Metro Jacksonville

Quote from: thelakelander on April 27, 2012, 10:23:21 AM
Any residential household with a car parked in public ROW also is a contributor to the perceived problem because the historic district wasn't designed for cars to serve as the dominant transportation choice.

Avondale was designed for cars.  Look it up.

Quote from: thelakelander on April 27, 2012, 10:23:21 AM

Quote from: cline on April 27, 2012, 09:58:30 AM

Quoteis it fair to allow exceptions to developers to solve "problems" that only are created by their own site plans and business intentions?

I don't think it's really fair to blame these "problems" on the MM site plan.  The perceived parking "problems" have not been caused by MM (after all, they haven't even opened yet)- they are ongoing.  Might MM contribute to the problem? Possibly.  However, every business and merchant in the Shoppes helps to contribute to the parking issue- whether they be a boutique or whether they are a restaurant. The last one in should not bear the burden of everyone. (fair-share comes to mind).

Any residential household with a car parked in public ROW also is a contributor to the perceived problem because the historic district wasn't designed for cars to serve as the dominant transportation choice.

THIS IS WHAT BUILT RIVERSIDE - AVONDALE...

Can anyone in this city imagine what this would do as a traffic, parking and development solution generator? Just in case anyone is actually wondering the streetcar in this photo is currently in operation... AND FOR SALE. For about 1/4 the cost of one of JTA'S BRT hybrid buses, we could actually take a small step toward a much larger solution.

IE: Start with a single car connecting a parking area FSCJ? and King Street... Then add a car and cover 5 Points, then...etc...
Trouble is this would require functional thought at City Hall, and a Professional Transit Agency not distracted by road building, unfortunately we have neither.

OCKLAWAHA

Ock:  What's the cost of this car?

There is plenty of density in the core to support streetcars, especially Riverside.

Quote from: fsujax on April 27, 2012, 02:32:44 PM
There is plenty of density in the core to support streetcars, especially Riverside.

Yes.  The streetcar density myth has been debunked ad nauseum on this website and has been dis-proven in practice in numerous other cities across the county.  However, the fact still remains, we need some sort of alternative transportation- whether it be streetcar or something else.

Quote from: Dashing Dan on April 27, 2012, 10:50:41 AM

Quote from: thelakelander on April 27, 2012, 10:23:21 AM
Any residential household with a car parked in public ROW also is a contributor to the perceived problem because the historic district wasn't designed for cars to serve as the dominant transportation choice.

Avondale was designed for cars.  Look it up.

Don't get so defensive before reading carefully.  Check the bolded part.  I didn't say it wasn't designed for cars.  I said it wasn't designed for cars to be the dominant mode of transportation.  I stand by that statement.  Check the city's historical development pattern outline and you'll find that the first auto oriented suburbs were platted later.

Quote from: Kay on April 27, 2012, 02:22:18 PM
Ock:  What's the cost of this car?

Birney Street Car #636. This is a very historic and unique car. New comparable units are going for $900,000! Beautifully maintained and presently leased and operating in a revenue service. Car is in great mechanical condition and is air conditioned.

Located in Texas

Price: $222,000

(http://activerain.com/image_store/uploads/1/2/6/4/7/ar131393988774621.jpg)
Here is another style for sale, the ubiquitous PCC.

There you have it Kay, would that any one of us could actually walk into Mayor Browns office and lay this on his desk. I also know of a double ended PCC car for sale for $60,000. The PCC is a very early attempt at streamlined 'modern' streetcars, something Jacksonville missed out on for selling out to General Motors, oh, I mean 'Motor Transit Company' a division of 'National City Lines.' Instead we got 'modern' buses and the groundwork for our dysfunctional mass transit system was in place.

RAP here is your chance, Avondale now is the time start screaming the the Kings Street Streetcar to downtown not exclude you.  Don't let them ignore you.  Squeaky wheel time before they break ground.

Quote from: thelakelander on April 27, 2012, 03:23:31 PM

Quote from: Dashing Dan on April 27, 2012, 10:50:41 AM

Quote from: thelakelander on April 27, 2012, 10:23:21 AM
Any residential household with a car parked in public ROW also is a contributor to the perceived problem because the historic district wasn't designed for cars to serve as the dominant transportation choice.

Avondale was designed for cars.  Look it up.

Don't get so defensive before reading carefully.  Check the bolded part.  I didn't say it wasn't designed for cars.  I said it wasn't designed for cars to be the dominant mode of transportation.  I stand by that statement.  Check the city's historical development pattern outline and you'll find that the first auto oriented suburbs were platted later.

You're splitting hairs here.  Avondale was designed for cars, period.

I'm  done here.

Dashing Dan is getting his panties wet for no reason.  I never said it wasn't designed for cars.  What's the purpose of trying to paint my quote in that light?  It's not my fault Telfair Stockton's crew designed it as a multimodal neighborhood with streetcars being the dominant transportation mode or it having a mix of walkable uses within close proximity of each other.  That was the urban living characteristics of that era.  What's the point in trying to rewrite history? 

Quote from: Dashing Dan on April 27, 2012, 04:01:14 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on April 27, 2012, 03:23:31 PM

Quote from: Dashing Dan on April 27, 2012, 10:50:41 AM

Quote from: thelakelander on April 27, 2012, 10:23:21 AM
Any residential household with a car parked in public ROW also is a contributor to the perceived problem because the historic district wasn't designed for cars to serve as the dominant transportation choice.

Avondale was designed for cars.  Look it up.

Don't get so defensive before reading carefully.  Check the bolded part.  I didn't say it wasn't designed for cars.  I said it wasn't designed for cars to be the dominant mode of transportation.  I stand by that statement.  Check the city's historical development pattern outline and you'll find that the first auto oriented suburbs were platted later.

You're splitting hairs here.  Avondale was designed for cars, period.

Many of the homes in Avondale were designed without driveways. How can you claim they were designed for cars period.

Quote from: JeffreyS on April 27, 2012, 04:16:34 PM

Quote from: Dashing Dan on April 27, 2012, 04:01:14 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on April 27, 2012, 03:23:31 PM

Quote from: Dashing Dan on April 27, 2012, 10:50:41 AM

Quote from: thelakelander on April 27, 2012, 10:23:21 AM
Any residential household with a car parked in public ROW also is a contributor to the perceived problem because the historic district wasn't designed for cars to serve as the dominant transportation choice.

Avondale was designed for cars.  Look it up.

Don't get so defensive before reading carefully.  Check the bolded part.  I didn't say it wasn't designed for cars.  I said it wasn't designed for cars to be the dominant mode of transportation.  I stand by that statement.  Check the city's historical development pattern outline and you'll find that the first auto oriented suburbs were platted later.

You're splitting hairs here.  Avondale was designed for cars, period.

Many of the homes in Avondale were designed without driveways. How can you claim they were designed for cars period.

