Imagine this. A city's mayor is leading the charge for the establishment of commuter rail in a metro nearly three times smaller than the First Coast.
QuoteRail backers work to keep idea rolling
By David Slade
The Post and Courier
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
They haven't determined if a commuter rail system would make sense for the Charleston area, but a tri-county planning committee has decided to go ahead and ask the state to help pay for one.
On Tuesday, the commuter rail subcommittee, headed by Charleston Mayor Joe Riley, asked the staff to prepare a funding application, even though the amount is unspecified.
Riley had urged the subcommittee of Charleston Area Transportation Study to take the action now, to get things rolling with the state funding process, although it could be a year or more until a major study of the feasibility of commuter rail is completed. The mayor is perhaps the biggest cheerleader for a commuter rail line, and said he has no doubt about its viability.
"I think the reasonable human expectation should be that people will use it like crazy," Riley said, citing the notorious rush-hour traffic on Interstate 26.
Consultants to the Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Council of Governments are working on a detailed study of commuter rail between Charleston and Summerville, through North Charleston, and also potential rail service extending to West Ashley, Moncks Corner and Goose Creek.
The study was launched last year and expands upon a $50,000 preliminary study that concluded passenger rail service between Charleston and Summerville is feasible and could help reduce traffic on I-26.
"The riders will come," said Summerville Town Administrator Dennis Pieper. "The folks I'm talking to in Summerville are very interested in this."
A federal grant of up to $350,000 has allowed the BCD Council of Governments to expand the scope of the study, making it a detailed look at the investment necessary to create a rail system and keep it running.
Consultant Jennifer Humphreys of Wilbur Smith Associates told the rail subcommittee that it would take at least a year from now to complete the "investment grade" study.
"You have to be able to defend to the funding agencies that this will work," she said.
In other cities that have recently created commuter rail systems, costs have ranged from $1.6 million per mile in Nashville to $16 million per mile in Salt Lake City, Humphreys said. Once built, the rail systems need continuing subsidies to operate, much like a bus system.
The distance from downtown Charleston to Summerville, by rail, is 24 miles.
By most accounts, it could take a decade to get a commuter rail system up and running in the Charleston area, and that's one reason why Riley urged the subcommittee to go ahead and seek state funding while the feasibility study is under way.
"I really feel that every day we wait is a disservice to our constituents," he said.
http://www.charleston.net/news/2008/mar/05/rail_backers_work_keep_idea_rolling32660/
If you look at the comments section of the article, I post there as "icbmman".
I'll basically paraphrase what I was said there: my hometown needs to start creating a light rail mass transit system for the long term. While I still think that the main arteries in the city, I-26 and I-526, need to be widened, this project can give current and future residents a long-term alternative for transportation that can help alleviate traffic congestion.
It's going to be a wash if the scale of equipment doesn't meet the demand for service, further, they'll need service more then AM and PM rush hours. This is an error I expect to roll out of JTA as well, Millions of dollars of trains sitting in the mid-day sun, or mid-night moonlight are NOT earning their keep. The system in both of our cities needs to be fluid, and thus LRT is probably a better choice for long term O & M to revenues numbers. Being trains at heart, it's much easier to just make the rush hour schedules, carry extra cars or sets of cars, while the train size shrinks in the after hours.
Ocklawaha
Quote from: Ocklawaha on March 05, 2008, 11:43:59 AM
It's going to be a wash if the scale of equipment doesn't meet the demand for service, further, they'll need service more then AM and PM rush hours. This is an error I expect to roll out of JTA as well, Millions of dollars of trains sitting in the mid-day sun, or mid-night moonlight are NOT earning their keep. The system in both of our cities needs to be fluid, and thus LRT is probably a better choice for long term O & M to revenues numbers. Being trains at heart, it's much easier to just make the rush hour schedules, carry extra cars or sets of cars, while the train size shrinks in the after hours.
Ocklawaha
I think this is the part most here and in this city continue to get confused about. Whatever is developed for Jacksonville needs to be a fully integrated mass transit solution that puts the right type of transit mode in place for each specific corridor. There is no one size fits all solution.
I stand by the notion that it makes little sense to run light rail or dedicated busways parallel to the CSX "A" line, for example. With the Orlando commuter rail deal taking place, there will be enough capacity on that line for a more "urban oriented" type of commuter rail service. On the other hand, bus rapid transit does make sense for the Arlington corridor and streetcars make sense for mass transit in the downtown area. On top of that, "regional" commuter rail may be a better solution for service between Jacksonville and St. Augustine.
All of these discussions only show the need for a true long range plan to be created before spending a dime of the BJP $100 million.
Great points Lake:
THIS IS KEY TO SUCCESS!
For Example, RDC Cars, or DMU'S for the A line to Orange Park, Baldwin, St. Augustine.
Something more "Interurban", River Line, or Doodlebug for all Northside lines.
The Northside equipment mentioned above, all works well with downtown Trolleys... Errr STREETCARS!
Arlington, Mayport, Beaches, If done first class, would be built to handle future freight to Mayport, otherwise, a LRT solution might be best.
