, 2011, 03:44:47 PM
I thought it was 1/2 mile for fixed transit and 1/4 mile for bus. I guess you learn something all the time.

this is the generally accepted range nationally...but given the heat and humidity of Florida (and our aging population) many feel the radii should be reduced....personally I'm good with 1/3 mile for rail and 1/4 mile for bus

That makes sense. My sister in law lives about 1/2 mile from Damon station in Wicker Park and that seems like such an easy walk.  Of course it is one of the most interesting neighborhoods to walk through.

Quote from: iMarvin on June 01, 2011, 03:53:01 PM

Quote from: iluvolives on June 01, 2011, 03:43:18 PM
If you aren't willing to walk 2 blocks, public transit, in any form, probably isn't for you. Guess what it's not going to pick you up at your front door either.

I think Oak makes the most sense- it's allows people to be a short distance from both Park and Riverside. Because Oak doesn't connect all the way through avondale the traffic on it is far less than Park and Riverside. If an extension is ever added I think it could cut up from Oak to St. Johns towards the shops.

Guess what, I know that! Thinking about it now, a two-block walk is fine, but a stop on Oak isn't guaranteed to be the ideal stop for Park.

You are right that none of them will be perfect but which ever one we choose will one day be almost perfect as the area develops in relation to the route.

I can't believe it but I hear people complain about how far the skyway is from the Landing.

Quote from: JeffreyS on June 01, 2011, 03:53:58 PM

Quote from: tufsu1 on June 01, 2011, 03:50:34 PM

Quote from: JeffreyS on June 01, 2011, 03:44:47 PM
I thought it was 1/2 mile for fixed transit and 1/4 mile for bus. I guess you learn something all the time.

this is the generally accepted range nationally...but given the heat and humidity of Florida (and our aging population) many feel the radii should be reduced....personally I'm good with 1/3 mile for rail and 1/4 mile for bus

That makes sense. My sister in law lives about 1/2 mile from Damon station in Wicker Park and that seems like such an easy walk.  Of course it is one of the most interesting neighborhoods to walk through.

Yes, depending on the context/urban environment, people will walk further.  Using Oak as an example, you get more who will be willing to walk 1/2 mile down Margaret than you will those willing to walk the same distance down Osceola.

Quote from: thelakelander on June 01, 2011, 03:17:01 PM

Quote from: Doctor_K on June 01, 2011, 03:06:25 PM
What would be the harm in having a line down Riverside and another down, say, Post (ideally speaking, of course)?

Not enough funds to double up.  Make things too complicated and expensive and you risk the chance of nothing happening (ex. the skyway extensions).  However, I agree with cline.  These streets aren't miles apart and there is one in the middle of the two main streets that was built for a streetcar (meaning its already wide enough), is easily accessible to destinations on Park & Riverside, and could use a little revitalization of its own.

Ok.  I'll buy that.  What about the Cummer and RAM further north on Riverside?  They're well below Forest, so no chance of Skyway service; and they're above and beyond the 1/4-mile radius of any streetcar terminus in 5-points.

Quote from: JeffreyS on June 01, 2011, 03:57:51 PM

Quote from: iMarvin on June 01, 2011, 03:53:01 PM

Quote from: iluvolives on June 01, 2011, 03:43:18 PM
If you aren't willing to walk 2 blocks, public transit, in any form, probably isn't for you. Guess what it's not going to pick you up at your front door either.

I think Oak makes the most sense- it's allows people to be a short distance from both Park and Riverside. Because Oak doesn't connect all the way through avondale the traffic on it is far less than Park and Riverside. If an extension is ever added I think it could cut up from Oak to St. Johns towards the shops.

Guess what, I know that! Thinking about it now, a two-block walk is fine, but a stop on Oak isn't guaranteed to be the ideal stop for Park.

You are right that none of them will be perfect but which ever one we choose will one day be almost perfect as the area develops in relation to the route.

I can't believe it but I hear people complain about how far the skyway is from the Landing.

What I'm really saying is that Oak will have the least amount of ridership between the two.

And the skyway is not too far from the Landing.

Quote from: Doctor_K on June 01, 2011, 04:06:58 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on June 01, 2011, 03:17:01 PM

Quote from: Doctor_K on June 01, 2011, 03:06:25 PM
What would be the harm in having a line down Riverside and another down, say, Post (ideally speaking, of course)?