He's right, in saying that Avondale was designed to accommodate cars.  However, that's not what I said in the statement that he was attempting to twist.  My original statement said that it wasn't designed for cars to be the dominant mode of transportation.  That's a fact, based off the historical development pattern.  I don't see the reason in having a side show circus break out in debating historical facts.  Accept it and move on to finding viable solutions.

QuoteMany of the homes in Avondale were designed without driveways. How can you claim they were designed for cars period.

Many of the houses also feature alleys where the residents would park. This is where some of the well to do vagrants live, in case you would like to see how the other half live in Avondale.

Quotemust have been interesting with the horses

Still have a hitching post in my front yard. Way cool!

Quote from: JeffreyS on April 27, 2012, 04:16:34 PM

Quote from: Dashing Dan on April 27, 2012, 04:01:14 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on April 27, 2012, 03:23:31 PM

Quote from: Dashing Dan on April 27, 2012, 10:50:41 AM

Quote from: thelakelander on April 27, 2012, 10:23:21 AM
Any residential household with a car parked in public ROW also is a contributor to the perceived problem because the historic district wasn't designed for cars to serve as the dominant transportation choice.

Avondale was designed for cars.  Look it up.

Don't get so defensive before reading carefully.  Check the bolded part.  I didn't say it wasn't designed for cars.  I said it wasn't designed for cars to be the dominant mode of transportation.  I stand by that statement.  Check the city's historical development pattern outline and you'll find that the first auto oriented suburbs were platted later.

You're splitting hairs here.  Avondale was designed for cars, period.

Many of the homes in Avondale were designed without driveways. How can you claim they were designed for cars period.

Interesting you bring this up.  One of the arguments at the meeting last night was that many of the homes around the Shoppes only have single-car driveways and that because of this, the other car (assuming a family with 2 cars) would need to park on the street (in order not to block the car in the driveway).  Unfortunately, this is not how it works.  The street is public ROW and anyone is able to park there.  Just because your house faces the street doesn't mean you get some sort of "variance" from the city that allows you, and you only, to park there.  Anyone is allowed to park along the streets.

Quote from: thelakelander on April 27, 2012, 04:21:33 PM
However, that's not what I said in the statement that he was attempting to twist. 

I'm not twisting anything. 

Avondale was designed for cars.  That's an obvious historical fact that we - lakelander and I - both agree upon. 

Whether it was designed exclusively for cars, predominantly for cars, or predominantly for some other mode, none of that changes whether or not Avondale was designed for cars.  All of this part of the thread is what I meant by splitting hairs.

But I'm not going to engage in a dialogue when my own posts are labeled as specious nonsense.

Quote from: stephendare on April 27, 2012, 04:49:06 PM

Quote from: Dashing Dan on April 27, 2012, 04:44:33 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on April 27, 2012, 04:21:33 PM
However, that's not what I said in the statement that he was attempting to twist. 

I'm not twisting anything. 

Avondale was designed for cars.  That's an obvious historical fact that we - lakelander and I - both agree upon. 

Whether it was designed exclusively for cars, predominantly for cars, or predominantly for some other mode, none of that changes whether or not Avondale was designed for cars.  All of this part of the thread is what I meant by splitting hairs.

But I'm not going to engage in a dialogue when my own posts are labeled as specious nonsense.

Well if you wouldn't engage in specious nonsense, then it wouldn't get labelled thusly.

It seems fairly clear that you were implying that the neighborhood was designed for cars only.

Which qualifies perfectly.

If you didn't intend to imply this, then why argue Lakelander's point?

'bye

Quote from: Bewler on April 27, 2012, 04:28:07 PM

Quote from: simms3 on April 27, 2012, 02:13:15 PM
And taxis are not the answer?  I know the stupid residents in Ortega wouldn'd dare "stoop so low" from their supposed high and mighty positions of influence and wealth to take a cab to the Shops,

Yeah, take that Oteegans! That'll teach you to uh... live over there.

Wait sorry what I meant to say was, SIIIIIIIIIIIIIMMMS! (Shakes fist)

Ouch! My, my this is absolutely Apocalyptic. In vino veritas, Eh? It appears my hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Um? As one who grew up in Ortega, I beg to differ. That Riverside Streetcar line ultimately belonging to the Jacksonville Traction Company ended at Aberdeen Street. It was the Ortega Company, that incorporated the Ortega Traction Company to tie the community (from Ortega Village) to Jacksonville. Through service into downtown was operated by both companies and the Ortega Traction Company and it's rolling stock were absorbed via a buyout by the larger Jacksonville Electric Company RY. Jacksonville Electric RY. was then conveyed to the Jacksonville Traction Company, which would ultimately extend the line to Black Point (Yukon-Camp Johnston). Bottom line, without Ortega, there would have been no Riverside Streetcar Line through Avondale, Fairfax, Ortega, and ultimately Camp Johnston (NAS JAX).

What those rich people DID was to revisit their little streetcar line when Jacksonville Traction heir to the former Jacksonville Electric RY. raised the fares in violation of a 'guaranteed fare' deal between the Jacksonville Electric Company RY and the Ortega Traction Company. They took it all the way to the Supreme Court which sided with Jacksonville Traction though they left room for the Ortega Company to collect damages the higher fare might have caused. To wit:

Quote

U.S. Supreme Court
ORTEGA CO. v. TRIAY, 260 U.S. 103 (1922)
260 U.S. 103

ORTEGA CO.
v.
TRIAY.
No. 75.

Argued Oct. 18, 19, 1922.
Decided Nov. 13, 1922.

Messrs. Herman Ulmer and W. T. Stockton, both of Jacksonville, Fla., for appellant. [260 U.S. 103, 104]   Messrs. Peter O. Knight, of Tampa, Fla., and J. L. Doggett, of Jacksonville, Fla., for appellee.

Mr. Justice McKENNA delivered the opinion of the Court.

The case is in narrow compass. Its purpose is to enjoin the appellee, as receiver of the Jacksonville Traction Company, grantee of the Jacksonville Electric Company as hereinafter stated and a corporation of Massachusetts, from collecting more than a particular fare, 5 cents, and compelling the specific performance of an alleged contract providing for such fare.

The grounds of the suit are set forth with great detail but may be epitomized narratively as follows: The Ortega Company was in 1910 and prior thereto the owner, and operated a line of electric railroad from the city of Jacksonville to a point in a place designated as Ortega in Duval county, Fla. The Ortega Company sold the railroad to R. J. Richardson, February 12, 1910, in pursuance of a contract, and March 6, 1911, Richardson and his wife conveyed the railroad to the Jacksonville Traction Company. Richardson was at all the times agent of the Jacksonville Electric Company.

The conveyance from the Ortega Company contained, among other provisions, the following covenant:

'The Jacksonville Electric Company further covenants and agrees that said street railroad shall be operated in such manner that passengers for a single fare of 5 cents may travel from any point reached by street cars in the city of Jacksonville to the terminus in Ortega and vice versa, over the lines of the Jacksonville Electric Company, and the line conveyed by the Ortega Company.'
And it was covenanted that--

'Said single fare of 5 cents shall be sufficient compensation for a continuous journey either way, with such transfers as may be necessary.' [260 U.S. 103, 105]   The Jacksonville Electric Company went into the possession of the railroad and operated it as agreed upon the basis of a 5-cent fare.
At the time of the conveyance, the railroad and its appurtenances were reasonably of the value of $33,157.37, and the conveyance was made in consideration of the covenant and a cash consideration of $10,000, less certain deductions. The cash consideration was of minor import; the principal consideration was the covenant.

At the time of making the contract with the Electric Company, the Ortega Company was engaged in the development of a large tract of land lying in Duval county at the terminus of the Ortega line, and the company sold the railroad for approximately $26,000 less than its reasonable value upon the express covenant of the Electric Company to operate the line upon a 5-cent basis. The continued violation of the covenant will deprive the Ortega Company of property worth many thousand dollars, and will result in irreparable injury to the company, 'the nature and character of which injury redress at law would be uncertain and inadequate and the damages resulting therefrom impossible of ascertainment.'

April 18, 1911, the Jacksonville Electric Company conveyed the railroad to the Jacksonville Traction Company and that company went into possession of the road and operated it in accordance with the covenant.

On October 30, 1919, appellee Triay was appointed receiver of the Traction Company and ever since has been, and still is, acting as receiver, managing and operating the railways and properties of the Traction Company, including the Ortega line.

From the time of the conveyance to the Jacksonville Electric Company until December 15, 1920, that company and the Traction Company and appellee, as receiver, successively operated the road on a 5-cent basis.

On the ---- day of January, 1920, appellee filed with the Railroad Commission of Florida a petition asking that [260 U.S. 103, 106]   the Commission assume jurisdiction of the rates and fares of the Traction Company and authorize an increase in them. The request was granted December 2, 1920, and a fare of 7 cents was authorized and has since been charged.

The Railroad Commission was created by the Legislature of the state in 1897 (Laws 1897, c. 4549) and was required (by the same law passed) in the same year, to 'make reasonable and just rates of freight and passenger tariffs to be observed by all railroad companies and all others engaged as common carriers doing business in this state.' Acts 1897, c. 4549. The requirement was repeated by an act passed in 1913 (Acts 1913, c. 6527), and by the latter act it was made the duty of the Commission to make reasonable and just rules and regulations to enforce the observance by the carriers of their tariffs.

The only provision of the Constitution of the state dealing with the powers of the Legislature is section 30 of article 16 which provides as follows:

'The Legislature is invested with full power to pass laws for the correction of abuses and to prevent unjust discrimination and excessive charges by persons and corporations engaged as common carriers in transporting persons and property, or performing other services of a pubic nature, and shall provide for enforcing such laws by adequate penalties or forfeitures.'
By reason of the constitutional provision and limitation, so much, the petition proceeds, of the legislative provisions above stated, as attempts to confer upon the Commission the power to increase the rates and charges of appellee, is unconstitutional and void and the order of the Commission is void and of no effect, and impairs the obligation of the contract between the Ortega Company and the Electric Company and constitutes a taking of the property of the Ortega Company without due process of law contrary to the Constitution of the United States. [260 U.S. 103, 107]   An injunction was prayed pending the suit and that appellee be compelled to operate the Ortega line at a 5-cent fare as covenanted and that the Ortega Company be granted such further relief as proper and agreeable to equity.

A motion to dismiss the bill for want of equity was made upon the ground that under the laws and Constitution of Florida the Railroad Commission had the power it exercised in authorizing the Traction Company to increase the fares and charges from 5 cents to 7 cents, and that such power since the adoption of the Constitution in 1885 could not be limited by private contract rights; such rights necessarily yielding to the public welfare as expressed in the laws and Constitution of the state.

The court took that view and, quoting section 30 of article 16 of the Constitution relied on by the Ortega Company, rejected that company's construction of it and decided that the Commission could raise as well as lower rates and that the Supreme Court of the state had so adjudged. The court, therefore, denied the motion of the Ortega Company for a temporary injunction and dismissed the bill...etc...

For the complete case summary see:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=260&invol=103

Now see! Doesn't that just warm the cockles of your heart when you think about all of us 'rich bastards?'

Quote from: Ocklawaha on April 27, 2012, 05:17:57 PM
Ouch! My, my this is absolutely Apocalyptic. In vino veritas, Eh? It appears my hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Um? As one who grew up in Ortega, I beg to differ.

I was just being facetious Ock, I'm on your side! Well not literally, but a good friend of mine lives in Ortega.

Quote from: stephendare on April 27, 2012, 05:28:30 PM
U.S. Supreme Court
ORTEGA CO. v. TRIAY, 260 U.S. 103 (1922)
260 U.S. 103

ORTEGA CO.
v.
TRIAY.
No. 75.

Argued Oct. 18, 19, 1922.
Decided Nov. 13, 1922.

Messrs. Herman Ulmer and W. T. Stockton, both of Jacksonville, Fla., for appellant.

Yes, Avondale's developer also owned many of the streetcar companies in Jacksonville.  There's no reason to be alarmed.  There were no SUVs driving around Jacksonville when streetcar suburbs like Avondale were designed and platted a century ago.  One could argue that the original streets were designed for bicycles and horse and carriages just as much as they were designed for automobiles.  Why aren't we searching for multimodal solutions again?

QuoteNorth Jacksonville Street Railway, Town & Improvement Co.

Plant and equipment - Miles of track (electric), 6.4; gauge 5 ft; 4 cars; power rented from city of Jacksonville.

Parks and Amusement Resorts - Roosevelt Park, at northern limits of city.

Officers - Pres. Telfair Stockton; Sec. Samuel P. Holmes; Treas. Ernest C. Budd; Gen. Man. L.A. Sohier; Supt. E.T. Smith.

Directors - Telfair Stockton, E.C. Budd, S.P. Holmes, H. Mason, F.C. Elwes.

General Office and Repair Shop at car barn, Roosevelt Park, Jacksonville, FL

Date of Information, March 1907.

http://books.google.com/books?id=BohkF-kBZHEC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=north+jacksonville+street+railway+company&source=bl&ots=YphVTxHBj-&sig=LfFxw3scrwysbiGgjIv9FhY6qXU&hl=en&ei=ncQnTMuvLoL-8AbfyJXwDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=north%20jacksonville%20street%20railway%20company&f=false

Quote from: Bewler on April 27, 2012, 05:37:32 PM

Quote from: Ocklawaha on April 27, 2012, 05:17:57 PM
Ouch! My, my this is absolutely Apocalyptic. In vino veritas, Eh? It appears my hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Um? As one who grew up in Ortega, I beg to differ.