Ocklawaha
Ock, how would you get a railroad back out to Mayport and the beaches without spending multiple billions of dollars. From a quick aerial view in google earth, it does not seem feasible.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 05, 2008, 12:31:58 PM
...All of these discussions only show the need for a true long range plan to be created before spending a dime of the BJP $100 million.
OK, does this include long range plans for a multi-faceted approach to alleviate traffic congestion, or are you talking about just long-term planning for transit rail? As I've said in the comment section of the article, transportation problems need to be attacked with multiple strategies such as road widening, street grid creation, bus transit, and rail.
Powerline easements, medians and streetrunning... In about that order. Almost the entire route from the FEC to the San Pablo River is already inplace under high power lines. After that, over the river and hence interurban style. Long bridge work or streetstyle.
Of course any solution to the Beaches would be expensive, but we should plan way ahead, the USN may not stay in Mayport forever, if not, or if so, how much better is that deep water basin with railside services. Also
as a note, we're talking shortline stuff, not 200 car trains going down third ave. Interurbans did sometimes run longer trains but more typical was the single engine (called "MOTORS" in electric railroad lingo) and perhaps 4 or 5 freight cars.
I'll try and dig up a photo.
Ocklawaha
Charleston, You are right, it needs to be attacked from all sides, but the reality in Jacksonville is we have torn out our rail to the Beaches, and much of downtown core. These are like planning highways before the invention of the wheel... It's going to cost us. Charleston is in the same boat with certain lines. The Trunk routes should be rail, as it has the highest Passenger-Per-Hour capacity. Then moving down the scale to lighter rail, bus on HOV or "Cheap BRT", then to bus, to taxi to car... If there anything else in the mix, like river taxi, it should be worked into the mix.
Lane widening is self defeating in most cases, if there is opportunity for infill. If so the formula is you need to build 4 lanes of road to realize ONE LANE of net improvement, due to quick infill. You are on the right course!
Ocklawaha
Would this scene really bother anyone, moving from Bowden yard to Mayport at say 3 AM? BTW, the photo is in Yakima, Washington... and YES they do have freight and passenger.
(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa111/Ocklawaha/Anitque%20Trolley%20Images/img_36140.jpg)
Ocklawaha
Quote from: Charleston native on March 05, 2008, 12:55:25 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on March 05, 2008, 12:31:58 PM
...All of these discussions only show the need for a true long range plan to be created before spending a dime of the BJP $100 million.
OK, does this include long range plans for a multi-faceted approach to alleviate traffic congestion, or are you talking about just long-term planning for transit rail? As I've said in the comment section of the article, transportation problems need to be attacked with multiple strategies such as road widening, street grid creation, bus transit, and rail.
I'm talking about producing a long range multi-faceted approach for the future of local mass transit, in general. This would include light rail, commuter rail, streetcars, BRT, express buses, JTA trolleys, etc. I do not believe that there is one mode of transit that can efficiently serve every section of town the same. For example, the environment of Springfield and Riverside are completely different from Argyle and Mandarin.
By the way, I also don't think you can alleviate traffic congestion by expanding roads, if you're not willing to develop growth boundaries, which is something I don't see a conservative city like Jax doing anytime soon. No city has ever paved their way out of traffic congestion. Highway expansion only brings more gridlock because it opens up more land to additional non-transit friendly development.
Quote from: Ocklawaha on March 05, 2008, 01:02:19 PM
Powerline easements, medians and streetrunning... In about that order. Almost the entire route from the FEC to the San Pablo River is already inplace under high power lines. After that, over the river and hence interurban style. Long bridge work or streetstyle.
Of course any solution to the Beaches would be expensive, but we should plan way ahead, the USN may not stay in Mayport forever, if not, or if so, how much better is that deep water basin with railside services. Also
as a note, we're talking shortline stuff, not 200 car trains going down third ave. Interurbans did sometimes run longer trains but more typical was the single engine (called "MOTORS" in electric railroad lingo) and perhaps 4 or 5 freight cars.
I'll try and dig up a photo.
Ocklawaha
Yes, this would not be cheap and we would be introducing freight railroad lines into recently built suburban single family neighborhoods. The battle to get convince taxpayers to raise their taxes so a rail line could be built in their backyards and near their schools would be a difficult thing to achieve. If the Navy leaves Mayport, that area will most likely end up being either a cruise port or a mixed-use residential based community. Its doubtful that it will ever be used for rail based heavy industry.
Certainly this would have to be packaged like the
San Pedro California PE Electric Line
Savannah GA plan
San Diego, Trolley and Sprinter
River Rail Line,
ALL of which either tourist or transit were sold as mass transit projects and all of which have night freight on the same track.
Ocklawaha
Quote from: thelakelander on March 05, 2008, 01:34:09 PM
I'm talking about producing a long range multi-faceted approach for the future of local mass transit, in general. This would include light rail, commuter rail, streetcars, BRT, express buses, JTA trolleys, etc. I do not believe that there is one mode of transit that can efficiently serve every section of town the same. For example, the environment of Springfield and Riverside are completely different from Argyle and Mandarin.
By the way, I also don't think you can alleviate traffic congestion by expanding roads, if you're not willing to develop growth boundaries, which is something I don't see a conservative city like Jax doing anytime soon. No city has ever paved their way out of traffic congestion. