Metro Jacksonville

Hello team, I think it's time to take an MJ poll before our transportation transition committee. You can vote only once but I do allow you to change your vote.

CHANGE JACKSONVILLE?YES WE CAN!

OCKLAWAHA

Even though I really want to see the skyway expansion and commuter rail, I voted for streetcar because it is one that I believe we can do locally without involving state or federal politics (and JTA).

That was a really hard list but I had to go with the skyway. We need to invest in the little bit of transportation that we already have. I would love to see commuter rail, streetcar, and the JRTC, but the skyway is the most important, IMO.

Why isn't "moving Amtrak downtown" on the list? Can't that be done without building the transportation center?  I really think that would show this administration is serious about public transportation.  Even though I voted for the Skyway, I fear that Brown will have more of a political battle trying to expand the Skyway.  Whereas if Amtrak moves downtown first, then we have a stronger argument for expansion.

I know that the mayor doesn't have any say on the bus routes, but I think that pressure should be placed on JTA to streamline their system.  It's been mentioned on here ad naseum about all of the routes that circle through downtown, but it's truly adding between 15-20 minutes per bus per trip - multiply that by the dozen and a half busses that travel down Newnan & Bay everyday and IMO JTA could instantly generate faster headtimes, less operating cost and more importantly generate more ridership with a better working system.  I've submitted forms online, I've emailed people that I've been referenced to from others on this site - no response.  I've talked with the drivers personally and they tend to agree with me that they would rather not make the loop.  They would rather hold at the Prime Osborne skyway station and terminate their routes there rather than fight the morning/afternoon traffic.

Quote from: brainstormer on June 25, 2011, 08:16:28 PM
Why isn't "moving Amtrak downtown" on the list? Can't that be done without building the transportation center?  I really think that would show this administration is serious about public transportation.  Even though I voted for the Skyway, I fear that Brown will have more of a political battle trying to expand the Skyway.  Whereas if Amtrak moves downtown first, then we have a stronger argument for expansion.

Fixed it for you. Frankly it was one of those "so obvious" poll questions that I passed it by... Can't see the forest for the trees?

OCKLAWAHA

Quote from: dougskiles on June 25, 2011, 06:59:58 PM
Even though I really want to see the skyway expansion and commuter rail, I voted for streetcar because it is one that I believe we can do locally without involving state or federal politics (and JTA).

I voted for the streetcar too. A straight shot from the Prime Osborn to a spot near the Stadium down Bay Street. I just believe that you bring the 3 big rail players and just ask and seek guidance on dividing the length of the rail that will be needed into 3 sections. Have a contest.  CSX, FEC, who is another one?

I don't pretend to be a rail guy but just one thought. Start with the Shipyards property. The straight shot down Bay and then when you get to the Shipyards what if you then bring the track around the perimeter of the bulkheaded improvements with a setback of 10', 20' 30' that is up for total debate. But what you have done is guaranty an additional visual public access corridor along the river.

The 3 big railroad guys can then break this area in three equal sections. Have the CSX rail team, The FEC rail team, The vacant property can store supplies, and it would just be good practice and knock some of the kinks out it before you would have to get into road closures and a lot more logistics. I know personally I'd volunteer to lay a section of track. Singles and not the big homerun.

I was torn between the skyway and street car because I believe both will yield big benefits but voted skyway in the end.

Ock,

Thanks for adding the last one.  It's cheap.  It can be done quickly.  It will bring passengers downtown and it will let people traveling on Amtrack see our city.  Thin end of the steel on steel wedge!

I wish I could have chosen them all, but I choose the streetcar. It is the cheapest fix and can be implemented rather quickly. Some of the other items are long term goals.

In order:

-Streetcar (because its time).

-Bike Network. So far no one has voted on this but it is SORELY needed & a big chuck of an interconnected/walkable culture. Oh, and we're in FL (bike-friendly climate year round). The city sucks badly on this one & there's no excuse for it.

-Skyway Improvements. I put this one further down because even though its needed, it will likely be pretty expensive & therefor harder to implement. We should fix the core basics first then finish it off with a Skyway expansion. Plus you'll get better support for it.

-Move Amtrak Downtown. I think you'd have to get the city better connected before this makes sense. Although it probably wouldn't hurt to do it sooner so the demand it greater.

-Commuter Rail. This should really be the last piece of the puzzle for obvious reasons. Meaning getting the core hooked up first, then worry about bringing people in from the outer areas. If you do it backwards it probably wouldn't work because if a person takes the rail into a poorly connected core, then no one will bother.

I appreciate the inclusion of "complete streets" as one of the choices but unless more people understand what that means, nobody's gonna vote for it.  It costs nothing to adopt a policy and once that policy is in place it will become much easier to do everything else on this list. 

Stay tuned.

Streetcar now our past and future.

1) Mile Point
2) Bring Amtrak downtown
3) Intermodal rail terminal
4) Complete streets
5) Privately funded transit shelters
6) JRTC
7) Commuter busses
8) Streetcar

Some of these are simple policy changes, like encouraging private companies to sponsor bus stops.  This should be an easy pass a new referendum, sit back, and watch the results.

Mile Point and the Intermodal Terminal are extremely expensive and extremely important projects and will boost our economy and make Jacksonville a very attractive place for industry.

Bringing Amtrak downtown to a temporary terminal is also important.  These should be the short term fixes, as in let's get started on them this year!

Streetcars, commuter rail, and BRT are major projects meant for economic development and promoting urban infill, but we don't necessarily "need" them right now.  Also commuter busses are less expensive and heavily used.  They are actually quite nice.  Commuter busses come to Downtown and Midtown stations ever minute from 4 different counties and bring tens of thousands of commuters a day.  They pay 1.5x as much as traditional train fare to sit in comfortable cushioned seats.  During rush hour there will be 5 of these busses at a time lined up at the MARTA station across from me in Midtown and they will fill up quickly.  GRTA, CCT, and Gwinnett County transit busses.  These could work in Jacksonville by bringing beach commuters and Orange Park commuters to downtown.

Quote from: simms3 on June 26, 2011, 03:16:07 PM
Some of these are simple policy changes, like encouraging private companies to sponsor bus stops.  This should be an easy pass a new referendum, sit back, and watch the results.

Are you sure about the phrase "easy pass"?  Especially in Jacksonville, FL? 

I would say everything listed by everyone here is pretty much going to be a strong political fight that takes up a ton of work, energy, and cash to implement (except those already planned).  People are going to want studies, research, consultants, lawyers (a lot of these guys!), and so forth before they even open their minds to even considering the projects. Even then, they are going to want more and more stuff till you figure out why a $5 toilet seat can cost over $200. 

Quote from: peestandingup on June 26, 2011, 11:00:31 AM


-Skyway Improvements. I put this one further down because even though its needed, it will likely be pretty expensive & therefor harder to implement. We should fix the core basics first then finish it off with a Skyway expansion. Plus you'll get better support for it.

I totally agree. Also, the skyway expansion can not be effectively implemented until downtown has a plan out in place. Once downtown has a true plan, the skyway can use that to plan for the expansion.

Hey OCK I have a question, in regard to street cars, where would they be housed?  I know where the skyways cars are now, the street cars used to be. I guess they would be housed at the transportation center?

Because the fleet is likely to be a mix of authentic reproductions and actual historic period cars, I'd love to see it somewhere near the freeway complete with gift shop, museum, barn and restoration facility. Somewhere near Beaver, Union or State and Davis or Lee would be perfect, somewhere on Forrest would also work fine but it's more confusing to get to for long distance travelers.

Of course I'm just one voice and nothing official, so it will probably get stuck in Brooklyn next to the Skyway Facility which is a poor site for visitors. I don't think anyone at the transportation authority or the city really "gets it" when it comes to a hybrid TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM-OPERATING MUSEUM concept. It's the last hope of doing something unique with our streetcars.

I have seen or heard no plans to keep streetcars or buses at the JRTC though commuter rail cars might spend occasional nights there.

OCKLAWAHA

Quote from: Noone on June 26, 2011, 04:56:53 AM

Quote from: dougskiles on June 25, 2011, 06:59:58 PM
Even though I really want to see the skyway expansion and commuter rail, I voted for streetcar because it is one that I believe we can do locally without involving state or federal politics (and JTA).

I voted for the streetcar too. A straight shot from the Prime Osborn to a spot near the Stadium down Bay Street. I just believe that you bring the 3 big rail players and just ask and seek guidance on dividing the length of the rail that will be needed into 3 sections. Have a contest.  CSX, FEC, who is another one?

I don't pretend to be a rail guy but just one thought. Start with the Shipyards property. The straight shot down Bay and then when you get to the Shipyards what if you then bring the track around the perimeter of the bulkheaded improvements with a setback of 10', 20' 30' that is up for total debate. But what you have done is guaranty an additional visual public access corridor along the river.

The 3 big railroad guys can then break this area in three equal sections. Have the CSX rail team, The FEC rail team, The vacant property can store supplies, and it would just be good practice and knock some of the kinks out it before you would have to get into road closures and a lot more logistics. I know personally I'd volunteer to lay a section of track. Singles and not the big homerun.

I seriously doubt that the railroads would want to get involved in any aspect of streetcars or light rail development. If it's materials that we seek, their rail is WAY too heavy for streetcar use 132 pounds per yard to 90 pounds per yard would be a typical comparison.

I also don't see Bay Street involved with the streetcar at any point except Bay between Myrtle and Lee. The Skyway rightfully has staked a claim to Bay and some engineering has been done. Sending the streetcar under the Skyway would result in needless duplication of services. That said however I would think that WATER-INDEPENDENCE between Newnan and Lee would be a natural, with an eventual return loop on DUVAL and MONROE streets, again between Newnan and Lee.

Streetcar can be done very fast and because of the light rails and equipment it doesn't need the excavation that regular railroads would need in the street. Streetcars will weigh in at between 25,000 and 75,000 pounds while a CSX locomotive weighs in excess of 300,000 pounds.

OCKLAWAHA

I want to add that this time of the post. If you would please divide your attention by turning your head to your right and you will see the poll result shows a MIDDLE finger basically the streetcar option giving the lovely birde chirping at JTA.

That is all. Rock on, Uncle Ockie!

-Josh

IMHO, streetcar more easily spurs development and activity compared to the skyway.  I just get a bit uneasy seeing a streetcar line duplicating some of the skyway line - coming out of the convention center and down Bay past Central Station. 

Ock,
I am inclining to vote for the skyway expansion. I have a question though. Can the skyway be built cheaper if the expansion drops the rails to the ground in certain areas that allow it? is that even possible with a skyway/ monorail type system?

i don't think that our skyway uses a rail system that is suitable for ground level. no vehicle will be able to cross it.
but i might be wrong

It could certainly be cheaper if we went to a single elevated beam.  No fancy sidings one beam handling both directions direction with short passing zones.
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSsTpgKR_JkYpCGE4z3sa4Vov7eteE0eDk5zB6k86M0wWn1F7c6tQ)

I couldn't vote for skyway expansion. I want it to be expanded, but I think we'll be hamstrung in how we go about that. More than any of the other options, we'd be hearing from the naysayers at every step of the way in skyway expansion. And whatever we do, the first leg of expansion had better increase ridership substantially, or else I don't see the public having enough confidence in it to support any further expansion any time soon.

Quote from: Dapperdan on June 27, 2011, 07:39:57 AM
Ock,
I am inclining to vote for the skyway expansion. I have a question though. Can the skyway be built cheaper if the expansion drops the rails to the ground in certain areas that allow it? is that even possible with a skyway/ monorail type system?

The issue with Skyway and changing its steep level grades is that the trains doesn't have the full capability of keeping up with the strength going uphill even fully loaded. Correct me if I am wrong, but would the riders want to get jinxed from going up and down sharply.

If this can be built, it would be a really really really long level grade like the Acosta Bridge as an example.  I wouldn't recommend creating a Skyway crossing where the cars would cross because it would be suicide and defeat the whole purpose of a safe and precise monorail system.

I also agree that Walt Disney World's Monorail System is one of the best working systems in the world with exception of the incident with that poor kid.

-Josh

Can't the skyway be expanded without support. I mean, as long as JTA gets the money and wants to do it, can't they? A lot of the citizens of Jacksonville are so critical on everything that is done here. If they listen to those poeple, nothing will ever get done.

Quote from: Jdog on June 27, 2011, 07:39:33 AM
IMHO, streetcar more easily spurs development and activity compared to the skyway.  I just get a bit uneasy seeing a streetcar line duplicating some of the skyway line - coming out of the convention center and down Bay past Central Station. 

Jdog, I hear you with that duplication. But next on my list would have been moving the Amtrack station to the Prime Osborn. More tourists.

At the last River Summit a presentor Kim Delaney from south Florida ( I like her) spoke about transporting an Amtrack  railroad car not only with passengers but also an additional car that could be loaded with bikes. Tourism!

Ock, the requirements then for rail lines being less for load is good. So who are three street car rail companies that you would use? Do you have a contact person or number? Sidenote next time your at the VA go and check out the Streetcar pole or railroad light pole behind the St. Lukes Hospital next to Hogans Creek.

Modern Streetcar, FTW!  :)

Modern Streetcar, while very cool, simply costs too much to consider right now. A heritage streetcar line once it's up and operating will support a modern streetcar, but its faster and cheaper to build, so... if you get my drift.

Single beam on the Skyway is the way to go once it is clear of downtown, anything south of the current Kings Avenue Station, East of Berkman, West of the Jacksonville Terminal, a riverside line would probably have to have the sound barrier walls.

The Skyway would be cheaper on the ground but it CAN NOT be crossed by pedestrian or automobile (reason number 6765 of why I told Mayor Jake NOT TO BUILD IT. It can handle the grades up to and as steep as any bus could. It also would have to be fenced to prevent anyone from touching the 3rd rail (600 volts DC) and turning themselves into a french-fry. Single track would work on the ends of the system for economy and could be built with the bents in place to support a future second beam.

Lastly no matter what you choose, the Skyway has resulted in at least 3 major developments. The Hilton, Wachovia Building and Omni all credit the Skyway for their presence.


OCKLAWAHA

My vote was "complete streets" only because it can be implemented with relatively no up front costs and will create a huge long term benefit.   Simultaneously, enhance the water to rail links at Jaxport and open it directly up to more rail companies.

2nd - Get a simplified combination of a consolodated JRTC and Amtrak bact at the Prime.  Also working with Amtrak to move forward with the FEC line proposal and working in potential commuter stops.

3rd - Build the streetcar line from Riverside to Shands via downtown.

4th - Expand the skyway down to the sports complex with a one way loop around the stadium

5th - Commuter rail line from (as described in the poll above)

6th - Connect the Airport to the northern portion of the commuter line via monorail system (as indicated in the model at the airport).

Quote2nd - Get a simplified combination of a consolodated JRTC and Amtrak bact at the Prime.  Also working with Amtrak to move forward with the FEC line proposal and working in potential commuter stops.

3rd - Build the streetcar line from Riverside to Shands via downtown.

4th - Expand the skyway down to the sports complex with a one way loop around the stadium

I like all three of these, and in that order.

My choice was mile point.  We need to get the port completed so that we can bring in more business and maintain the foothold we currently have in the shipping industry on the east coast.  Mile point will prevent us from getting federal funding for deepening the port, because until Mile Point is fixed, our port projects aren't really shovel ready.

The port can be the economic driver for many of these other projects.  Also, I believe many of the rail projects can be completed with a public private partnership once we have a fully functional Post Panamax deepwater port.  CSX and FEC will have large incentives to work with the city to optimize our rail network for both freight and passengers.  With a coordinated effort between departments, we can use this time for reformatting and developing the JRTC as well as commuter rail.

Quote from: Jason on June 28, 2011, 09:02:11 AM
My vote was "complete streets" only because it can be implemented with relatively no up front costs and will create a huge long term benefit.   Simultaneously, enhance the water to rail links at Jaxport and open it directly up to more rail companies.

2nd - Get a simplified combination of a consolodated JRTC and Amtrak bact at the Prime.  Also working with Amtrak to move forward with the FEC line proposal and working in potential commuter stops.

3rd - Build the streetcar line from Riverside to Shands via downtown.

4th - Expand the skyway down to the sports complex with a one way loop around the stadium

5th - Commuter rail line from (as described in the poll above)

6th - Connect the Airport to the northern portion of the commuter line via monorail system (as indicated in the model at the airport).

My vote was for complete streets as well.  No more pedestrian deaths!

1.  Port
2.  Complete streets
3. transportation plan that seamlessly re-connects urban neighborhoods to the core... it's time to reunite the neighborhoods cut off from each other by massive expressways.

Quote from: fieldafm on June 28, 2011, 02:34:16 PM
1.  Port
2.  Complete streets
3. transportation plan that seamlessly re-connects urban neighborhoods to the core... it's time to reunite the neighborhoods cut off from each other by massive expressways.

How could number 3 be done? 95 and 10 can't be closed or anything so how would that work?

voted. Bike network.
this is /should be an element of complete streets, yes?

had a difficult time deciding...

Another few QUESTION_s
I read -but have no knowledge of an "approved" first leg of streetcar from King St at StVincents hospital, to Shands on 8th.
When will we see this?
Also,
I wonder which path the tracks may take as they head southwest out of town through Riverside and Avondale?
Is the brick building at  the corner of US17 and StJohnsAve an old JaxTrax power station?

Yay, the streetcar is winning!!!!

Quote
The Great American Streetcar Scandal

Dear EarthTalk: Did the car companies really conspire to kill the trolleys and streetcars of bygone days to force us to become dependent on automobiles instead? -- Taylor Howe, San Francisco, CA

How General Motors Derailed Public Transportation to Sell More Cars
Indeed, in the 1920s automaker General Motors (GM) began a covert campaign to undermine the popular rail-based public transit systems that were ubiquitous in and around the country’s bustling urban areas. At the time, only one in 10 Americans owned cars and most people traveled by trolley and streetcar.

Within three decades, GM, with help from Standard Oil, Firestone Tire, Mack Truck and Phillips Petroleum, succeeded in decimating the nation’s trolley systems, while seeing to the creation of the federal highway system and the ensuing dominance of the automobile as America’s preferred mode of transport.

GM Bought and Dismantled Streetcar Lines Nationwide
GM began by funding a company called National City Lines (NCL), which by 1946 controlled streetcar operations in 80 American cities.

“Despite public opinion polls that showed 88 percent of the public favoring expansion of the rail lines after World War II, NCL systematically closed its streetcars down until, by 1955, only a few remained,” writes author Jim Motavalli in his 2001 book, Forward Drive.

Buses Were First Step to Ending Streetcar System
GM first replaced trolleys with free-roaming buses, eliminating the need for tracks embedded in the street and clearing the way for cars. As dramatized in a 1996 PBS docudrama, Taken for a Ride, Alfred P. Sloan, GM’s president at the time, said, “We’ve got 90 percent of the market out there that we can…turn into automobile users. If we can eliminate the rail alternatives, we will create a new market for our cars.” And they did just that, with the help of GM subsidiaries Yellow Coach and Greyhound Bus. Sloan predicted that the jolting rides of buses would soon lead people to not want them and to buy GM’s cars instead.

Automaker Used Political Clout to Build Roads for Cars
GM was later instrumental in the creation of the National Highway Users Conference, which became the most powerful lobby in Washington. Highway lobbyists worked directly with lawmakers to craft highway-friendly legislation, and GM’s promotional films were showcasing America’s burgeoning interstate highway system as the realization of the so-called “American dream of freedom on wheels.”

When GM President Charles Wilson became Secretary of Defense in 1953, he worked with Congress to craft the $25 billion Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. Referred to at the time as the “greatest public works project in the history of the world,” the federally funded race to build roads from coast-to-coast was on.

Public Transportation is Regaining Poplarity
Today, many eco-advocates and urban planners alike yearn for a rebirth of public transit. In the face of nightmarish traffic tie-ups nationwide, widespread urban sprawl, loss of open space, and the global warming we owe largely to automobiles, will we ever see a return to mass transit as the dominant mode for moving people? According to the Public Transportation Partnership for Tomorrow (PT2), mass transit ridership has grown 21 percent since 1995â€"faster than both vehicle and airline passenger miles logged over the same period.

“Public transportation is a…means of helping our environment and conserving energy,” says the PT2 website. “If one in 10 Americans used public transportation regularly, U.S. reliance on foreign oil could be cut by more than 40 percent--the amount we import from Saudi Arabia each year.”

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com.

EarthTalk is a regular feature of E/The Environmental Magazine. Selected EarthTalk columns are reprinted on About Environmental Issues by permission of the editors of E.

http://environment.about.com/od/fossilfuels/a/streetcars.htm

QuoteHow could number 3 be done? 95 and 10 can't be closed or anything so how would that work?

A variety of ways... all of them revolve around transit making a seamless connection to the core.  Right now, there is a water-less 'moat' surrounding downtown.  We need to build a few bridges over that moat, so to speak.

Speaking of transportation, the skyway is doing well today.  Lots of people are using it as access to/from Alvin Brown's inauguration.  We were packed like sardines on my ride back to Hemming Plaza.

Seriously, ITS SIMPLE. KILL GM.

They are a pain in the arse for the American people especially the taxpayers and public transportation.

-Josh

Quote from: thelakelander on July 01, 2011, 12:10:53 PM
Speaking of transportation, the skyway is doing well today.  Lots of people are using it as access to/from Alvin Brown's inauguration.  We were packed like sardines on my ride back to Hemming Plaza.

From all that I hear- the skyway does not do too bad for being the train to nowhere.  Imagine if it went somewhere. 

Just goes to show when there is something happening Downtown. People will use it!

There definitely was a lot of people using the skyway today. When I was leaving the Prime Osborn, I saw a lot of people walking up the stairs to get on it.

I agree that we need to move Amtrak downtown ASAP - even if it is to a temporary facility.  As long as we keep the Amshack on Clifford Lane, Amtrak will stay on the back burner for another decade...

Quote from: ricker on June 29, 2011, 01:16:47 AM
voted. Bike network.
this is /should be an element of complete streets, yes?

had a difficult time deciding...

As a policy Complete Streets is not really instead of any of the other choices on this list.  On the contrary, a Complete Streets policy would help to advance most of these listed projects.

Complete Streets would certainly include bicycle accommodations but depending on how the policy was set up it is also possible that bicycle trails where no streets exist might be a different animal. It also would include accommodations for mass transit, trucks, autos etc. but not necessarily create any of those networks.

OCKLAWAHA

Quote• Treat walking and bicycling as equals with other transportation modes.

• Ensure convenient access for people of all ages and abilities.

• Go beyond minimum design standards.

• Collect data on walking and biking trips.

• Set a mode share target for walking and bicycling.

• Protect sidewalks and shared-use paths the same way roadways are protected (for example, snow removal)

• Improve nonmotorized facilities during maintenance projects.

The new US DOT Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation Regulations and Recommendations are posted on FHWA’s website.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/policy_accom.htm

At its base, complete streets is just a policy of where you design all new streets and retrofit existing ones in a manner that treats all modes as equals.  For example, instead of just placing a 5'-wide sidewalk and calling it a day for pedestrians, the sidewalk would be set back from the street to buffer pedestrians from fast moving auto traffic, shade trees would be added to provide protection to the pedestrian from our extreme weather and street lighting would be pedestrian scale for safety.  The same goes with the bicycle mode.  Its more than about putting bike lanes on streets.  In some places, it may make more sense to mix bike and auto traffic.  In others it may make more sense to have separated bike paths buffered from high speed vehicles.   

With that said, the concept also encompasses more than just physical road construction, engineering and design.  It can be as simple in the beginning as mapping your existing pedestrian, bicycle and mass transit networks to realize what you have and identify gaps in those networks (collecting data).  In this essence, I can see Dashing Dan's point.  If the policy is structured in manner that promotes treating all modes as equal priorities, that can also include working to make sure every mode has a reliable citywide connective network.  Considering Jax has limited network connectivity for pedestrian, bike and transit, it could influence funding priorities to quickly establish better connectivity with the alternative networks.

No doubt that it would bring on massive changes but my point is, for the purpose of the survey, while complete streets might treat all modes as equals, it is not THAT mode in and of itself. For example it might insist that every street has a streetcar track, but it is not a streetcar system.