I was just being facetious Ock, I'm on your side! Well not literally, but a good friend of mine lives in Ortega.

Not to worry, I was just having a little fun at your expense...LOL

OCKLAWAHA

There's a lot of blather about the need for or desirability of better public transportation. I have a question: Who would pay for it? Ridership certainly won't if what goes on today is an indication. I hear that ridership is extremely low.

Jacksonville is a very large area, and I don't see too many folks giving up their cars as a means to get from one far-flung place in town to another one. How far is it from San Jose to Avondale and how many transfers from one route to another would be needed?

I have another question, this one about what someone called "that streamlined beauty." Is the attractiveness of any area enhanced by another set of overhead power lines? NOT! One nice feature of new communities is underground utilities. Overhead electric lines detract greatly from the appearance of neighborhoods. Say, do those electric streetcars still send down showers of sparks as they cross connecting points?

Ock...I believe Ortega needed the streetcar when it had one a lot more than it would need let alone want right now.  Also, I make fun of the neighborhood somewhat lightheartedly, and believe me I'm qualified to do so (actually anyone is).

Anyway, can we all establish that Jacksonville has officially joined the ranks of every other city in America by now having an established society of NIMBYs??  I know city leaders have been NIMBYs for decades, but I believe the people haven't really had too many opportunities to form their own NIMBYism.  I think that the fact we now have NIMBYs is evident of things happening, positive things.

First for Dashing Dan, in 1910 Jacksonville had 903 automobiles registered, the City of South Jacksonville increased it's speed limit from 10 to 15 miles per hour and the State still imposed a 4 mph speed at intersections, grades, bridges and fills. By 1910 the streetcar line was built all the way to Ortega, meaning at least a couple of years worth of planning, so we could back date this to say 1908. To further refute the idea that the neighborhood was built with the automobile in mind the city of Jacksonville didn't have it's first automobile until January 1900, by 1903 we still only counted 40. In 1904 the first traffic ticket was issued for 'endangering the public safety' at the break-neck speed of 6 mph, as you probably know most streetcars operate at average speeds of 12-23 mph, certainly an incentive for riding the cars. Jacksonville's population in 1900, (remember that's when the first car entered the city) was 39,733 but by 1910 we had 75,163. So the 903 automobiles registered in the city in 1910, using 'transportation guy' real numbers, represented only 1.20 percent of the total population of the city. Seems to me there was scarcely a demand for 'automobile space.' Bottom line, without all of the he said, she said, automobiles were a complete obscure 'novelty' in 1910. As for simple 'street space,' I'd agree with you, but the mode of choice was either via foot, bike, horse or streetcar. 

Now about Avondale specifically, that 'Grand Entry and Paseo' that came into the suburb from the Northwest, that divided garden bedecked street known as Ingleside, was built to rival The Grand Paseo de la Reforma, which once led to Chapultepec. Secondly Mr. Ingle was the president of the Jacksonville Traction Company. Nuff said?

Yeah Stephen, I can still lay it down....LOL

OCKLAWAHA

Quote from: WmNussbaum on April 27, 2012, 06:48:25 PM
There's a lot of blather about the need for or desirability of better public transportation. I have a question: Who would pay for it? Ridership certainly won't if what goes on today is an indication. I hear that ridership is extremely low.

The streetcar system would be self financed by the City of Jacksonville, not JTA or the Federal Government, using funds currently on hold. See our articles on the Mobility Plan:

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2011-sep-2030-mobility-plan-the-cutting-edge-of-planning

Why would all of these cities join the streetcar club? BTW, this map is already outdated as many more have joined the chase.

QuoteJacksonville is a very large area, and I don't see too many folks giving up their cars as a means to get from one far-flung place in town to another one. How far is it from San Jose to Avondale and how many transfers from one route to another would be needed?

The streetcar is an attractor in and of itself, national experience has shown ridership about 3x that of buses. This is not a new phenomena, in the 1930s the JTCO offered 'excursion fares' so people could board and tour the city for a single price.
Streetcars became some of the biggest babysitters in the city.

QuoteI have another question, this one about what someone called "that streamlined beauty." Is the attractiveness of any area enhanced by another set of overhead power lines? NOT! One nice feature of new communities is underground utilities. Overhead electric lines detract greatly from the appearance of neighborhoods. Say, do those electric streetcars still send down showers of sparks as they cross connecting points?

Actually our streetcar as proposed is a 'heritage system' wherein we would use reproduction and vintage equipment (you ridership just went up). I am an advocate of SIMPLE TROLLEY WIRE, not complex catenary. Why do I like a simple trolley wire? It's simple, it's cheap, and it doesn't need an overhead maze.



Since you are apparently out-of-the-loop on modern streetcar systems (that includes new Heritage and Vintage systems) you should know that if push comes to shove and we want to spend some bucks, streetcars no longer need ANY overhead wires... but at the moment, this will cost you. Another reason why I like the KISS system.

Sparks? This city could use a little of St. Elmo's fire! The sparks are harmless and are confined to the area of the overhead wire, usually where it meets a 'trolley pan'. A trolley pan is similar to a piece of 'U' channel turned upside down. When entering a switch or crossing another route the trolley wheel or wiper is dragged from the wire, through the 'U' and then back onto the proper wire.

ECONOMIC'S IS THE REALLY BIG DOG.

QuoteFederal Transit Administration (FTA) research5 indicates that households located in transit- oriented communities (within a half-mile to a mile of a fixed guide-way station) save an average of approximately $250 per month or $3,000 per year per household in auto-related costs as compared to households in auto-oriented areas. These savings are associated chiefly with the ability to walk to a wider range of destinations and, to a lesser extent, to transit access itself.

• Portland, Oregon: A study undertaken by Al-Moisand and so on analyzed sales prices of homes in metropolitan Portland, Oregon. The study showed that a premium of 10.6% for homes within 1⁄4 mile of proximity to light rail station.

• Santa Clara: Cervero and Duckan (2002a) studied the benefits of proximity to rail in Santa Clara County, California All else being equal, large apartments within a quarter mile of a light-rail station commanded land-value premiums as high as 45 percent


• San Diego: Another research effort undertaken by Cervero and Duckan (2002b) found appreciable land-value premiums for different land uses in different rail-transit corridors in San Diego County. The most appreciable benefits were: 46% premiums for condominiums and 17% for single-family housing near Coaster commuter rail stations in the north county; 17% and 10% premiums, respectively, for multifamily hosing near East Line and South Line Trolley stations; and for commercial properties, 91% premiums for parcels near downtown Coaster stations and 72% for parcels near Trolley stations in the Mission Valley.

• Philadelphia: Voith (1993) found a premium for single family homes with access to rail stations of 7.5% to 8.0% over the average home values.