Not enough funds to double up.  Make things too complicated and expensive and you risk the chance of nothing happening (ex. the skyway extensions).  However, I agree with cline.  These streets aren't miles apart and there is one in the middle of the two main streets that was built for a streetcar (meaning its already wide enough), is easily accessible to destinations on Park & Riverside, and could use a little revitalization of its own.

Ok.  I'll buy that.  What about the Cummer and RAM further north on Riverside?  They're well below Forest, so no chance of Skyway service; and they're above and beyond the 1/4-mile radius of any streetcar terminus in 5-points.

In this area the Streetcar would run on Riverside so it would run directly adjacent to the Cummer as well as RAM. 

Oak directly serves Riverside Square, the Park & King strip and St. Vincents is one block away.  However, St. Vincent's property abuts Oak and as they expand, they'll have facilities on Oak as well.

Quote from: iMarvin on June 01, 2011, 04:11:51 PM
What I'm really saying is that Oak will have the least amount of ridership between the two.

Then again, maybe not.  Mass transit is supposed to go to where people generally work, live, and/or play, right?

That part of Oak looks like it's more residential than anything.  And the entire section of the neighborhood, regardless of whether we're talking Park, Oak, or Riverside, is largely and mostly residential.  Having the streetcar go from near the hospital, up the main strip of residential on Oak, up to near 5 Points, and (hopefully) near/past the Cummer, RAM, and up towards BCBS et al, then you've just hit all three categories: live, play, work.

I know that not everyone on Oak works on that northern section of Riverside, naturally, but at least this way it touches all three 'zones.'

Can you tell I'm still locked into SimCity-style thinking? :D

Quote from: cline on June 01, 2011, 04:16:42 PM

Quote from: Doctor_K on June 01, 2011, 04:06:58 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on June 01, 2011, 03:17:01 PM

Quote from: Doctor_K on June 01, 2011, 03:06:25 PM
What would be the harm in having a line down Riverside and another down, say, Post (ideally speaking, of course)?

Not enough funds to double up.  Make things too complicated and expensive and you risk the chance of nothing happening (ex. the skyway extensions).  However, I agree with cline.  These streets aren't miles apart and there is one in the middle of the two main streets that was built for a streetcar (meaning its already wide enough), is easily accessible to destinations on Park & Riverside, and could use a little revitalization of its own.

Ok.  I'll buy that.  What about the Cummer and RAM further north on Riverside?  They're well below Forest, so no chance of Skyway service; and they're above and beyond the 1/4-mile radius of any streetcar terminus in 5-points.

In this area the Streetcar would run on Riverside so it would run directly adjacent to the Cummer as well as RAM.  

OK - so:

one end at King; up Oak to Margaret, Margaret to Riverside, Riverside up to Forest?  On a map at least, that looks fabulous.  I'm changing my vote to Oak.

From what I understand it would be basically begin on the western end at King and Oak (there would actually be a jog up to the north to Park...I think...so you could say it begins at Park and King).  Once on Oak it would travel east to Margerate Street and then head north (between 1661 and where the new Chew would be) until it got to Post.  From Post it would go east to Riverside then north on Riverside.  From that point there is still discussion as to what would be the best route.  I think Ock talked about it a little a few pages back.  Someone here correct me if that is wrong.

QuoteThat part of Oak looks like it's more residential than anything.  And the entire section of the neighborhood, regardless of whether we're talking Park, Oak, or Riverside, is largely and mostly residential.

There is actually quite a bit of commerciall on Oak, especially between Copeland and Stockton and obviously, once you get closer to 5 points.

Quote from: Doctor_K on June 01, 2011, 04:21:08 PM

Quote from: iMarvin on June 01, 2011, 04:11:51 PM
What I'm really saying is that Oak will have the least amount of ridership between the two.

Then again, maybe not.  Mass transit is supposed to go to where people generally work, live, and/or play, right?

That part of Oak looks like it's more residential than anything.  And the entire section of the neighborhood, regardless of whether we're talking Park, Oak, or Riverside, is largely and mostly residential.  Having the streetcar go from near the hospital, up the main strip of residential on Oak, up to near 5 Points, and (hopefully) near/past the Cummer, RAM, and up towards BCBS et al, then you've just hit all three categories: live, play, work.

I know that not everyone on Oak works on that northern section of Riverside, naturally, but at least this way it touches all three 'zones.'