OCKLAWAHA

I was just trying to clear up what "complete streets" are to those who may not understand the concept.  Nevertheless, yes you're right, its a policy not an actual system.  However, without it, no matter the what the actual system or alignment is, it won't be well utilized (ex. see Jax's disconnected transportation network today), without taking a context sensitive approach and apply complete streets oriented goals to its design and environment.  I'd say, its something that should be done in conjunction with every individual project listed on the list.

First, let me say, I like the Complete Streets idea, and the various agencies should implement it where-ever possible.  I would love more pedestrian-friendly streets - with shaded sidewalks more than a few inches from whizzing traffic, and a place for bikes to operate safely.

My question goes to the "where-ever possible" part of that.

Are Complete Streets wider for the same road capacity?  If you have an existing 4-lane street, with enough traffic to justify 4 lanes, would rebuilding it as a Complete Street be wider - with the bike and maybe parking lanes, transit amenities, a wide sidewalk separated from the roadway by a buffer?  If so, it would seem that in some (many?) cases the city or state would have to by more right of way.

Or is the idea that a Complete Street, in such a situation, would go on a "lane diet" and the attractiveness of the other modes would reduce demand so only one lane each way would be needed?  Or the traffic would move to parallel streets.

Or, are high capacity roads (Blanding, Atlantic, etc.) not good candidates for Complete Streets?  There is no one size fits all solution.

Quote from: Charles Hunter on July 02, 2011, 10:20:48 AM
First, let me say, I like the Complete Streets idea, and the various agencies should implement it where-ever possible.  I would love more pedestrian-friendly streets - with shaded sidewalks more than a few inches from whizzing traffic, and a place for bikes to operate safely.

My question goes to the "where-ever possible" part of that.

This is where "Context Sensitive Solutions" come into play.  Complete Streets is just a policy.  It doesn't address actual design requirements to accommodate each mode because there's no set way to properly address a particular issue (due to the wide variety of surrounding context).

QuoteAre Complete Streets wider for the same road capacity?

No.  It really depends on the context and road capacity is equally focused on all modes, instead of a dominant focus on automobile oriented capacity.

QuoteIf you have an existing 4-lane street, with enough traffic to justify 4 lanes, would rebuilding it as a Complete Street be wider - with the bike and maybe parking lanes, transit amenities, a wide sidewalk separated from the roadway by a buffer?  If so, it would seem that in some (many?) cases the city or state would have to by more right of way.

Or is the idea that a Complete Street, in such a situation, would go on a "lane diet" and the attractiveness of the other modes would reduce demand so only one lane each way would be needed?  Or the traffic would move to parallel streets.

Or, are high capacity roads (Blanding, Atlantic, etc.) not good candidates for Complete Streets?  There is no one size fits all solution.

[/quote]

You would look at each project on an individual basis.  For example, auto travel could justify 4 lanes because there isn't a viable alternative in place.  In that case, a lane diet that creates space for better pedestrian and bicycle amenities could change the mode split in certain urban environments (ex. Orlando's Edgewater Drive in the College Park neighborhood).

Here's a good before and after traffic study of Orlando's Edgewater Drive project:
http://www.cityoforlando.net/transportation/TransportationPlanningDiv/pdf/Edgewater.pdf

In some other cases, the street width may already be fine (Lake Shore Biz District at Blanding & San Juan) but improvements like the addition of street trees, bulb outs and medians at intersections improve pedestrian safety in crossing the street may be needed.

Then in others like a West Beaver Street, the amount of auto traffic may simply be too high and the speed too fast to add separate bicycle facilities to the corridor.  In that case, a solution might be to establish a bike corridor on an adjacent parallel less traveled street like Broadway Avenue. 

In the end, you really have to evaluate each project individually and the ultimate answers will range depending on that project's context and physical conditions.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-15-2Yd0S1Rk/Tg9R71pAmWI/AAAAAAAAFOI/wyywcwV4XZA/s800/STREETCAR-BUS-LANE-SFO.png)


(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-rodEZppZX64/Tg80uGwv_xI/AAAAAAAAFOA/MJxDJ8BOU4M/s800/passive%252520bus%252520lanes.png)

Since it is a dramatic policy change, I'd think any hang-ups would depend solely on how the policy was written. The desired points of implimentation would have to be flexible enough to alter the rules (San Marco Blvd for example). As for Blanding, I think the policy would prevent us from doing another real estate eating bus lane for a bus line with 20 minute headways... How much better could that space have been used.