• Dallas: A study by Weinstein and Clower (2002) examined the 1997 to 2001 time period; the study revealed that proximity to a DART station exerts a positive influence on property valuations. Median values of residential properties increased 32.1 percent near the DART rail stations compared to 19.5 percent in the control group areas. For office buildings,
the increase was 24.7 percent for the DART properties versus 11.5 percent for the non-DART properties.

Similarly, because the price a commercial enterprise is willing to pay for a site is a function of its future expected return when operating at the site, and because the proximity of transit typically raises future expected return (through improved access to customers and workers), transit typically increases the value of nearby commercial units.

• Atlanta: In 1989, rents at a major development located near a transit station were $3 to $5 higher per square foot than those at other office of comparable quality a block away (Cervero et al., 1994).7

• Los Angeles: Commercial property values near planned transit corridors appreciated faster than similar properties away from the corridors during the 1980's, when the transit system was being planned and developed: property values near transit appreciated by more than 78 percent, properties away from transit gained only 38 percent (Fejarang, 1994).8

• New York City: On average, commercial property values increase by $2.7 per square foot, for every meter closer to a transit station (Anas, 1993).

• Washington DC Area: In the district, interviews with real estate brokers and appraisers revealed that commercial land prices near transit stations increased by around 100 percent several years after services began and by as much as 400 percent in some locales (Damm et al., 1980; Rice Center, 1987). At transit stations, in Bethesda and Ballston, projects immediately adjacent to station entrances commanded a $2 to $4 per square foot rent premium, relative to similar projects just a few blocks away.
SOURCE: http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/noncms/projects/streetcar/docs/EconomicAnalysis.pdf

QuoteThe Value Proposition: The Cincinnati Streetcar will foster sustainable development by creating more walkable destinations which enable residents and businesses to spend their money locally.

The burden of having to spend up to $25,000 to build one (or more) parking spaces for each new downtown housing unit will be eased on account of the Cincinnati Streetcar. The streetcar will redirect funds now spent on cars and parking to more and better housing.

In the Downtown Loop alone, economists estimate that the Cincinnati Streetcar will be the catalyst for $1.5 billion in new economic development over the first fifteen years of the streetcar’s operation. Compare this to the cost of the Downtown Loop - $102 million.

Over the first thirty-four years of the streetcar’s life, there would be reductions in Downtown traffic congestion with a Present Value of $16 million and low-income mobility benefits with a Present Value of $35 million. The major benefits stem from property developments that otherwise wouldn’t have occurred, and these have a Present Value of $379 million.

Economists calculated a Benefit/Cost Ratio of 2.75 to 1.00 over the 35-year life of the Cincinnati Streetcar. This is an astonishing rate-of-return for any kind of capital project, public or private. It far exceeds the returns that are usually achieved by widening highways.

Local and state governments and the Cincinnati Public Schools will gain earnings, property and sales taxes from the economic activity fostered by the Cincinnati Streetcar. Additional property tax collections on account of the streetcar are estimated to total $34 million over the first thirty years of its operation.

Economists estimate that the Cincinnati Streetcar will introduce $17 million in new consumer spending each year in downtown Cincinnati alone.

Using a conservative estimate of the total floor area now vacant in the project area, it appears that nearly 1,600 housing units could be created in the upper floors of buildings throughout Downtown and Over-the-Rhine. That’s a lot of new Downtown residents to shop in our stores, eat in our restaurants and provide more “eyes on the street.”
SOURCE: http://www.protransit.com/In-General/2008/10/cincinnati-streetcar-economics.asp

Overall the benefit of streetcar in Cincinnati is a projected ROI of $14 to $1

So even if the streetcar ran empty all day, every day, the development and real estate valuations alone would make it much more then any bus, car, or pair of tennis shoes.

QuoteOne noted contrast to the grid plan common in the neighborhood was the distinctive plat of the original Avondale Subdivision developed in 1925.  Designed by noted Ohioan landscape architect, William Pitkin, Avondale reflected a more contemporary residential plan as evident by the use of curvilinear streets, pocket parks, and generous grassy right-of-ways defined by sidewalks and curbs.  Opening during the height of the Florida Land Boon, Avondale was designed to accommodate the growing popularity of the automobile.

-Joel McEachin, City Planner Manger, Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission (2010)

Quote from: Dashing Dan on April 28, 2012, 02:07:33 PM

QuoteOne noted contrast to the grid plan common in the neighborhood was the distinctive plat of the original Avondale Subdivision developed in 1925.  Designed by noted Ohioan landscape architect, William Pitkin, Avondale reflected a more contemporary residential plan as evident by the use of curvilinear streets, pocket parks, and generous grassy right-of-ways defined by sidewalks and curbs.  Opening during the height of the Florida Land Boon, Avondale was designed to accommodate the growing popularity of the automobile.

-Joel McEachin, City Planner Manger, Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission (2010)

Thanks for confirming what everybody stated yesterday.  Feel free to post material that it was designed for automobiles as the dominant mode of transportation when you come across it.

QuoteInitially considered part of Riverside, Avondale quickly developed its own identity. The original Avondale subdivision was long and narrow, only 4-1/2 blocks wide (Seminole Road to just beyond Talbot) and one mile long (from the river to Roosevelt Boulevard).

http://www.coj.net/departments/planning-and-development/community-planning-division/default/history-of-riverside-and-avondale.aspx

A couple of interesting things here though.  Avondale was originally designed as a 4.5 block wide, 1 mile long subdivision, stretching from the river to Roosevelt.  Within that one mile stretch, there were two streetcar routes (Herschel and Roosevelt) leading back into the city.  So every resident was within walking distance of a streetcar route.  A multimodal friendly community where residents have viable mobility choices and options. What a concept.

Quote from: Dashing Dan on April 28, 2012, 02:07:33 PM

QuoteOne noted contrast to the grid plan common in the neighborhood was the distinctive plat of the original Avondale Subdivision developed in 1925.  Designed by noted Ohioan landscape architect, William Pitkin, Avondale reflected a more contemporary residential plan as evident by the use of curvilinear streets, pocket parks, and generous grassy right-of-ways defined by sidewalks and curbs.  Opening during the height of the Florida Land Boon, Avondale was designed to accommodate the growing popularity of the automobile.

-Joel McEachin, City Planner Manger, Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission (2010)

Yes of course, Joel was there and spoke with the developers... The numbers speak for themselves.

If you want to say they installed roads that 'could' include automobiles, bikes, or pogo sticks, then yes so did ancient Rome, Sparta and Teothiwacan, but obviously they were not built 'for' automobiles.

OCKLAWAHA

The development Dashing Dan should be talking about is San Jose.  That one was actually designed to be one of the first automobile oriented suburbs in the city.  It was originally developed by Claude Nolan, the guy who owned one of the first automobile dealerships in Jacksonville.  It didn't have any streetcar lines.