Can you tell I'm still locked into SimCity-style thinking? :D

:D Yeah I still kinda play SimCity.

Anyways, it wouldn't hit anything on Park. Park is more important than Oak, IMO.

Quote from: cline on June 01, 2011, 04:28:04 PM
There is actually quite a bit of commerciall on Oak, especially between Copeland and Stockton and obviously, once you get closer to 5 points.

Yea, the difference in commercial between Park and Oak from Barrs to Goodwin is basically a wash. It is mostly doctor's offices and realtors, etc. In fact, I'd probably give the advantage to Oak in this section, as there are 2 restaurants, a convenience store, laundromat (the places people hit on a daily basis), and block of 3 (currently vacant) commercial properties. When you get to five points, there's much more along Oak (maybe hitting five points at the actual point would be an advantage for Park, but is there actually somewhere to put a stop there?). By hitting Park and King you really take care of anything "major" on Park. The only advantage to the Park line I believe would be hitting 2 churches. One of those is really close to King anyway, and neither is a serious walk from Oak.

The main shortcoming I see, which I imagine is a later-phase consideration, is basically leaving out the north end of Riverside. It would be nice to swing up to the Stockton Street businesses (in the process putting most of Riverside within ~2 blocks of streetcar.

Nonetheless, bring it one!

Quote from: thelakelander on June 01, 2011, 03:12:52 PM
Park is a mere two blocks from Oak.  If you're not willing to walk two blocks from Park to Oak (0.12 miles) then you certainly can't expect anyone to use a Park Street streetcar to access St. Vincent's (front door is 0.30 miles from Park), Publix or any other major destination along Riverside.  That means, your ridership just took a huge dive because you've taken out the lines attractiveness for residents who live outside Riverside or the ability to resolve St. Vincent's space contraints.  As mentioned earlier, Riverside is not dense or populated enough to support a $50 million streetcar line on its own.  So whatever is developed has to be put together with the foresight that it needs to appeal to a much larger population than the immediate area.

What you are missing is all those folks that live between Park and the highway.  Ernest to Oak is a hike.

Ernest to Park is a hike.  Certainly more of a hike to Oak...

Don't forget that there will be BRT, commuter rail and regular bus routes in the area as well, in addition to better bike and ped facilities.  In fact, the commuter rail line will hug the north/west side of Riverside on the tracks that run past Bold City.  If anything, compared to most urban Jax neighborhoods, Riverside is coming up pretty well in terms of mass transit investment that will directly enhance its quality of life and economic opportunity.

Quote from: Kay on June 01, 2011, 05:12:11 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on June 01, 2011, 03:12:52 PM
Park is a mere two blocks from Oak.  If you're not willing to walk two blocks from Park to Oak (0.12 miles) then you certainly can't expect anyone to use a Park Street streetcar to access St. Vincent's (front door is 0.30 miles from Park), Publix or any other major destination along Riverside.  That means, your ridership just took a huge dive because you've taken out the lines attractiveness for residents who live outside Riverside or the ability to resolve St. Vincent's space contraints.  As mentioned earlier, Riverside is not dense or populated enough to support a $50 million streetcar line on its own.  So whatever is developed has to be put together with the foresight that it needs to appeal to a much larger population than the immediate area.

What you are missing is all those folks that live between Park and the highway.  Ernest to Oak is a hike.

Well, maybe not.  It's 8 blocks. 

Here is the TPO's Long Range Transportation Plan's urban core mass transit projects:

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Other/mi/i-vLg5rjG/0/O/Transit-Projects-Map.jpg)

Green "L" = Commuter Rail (this will most likely be the second project for Riverside's mobility zone in the mobility plan, after the completion of the streetcar)

Blue = BRT - This isn't in the mobility plan but JTA is hell bent on doing it anyway.  You'll probably see something resembling BRT down Roosevelt by the end of this decade.

Orange "V" & "U" = Streetcar - This is the mobility plan's priority project for the mobility zone that Riverside falls in.  

That map with your legend is helpful, Lake.

Looking at the map, it then makes sense to plan to modify regular bus routes to run down perpendicular corridors to the BRT, streetcar and commuter rail corridors.  It also makes since to implement the bike network in a similar fashion.  Once you do that, the entire neighborhood and other surrounding it will have pretty great mass transit connectivity, no matter what individual destination a specific person has.