I'd love to see it with passive bus and streetcar lanes anywhere they are warranted.  Most autos track somewhere around 4.5' to 6', while most buses are at 6.5'. The benefit is that impressed (a cheap brick look alike) asphalt or concrete can be laid in one lane with two smooth 'bus tracks'. An automobile can possibly span the 6.5' which means at least one tire is always on the bricks... OR the driver could get into the other SMOOTH lanes.

OCKLAWAHA

Quote from: Charles Hunter on July 02, 2011, 10:20:48 AM
First, let me say, I like the Complete Streets idea,

Are Complete Streets wider for the same road capacity?  If you have an existing 4-lane street, with enough traffic to justify 4 lanes, would rebuilding it as a Complete Street be wider - with the bike and maybe parking lanes, transit amenities, a wide sidewalk separated from the roadway by a buffer?  If so, it would seem that in some (many?) cases the city or state would have to by more right of way.

Or is the idea that a Complete Street, in such a situation, would go on a "lane diet" and the attractiveness of the other modes would reduce demand so only one lane each way would be needed?  Or the traffic would move to parallel streets.

Or, are high capacity roads (Blanding, Atlantic, etc.) not good candidates for Complete Streets?  There is no one size fits all solution.

Keep in mind that as a basic principle, moving people in cars consumes far more space than in any other mode of travel.  So once you get people out of their cars and onto bicycles, buses, or sidewalks, then you won't need nearly as much space overall. 

In the shorter term we need a specific policy that sets a maximum number of lanes per roadway.  FDOT used to have a policy like that.

Thanks all for the answers.  Looks like implementing Complete Streets will also require an investment in transit, even mundane stuff like regular bus service, to give folks a viable option to using their (OK, our) private autos, with our big carbon and space footprints.  One hour service just ain't gonna cut it.

Maybe, it would encourage JTA to reissue their bus shelter RFP. Transit riders and the elderly could certainly use some sort of protection from our harsh elements.

Speaking of applying "complete streets policy" on an existing street, here are a few shots of a local street in the Central Florida neighborhood I grew up in.  With this project, they didn't widen the street or purchase additional ROW.  They basically added pedestrian scale lighting and shade trees in the grass strip between the auto lanes and sidewalks.  Since the auto volume on this particular street isn't that high, bikes share the road with cars.

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Street-Scenes/Ave-T/P1370246/944287327_NYtoN-M.jpg)
Avenue T NE - Winter Haven, FL

The image below is of Pace Road, just north of Auburndale,  FL.  Pace Road is being widened and extended to serve the new USF Poly campus near I-4 and the Polk Parkway.  Pace is anticipated to generate heavy auto use so a decision was made to add a 12' wide multi-use path instead of bike lanes.

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Street-Scenes/Ave-T/P1370260/944287798_VJyRG-M.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Street-Scenes/Ave-T/P1370256/944287756_VChTE-M.jpg)


Orlando's Edgewood Avenue's lane diet is another form of applying complete streets policy to an existing street with constrained ROW.  In this case, they restripped a four lane FDOT road into a three lane facility with bike lanes and parallel parking.  For this project to happen, the city ended up taking over jurisdiction from FDOT.

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Street-Scenes/College-Park-Orlando/P1370213/944282109_haqLn-M.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Street-Scenes/College-Park-Orlando/P1370220/944282318_RiYde-M.jpg)


As a part of making downtown Kissimmee more walkable, the city was able to work with FDOT to restrip US 17/92 to include bike lanes.

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Street-Scenes/Downtown-Kissimmee/P1370457/944293071_45EJ2-M.jpg)

Went with complete streets because it helps us gets the most from what we already have transportation-wise and it is an easy to implement policy. It'll also help ensure the success of the others when and if they happen. I would say that the port is equally important, too, and in the long run would help generate revenue for the city to be used on other things.

In this town it makes sense to take a hard look at the traffic forecasts that everyone has been using.  I bet that a lot of them are unrealistically high.  Lower forecasts would make it much easier to do lane diets, etc.