  ???   This thread is about Avondale. 

Yeah, Avondale has a pretty interesting multimodal oriented history.

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/574472793_fM6en-M.jpg)

Quote from: thelakelander on April 28, 2012, 05:23:59 PM
The development Dashing Dan should be talking about is San Jose.  That one was actually designed to be one of the first automobile oriented suburbs in the city.  It was originally developed by Claude Nolan, the guy who owned one of the first automobile dealerships in Jacksonville.  It didn't have any streetcar lines.

Well, almost. San Jose was developed with a 'fine roadway' all the way from downtown. It had a dedicated non-stop bus service that picked up prospective buyers and passengers at the downtown bus terminal and drove directly to the community. One might say San Jose was developed by embryonic 'bus rapid transit.'

HOWEVER, according to news stories, when the City of South Jacksonville built 'The South Jacksonville Municipal Railway's,' in 1923, they had cash left over, thus the line was extended to 'San Jose.' "Far out into the country." It did not, as best as I've been able to uncover, make it across the little creeks north of Lakewood. According to an old USGS map I believe the line ended about the intersection of San Jose and Worth Dr. From appearances, the track, like much of our system was 'side of the road running.'

The original San Jose subdivision was south of Lakewood.

Quote from: thelakelander on April 28, 2012, 08:23:56 PM
The original San Jose subdivision was south of Lakewood.

Yes, I wonder though based on the newspaper article, when they started the infill between San Jose and San Marco. In any case the article referred to the area as 'San Jose'. Interesting.

Quote from: thelakelander on April 28, 2012, 04:31:00 PM

Thanks for confirming what everybody stated yesterday.

Lakelander, the funny thing about all of this is that you and I have never disagreed about anything that has been posted on this thread about Avondale's history.

^Hilarious, isn't it.

 - but somehow I don't feel like laughing.

Maybe someday, but not yet.

Quote from: Dashing Dan on April 28, 2012, 09:23:17 PM
- but somehow I don't feel like laughing.

Maybe someday, but not yet.

We'll all laugh together as we board that Riverside/Avondale streetcar line and parking woes fade into the past! "Welcome aboard Dan, I'd like to introduce you to my friend Birney."

In a city ranked 21 of the top 35 cities ranked by freeway lane miles per 1,000 (.783 to be correct) it's time we look for a better solution to moving our people. BRT isn't it. In fact several little news tidbits out of Bogota, Railway Age Magazine, and some other sources I don't recall off hand are hinting at at disturbing high cost of BRT over the years when compared to rail. Have no fear though, we'll jump off that cliff too, our 'authority' says's so. Cha Ching!

Quote from: thelakelander on April 28, 2012, 04:31:00 PM
A couple of interesting things here though.  Avondale was originally designed as a 4.5 block wide, 1 mile long subdivision, stretching from the river to Roosevelt.  Within that one mile stretch, there were two streetcar routes (Herschel and Roosevelt) leading back into the city.  So every resident was within walking distance of a streetcar route.  A multimodal friendly community where residents have viable mobility choices and options. What a concept.

Those lines ran from:

Bay to Myrtle - Edison (originally 'Electric Av') - Dellwood - Margaret - Myra - Stockton - College - (crosses railroad) - Plymouth - Edgewood. From College to Edgewood the track was on private right-of-way alongside the west side of the current CSX tracks.

the other was:

Bay to Riverside to Edison - Oak - King - St. Johns - Aberdeen - Herschel - San Juan - Grand - Baltic - Manitou - Ortega - Orange Park Road (Roosevelt) - Alegheny - Albermarle. From at least Fairfax southward, this was all side of the road running.

There were probably smallish control towers located at the railroad and Edison and at College.

Quote from: Dashing Dan on April 27, 2012, 04:44:33 PM

Avondale was designed for cars.  That's an obvious historical fact that we - lakelander and I - both agree upon. 

Whether it was designed exclusively for cars, predominantly for cars, or predominantly for some other mode, none of that changes whether or not Avondale was designed for cars.

Quote from: Dashing Dan on April 28, 2012, 10:36:02 PM

Quote from: Dashing Dan on April 27, 2012, 04:44:33 PM

Avondale was designed for cars.  That's an obvious historical fact that we - lakelander and I - both agree upon. 

Whether it was designed exclusively for cars, predominantly for cars, or predominantly for some other mode, none of that changes whether or not Avondale was designed for cars.

The only places "designed for cars" are parking lots and drive-thrus. Just about every other space serves multiple purposes, and the designs are different accordingly.

Quote from: Ocklawaha on April 28, 2012, 11:31:51 PM
That Stockton and Ingle knew of automobiles there is no doubt, but automobiles were nearly as obscure in Jacksonville of 1910 then they were at Tenochtitlan.

"Avondale" wasn't developed until 1925 and autos were becoming popular by that time.  What's your point here?

Quote from: WmNussbaum on April 29, 2012, 09:03:41 AM
What has the history of the area got to do with a solution to the problem to be faced with people intensive development? We have what we have, and the reason for it just doesn't matter. However, it is not conceivable that Avondale and points west would have been created at all without the car to get residents to the central business district.

For those of us opposed to MM in the size proposed and the parking problem it will create, I say let's give our district Councilman a first-hand example of it. This coming Saturday night, let's all park cars in front of Jim Love's home and then go get them about 1:30 AM on Sunday.  He lives on the corner of Riverside and Edgewood.

in 1925 our daily streetcar ridership was roughly equal to the population of the entire city. Again automobiles WERE NOT the dominant or preferred mode of transportation.

Just as an aside, nobody in their right mind would suggest that Hitlers army's were not the most modern in the world in 1939-45. We've all seen endless film footage of the panzer's smashing everything before them. Operation Barbarossa, when the German's invaded Russian territory involved over 3.9 million troops... Guess how the amazing German 88MM field artillery traveled? HORSES. Even as late as 1939-45, horses still played an important part in transportation.

To ignore the history and the fabric that built the neighborhood and seek a modern automobile centric solution can only result in another 'modern neighborhood.' If a modern automobile focused community is what RAP wants by insisting on large surface parking lots for every business, then the modern 'urban creep' trickling down from 5-Point's will eventually overrun and destroy it. Driving down Park one can see various small businesses built into converted homes and their paved parking pads covering what were once elegant yards, this will only intensify as you struggle to accommodate the almighty car. Additional cars, regardless of your parking situation will only result in another road project, one that would probably be 'sold' to the residents as an 'amazing' new streetscape project.

The only way to prevent these types of problems from eventually eating Riverside/Avondale is to create fixed rail mass transit that actually goes somewhere. Imagine a starter system that runs from Bay and Newnan downtown all the way to Roosevelt Plaza, using Park, Herschel, San Juan and/or Roosevelt.  Job's at one end, Shopping at the other and dense residential and entertainment in the middle... Do this and Your free to move about the neighborhood.