Now looking at it, mobility zone 7 which is the area bounded by I-10/I-95 (North), I-295 (west/south) and the river (east) only has three road/transit projects in the mobility plan.  They are (ranked by priority):

1. Streetcar - DT to King Street - $50 million

2. Commuter Rail Southwest - DT to I-295 - $29.25 million (local matching grant)

3. Harlow Boulevard - 2 to 3 lane road widening from Lane Ave to 103rd St - $1.75 million

Now I know I'm counting my chickens way before they're hatched, but I'm looking forward to a future phase of the Riverside streetcar: a connection from the first phase on Oak (or Riverside or Park as the case may be) running from Park St down King towards the King St. Brewery District, turning back towards 5 Pts down College or Post St (surely one of these is wide enough?), hitting the Stockton Street/John Gorrie School area, then running through the pastoral Riverside Park (ala New Orleans) to the revitalized Annie Lytle Transitorium.

Streetcar Now!

I do have to ask, if the primary reason any city does street car is the new development it brings to the area, why Riverside first?  It just seems that if the city as a whole wants the best bang (development) for the buck (OK, millions) then it should go to the lesser developed and less used areas first, not last.

The area gets new development while the street car line is being built, the existing area of Riverside continues to grow with the existing transportation available.  In fact, it seems the city wins bigger because while the street car to Riverside is under construction, the commercial side of things typically suffers.  Going to that unused area first means no one really suffers during construction so no loss. In today's economy, Riverside having more opportunity to grow before the Street car may mean less loss during the eventually construction.

So, what am I missing here?

I think it is a balancing act current usefulness and future benefits.

I don't like the idea of widening Harlow. It only gets moderate traffic, and it's mostly residential.

Definitely in favor of going down Oak St for reasons already mentioned (mainly reasonably close access to both Park and Riverside). Plus, if you have the spur that turns Northwest at King a lot of the businesses and residents you would to cater to  by having it go down Park are pretty close. It might be cool in a future phase to create lollipop loop by bringing it further up King to Post then head back toward Stockton and then  back around to rejoin the Phase 1 line at Oak St. That would tie 3 commercial districts together and all the residents in between. (Oops just saw that L.P. Hovercraft had the same idea. Great minds and all. lol)

The Harlow project is really a small two block bottleneck between the urbanized three lane "already completed" residential section and the signalized intersection at 103rd Street.  Its nothing major.

Quote from: strider on June 01, 2011, 06:10:20 PM
I do have to ask, if the primary reason any city does street car is the new development it brings to the area, why Riverside first?  It just seems that if the city as a whole wants the best bang (development) for the buck (OK, millions) then it should go to the lesser developed and less used areas first, not last.

There are several goals.  They include providing viable forms of alternative transportation, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, integrating with neighborhood visioning plans, taking cars off existing streets, encouraging sustainable development, reducing vehicle miles traveled, etc.  From an economic development standpoint, I think we're overlooking the fact that the majority of this project is not in Riverside.  Its actually in Brooklyn and LaVilla.  I think we can all agree that both of these places need an economic shot in the arm.

QuoteI do have to ask, if the primary reason any city does street car is the new development it brings to the area, why Riverside first?  It just seems that if the city as a whole wants the best bang (development) for the buck (OK, millions) then it should go to the lesser developed and less used areas first, not last.

In addition to what Lake said I will add that the first leg of any new mode of transit (Streetcar, Commuter rail, etc.) here in Jacksonville MUST be at least a moderate success in terms of ridership.  Because of the fact that Rside is already successful on many fronts (both residential and commercial), I feel that it is the best candidate for the first new Streetcar line and can attract the necessary ridership that will allow the system to expand into places like Springfield.  There are already enough naysayers in this town when it comes to mass transit.  The last thing we need is for those same naysayers to be able to point to the Streetcar and call it another Skyway.  Any new phase would be doomed.  It is imperative the first phase is a success.

Think in terms of a barbell, on each end you have the heavy weights, IE: A stable residential area in Riverside and a stable spread of offices in the CBD. Between them you have 2 urban deserts, La Villa and Brooklyn.  Now if we built just where development was needed most, we'd end up going from desert to desert without connecting to those vital parts that act as collectors and distributors of passenger traffic. In other words we'd be doing the Skyway Jig all over again.