Quote from: Dashing Dan on April 29, 2012, 12:20:48 AM

Quote from: Ocklawaha on April 28, 2012, 11:31:51 PM
That Stockton and Ingle knew of automobiles there is no doubt, but automobiles were nearly as obscure in Jacksonville of 1910 then they were at Tenochtitlan.

"Avondale" wasn't developed until 1925 and autos were becoming popular by that time.  What's your point here?

QuoteBy the summer of 1920, several wealthy investors led by Telfair Stockton had assembled a large tract of land including all of Edgewood and the adjoining riverfront property, at a cost of over $500,000. They developed an exclusive subdivision that would overshadow all of the smaller developments around it. Stockton chose the name 'Avondale' after a subdivision near James R. Challen's former home in Cincinnati. COJ

Just as a point of reference: The Year 1942


On January 16, 1942 a young Lt Ed Ramsey led his 27-man Troop G of the US 26Th Cavalry Regiment (Philippine Scouts) in a charge against Japanese infantry in the village of Morong. Mounted on his horse Bryn Awryn, a chestnut gelding, Lt Ramsey led the last American cavalry charge to victory and was awarded the Silver Star after the war.

Quote from: Ocklawaha on April 29, 2012, 11:22:48 AM
in 1925 our daily streetcar ridership was roughly equal to the population of the entire city. Again automobiles WERE NOT the dominant or preferred mode of transportation.

It's a simple fact that in 1925, Avondale was designed to appeal to automobile owners.

Avondale, like most neighborhoods platted in the early 20th century, was designed as a multimodal friendly district.  So yes, it was designed to appeal to the few automobile owners of that era, along with bicycle, transit, and pedestrian modes.  However, it wasn't designed to accommodate every Tom, Dick and Harry having multiple car households for every residential building product.

What we have today, similar to what FDOT does with their roadway designs, is an environment where we treat the automobile as the top transportation priority.  What we have to do is actually embrace the concept of Complete Streets.  Streets where the automobile isn't placed as a higher priority over alternative modes.  Instead, all modes are treated, planned, implemented, operated, and maintained as equals.

Quote from: Dashing Dan on April 29, 2012, 11:37:11 AM

Quote from: Ocklawaha on April 29, 2012, 11:22:48 AM
in 1925 our daily streetcar ridership was roughly equal to the population of the entire city. Again automobiles WERE NOT the dominant or preferred mode of transportation.

It's a simple fact that in 1925, Avondale was designed to appeal to automobile owners.

Yes, in 1920, when Stockton started the project, he knew that the Jacksonville Expressway Authority would doom his streetcar system. THIS is why he would have developed a neighborhood 'designed to appeal to automobile owners.' Just as You, Stephen and I, invested heavily with Steve job's and Bill Gates, because we "knew" that they were about to change our world.

Dan your premise is just wrong. Avondale was a classic 'streetcar neighborhood' and any attempt to paint it differently, is to ignore the historical significance of it's master plan. Once you decide to break with history, you've opened Pandora's box, might as well get ready to become 5-Points/Brooklyn South. As Stephen and Lake have pointed out, the deep pocket chain's will come, and since you want to make it easy for them to ignore the historic mass transit base, adaptive reuse will go right out the window.

Riverside/Avondale/Fairfax, more then ANY OTHER neighborhood's in our city are ideal for a heritage/vintage streetcar system.

Quote from: thelakelander on April 29, 2012, 11:55:14 AM
Avondale, like most neighborhoods platted in the early 20th century, was designed as a multimodal friendly district.  So yes, it was designed to appeal to the few automobile owners of that era, along with bicycle, transit, and pedestrian modes.  However, it wasn't designed to accommodate every Tom, Dick and Harry having multiple car households for every residential building product.

What we have today, similar to what FDOT does with their roadway designs, is an environment where we treat the automobile as the top transportation priority.  What we have to do is actually embrace the concept of Complete Streets.  Streets where the automobile isn't placed as a higher priority over alternative modes.  Instead, all modes are treated, planned, implemented, operated, and maintained as equals.

I am in complete agreement with every point that you've made here. 

Prior to WWII, developers were obliged to recognize that the cars of that era were very expensive and far from dependable, so that other travel options would also need to be provided for.

Quote from: Ocklawaha on April 29, 2012, 11:58:46 AM

Quote from: Dashing Dan on April 29, 2012, 11:37:11 AM

Quote from: Ocklawaha on April 29, 2012, 11:22:48 AM
in 1925 our daily streetcar ridership was roughly equal to the population of the entire city. Again automobiles WERE NOT the dominant or preferred mode of transportation.

It's a simple fact that in 1925, Avondale was designed to appeal to automobile owners.

Dan your premise is just wrong. Avondale was a classic 'streetcar neighborhood' and any attempt to paint it differently, is to ignore the historical significance of it's master plan.

In its day, Avondale was the antithesis of a streetcar neighborhood.

Thesis -

QuoteAlthough most closely associated with the electric streetcar, the term can be used for any suburb originally built with streetcar-based transit in mind, thus some streetcar suburbs date from the early 19th century. As such, the term is general and one development called a streetcar suburb may vary greatly from others. However, some concepts are generally present in streetcar suburbs, such as straight (often gridiron) street plans and relatively narrow lots.

Antithesis

QuoteOne noted contrast to the grid plan common in the neighborhood was the distinctive plat of the original Avondale Subdivision developed in 1925.  Designed by noted Ohioan landscape architect, William Pitkin, Avondale reflected a more contemporary residential plan as evident by the use of curvilinear streets, pocket parks, and generous grassy right-of-ways defined by sidewalks and curbs.  Opening during the height of the Florida Land Boon, Avondale was designed to accommodate the growing popularity of the automobile.

Quote from: stephendare on April 29, 2012, 12:04:50 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on April 29, 2012, 11:55:14 AM
Avondale, like most neighborhoods platted in the early 20th century, was designed as a multimodal friendly district.  So yes, it was designed to appeal to the few automobile owners of that era, along with bicycle, transit, and pedestrian modes.  However, it wasn't designed to accommodate every Tom, Dick and Harry having multiple car households for every residential building product.

What we have today, similar to what FDOT does with their roadway designs, is an environment where we treat the automobile as the top transportation priority.  What we have to do is actually embrace the concept of Complete Streets.  Streets where the automobile isn't placed as a higher priority over alternative modes.  Instead, all modes are treated, planned, implemented, operated, and maintained as equals.

Meh, I won't even commit to this kind of validation until some produces a slip of paper quoting Stockton as saying he designed the neighborhood to appeal to cars.

Did he also design it to appeal to hovercraft, golf caddies, domesticated ostriches, helicopters and cars regulated through computer chips?  Did he make design the neighborhood to be either google streetview friendly or welcoming to gay couples?

Reverse attribution is a slippery slope.

Here is a post card of Challen Avenue in 1923 from the Florida State Archives collection.  It shows a street with curbs, a sidewalk and a driveway to one of the residences.

(http://fpc.dos.state.fl.us/postcard/pc1437.jpg)

In the 1920s, when Avondale was developed, it was more likely that the wealthy would have had an automobile than the average person.  The original Avondale subdivision was considered upscale at the time.  It's not a stretch to say that it was designed to also accommodate the automobile.  However, it was a streetcar neighborhood with a mix of building types within walking distance of each other, cementing the fact that it was multimodal friendly.  Nevertheless, at the time, the streetcar would have been the primary means of travel between various districts of the city.

(http://fpc.dos.state.fl.us/prints/pr05251.jpg)
1816 Avondale Circle before the off-street driveways were added.

Quote from: Lunican on April 29, 2012, 12:19:35 PM
Isn't the proposed Mellow Mushroom in a commercial district?

Yes.  Telfair Stockton laid it out that way.  One of the commercial buildings Mellow wants to occupy was completed in 1922. 

Quote from: stephendare on April 29, 2012, 12:19:57 PM

Quote from: outofhere on April 29, 2012, 12:16:09 PM
Lakelander said:

I can't wait to bring my two sons over and enjoy a pizza when Mellow opens.  Hopefully, 7-11 can find a space too, so we can enjoy a slurpee afterwards while we loiter in the public park Mellow wants to construct.  Looking forward to seeing more people on the sidewalks and streets.

No need to wait. 3 locations are open and ready to serve you. Be sure and take you  sons during the "family friendly" 10 pm to 2 am happy hour.

Attended the Thursday mtg and couldn't believe how MM stretched the truth. At one time Valentine said he was used to working w/ neighborhoods because the beach location is in a neighborhood. HAH! A neighborhood of commercial establishments maybe but not homes.

As for the attendance at the mtg. The neighbors were respectful. There were a few outbursts and I remember some applause on both sides but no booing. It seemed like a typical neighborhood mtg. But I guess by MJ standards neighbors are to be seen but not heard.

No neighborhood should be asked to absorb drunks peeing, passing out or throwing up in their yards or driving down their streets. Nor should they be expected to have the fabric of their neighborhoods torn apart. 

There is absolutely nothing wrong w/ neighbors opposing commercial intrusion. But on this thread you'd think there was.

The neighborhood is both residential and commercial out of here.  The commercial properties are not 'intruding'.  They are already there and part of the neighborhood.

Yes, the neighborhood, like most from that era, were designed to be mixed use at a pedestrian scale level.  People didn't have to drive into downtown every day for their daily needs.  They could walk around the corner to their neighborhood market, retail shops, restaurants, etc.  In addition, follow the tracks and you'll find industrial uses as well.  Not everyone had to hop on a streetcar or in an automobile to access a place of employment, school, or store on the other side of town.

Quote from: stephendare on April 29, 2012, 12:33:22 PM
Dd you are simply quoting the published opinion of Dr Wood.

http://www.amazon.com/Down-Asphalt-Path-Automobile-American/dp/0231083904 (http://www.amazon.com/Down-Asphalt-Path-Automobile-American/dp/0231083904)

http://www.amazon.com/Streetcar-Suburbs-Process-Growth-1870-1900/dp/0674842111 (http://www.amazon.com/Streetcar-Suburbs-Process-Growth-1870-1900/dp/0674842111)

Quote from: stephendare on April 29, 2012, 12:45:33 PM
Great points, Lake.

However prior to the automobile street curbs were used to separate and shore up the pedestrian sidewalks.

They were made of octagon pavers and seriously vulnerable to erosion and mud intrusion.  The neighborhood was one of the first to provide universal sidewalks so that society folks didn't have to walk around in horse manure

Sure.  I'm just saying its not inaccurate to say it was designed to accommodate motorized vehicles.  It accommodated automobiles, pedestrians, bicyclist, horses & carriages, and streetcar users.   Those with property along the river could travel by water was well.  The mix of mobility choices allowed for a much greater density and level of street level vibrancy.  If we're looking for transportation solutions, based on history of the built environment, there needs to be a better balance of providing alternative forms of mobility.  The solution can't be autocentric based.

Regarding streetcar suburbs and whether they had straight or curvilinear streets, they had both.  It just depended on the context of the development site.

QuoteIn a greater sense, the streetcar suburbs of the early 20th century worked well for a variety of reasons.

- While most cities grew in a piecemeal fashion, without any real plan for future development, streetcar suburbs were highly planned communities that were organized under single ownership and control. Indeed, they would often be the first such developments in their respective cities.

- Most lots in streetcar suburbs were quite small by post-World War II suburban standards, allowing for a compact and walkable neighborhood, as well as convenient access to public transport (the streetcar line).

- Most streetcar suburbs were laid out in a grid plan, although designers of these suburbs often modified the grid pattern to suit the site context with curvilinear streets. Additionally, most of these pre-automobile suburbs included alleys with a noticeable absence of front-yard driveways.

- In terms of transportation, the streetcar provided the primary means for residents to get to work, shopping, and social activities. Yet, at either end of the streetcar trip, walking remained as the primary means of getting around. As a result, even in these early suburbs, the overall city remained very pedestrian friendly. This was not always the case for other vehicles. It should be noted that, at the turn of the 20th century, the bicycle was also a popular form of mobility for many urban dwellers of the era. (However, when the streetcar rail tracks were encased in the asphalt of a street the resulting trench, for the flanges of the steel wheels, created a dangerous hazard for cyclists, being big enough to trap bicycle wheels but not large enough to get out of easily.)

- Because of the pedestrian-oriented nature of these communities, sidewalks were necessary in order to avoid an unacceptable and muddy walk to the streetcar on an unpaved street. Trees lining the streets were also seen as critical to a healthy and attractive neighborhood. While such developments often occurred on farmland or other cleared sites, the evidence of the street trees planted can be seen today in the large, overarching canopies found in these attractive post-turn-of-the-20th-century communities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb

Ockalawa has posted some very pretty pictures of streetcars  I could not agree more that mass transit is the answer.  But before you start digging up streets for rail, the existing system that is already in place (buses) will need to show a significant increase in customers.  This is done by transit trackers.  Someone earlier in this lengthy thread stated that other cities that have this system only saw a 10% increase in ridership.  Hard to believe but the study may be factual.  You MUST have a bridge between customer and product in the form of transit trackers in this day and tech age.  I use mass transit every day here in Chicago and the trackers are essential to being at my stop and not freezing my ass off.  I can time my elevator ride down out of my building and arrive 1/2 a block away without any wait. 

Yeah this is hilarious.  It reminds of Shaq and that reporter during the 2006 NBA Finals. 

(http://i55.tinypic.com/10r0do8.jpg)