OCKLAWAHA

Here is a better map, I'm working on this with the city GIS specialist. (I know it's a tad light, my computers are all frizzed out and I don't have a clue how to put this mess back together...any volunteers?) The legend we are working on says:

RED LINES = Historic Jacksonville Traction Company Routes
TEAL LINES = Proposed contemporary reconstruction with new routes
Purple = Historic lines AND reconstruction route

OCKLAWAHA

I agree the Harlow thing isn't really a big deal. I just don't see the point of doing it and sending a drove faster cars through a neighborhood. Are they trying to divert some traffic away from 103rd or something? Seems like that $1.75 million could be put to better use. No biggie though.

It's projected to become a bottleneck without some sort of improvement and the project will also improve bike and ped network connectivity in Cedar Hills. However, I agree that in the grand scheme of things it wouldn't rank very high on my personal list.

Here's a little better map of what we're discussing.

OCKLAWAHA

Ock, if you were to design this system as a single bi-directional track to keep costs down, where would you put in the slidings?

So I can have drinks at Mark's and some late night grub at Kickbacks.

Quote from: thelakelander on June 01, 2011, 10:02:06 PM
Ock, if you were to design this system as a single bi-directional track to keep costs down, where would you put in the slidings?

I believe that is the way to do it and get the most bang for our bucks, hopefully having enough surplus to head on up Newnan to Beaver for a Arena Loop, Newnan-Beaver-Randolph (though Lafayette might be superior) and back on Duval to Newnan.

We should build double track where ever we encounter a restricted area that would:
1. be too tight and/or expensive to revisit
2. the Lee Street Viaduct, and certain smaller complex sections like the couple of blocks on Forest where a median and a number of lanes suggest the simplification of one way running.

Otherwise, passing sidings are a product of both space and a short study of time and estimated scheduling. This is something that could be done in a week, but I'd allow 90 days for such studies. 3 or 4 vehicles actually driving the route, making the stops and following every traffic rule can also ferret out problem spots that a simple study of time/distance might miss. These could be anything from a long stop light to a heavily patronized bus stop.

The new standards for American Streetcars are already roughed in and we are spot on with our simplistic designs.

Practices to Avoid

The following are examples of practices common to light rail, rapid transit, or heavy rail modes that have been or might be applied in a streetcar environment, and which these standards seek to discourage.

1. Use of overhead support poles much larger than required
2. Use of catenary overhead wire construction in an urban streetscape
3. Use of multiple contact wires or feeders or other overly complicated designs in a streetscape
4. Use of heavy trackwork in or near a streetscape
5. Use of intrusive station designs in a streetscape
6. Use of fences between track or other construction techniques that may cause the streetcar line to be a barrier dividing the community
7. Prohibition of station stops on grades or curves

Practices to be Encouraged

This standard seeks to encourage approaches such as these:
1. Simple bracket arm overhead wire supports designed to add an attractive feature to the urban environment
2. Overhead span wire support poles of minimum cross section, shared with street lighting or other utilities
3. Track on a median or streetside reservation surrounded by grass to level of the rail head
4. Unobtrusive street turnouts and crossings
5. Minimal but accessible station designs
6. Station designs that conform as much as possible to the contours of the streetscape
7. Simple raised or delimited track reservations that separate auto traffic from streetcars but that allow rubber-tired access in emergency situations
8. Electrical substations placed so as to minimize visual intrusion and avoid use of real estate better suited for other purposes
9. Direct fixation

Introduction/Statement of Purpose (Second Draft)
Heritage Trolley / Streetcar Infrastructure Standards
J. Schantz - September 2007

Draft List of Topics to be Covered in this Standard - Directly or by Reference to other Standards

1. Track cross slope
2. Use of girder rail vs. T-rail
3. Use of cast vs. built up frogs
4. Guidelines for direct suspension overhead
5. Guidelines for substations
6. Design and placement of feeder wires
7. Guidelines for signals
8. Guidelines for placement of stations (including hills, curves)
9. How to build street track with minimal disruption of traffic and local businesses/residents
10. Allowable grades and minimum curve radii.

There is also a scheduling graph that will lay out the exact locations of all passing sidings as soon as we know the exact speeds at different times of day, over the entire route.

OCKLAWAHA

If there's a streetcar from DT to Rside, I'm buying a place DT.

That's one vote in the right direction already... do I hear a second?

btw, I have located 5-6 VINTAGE cars that can be had for a song...

OCKLAWAHA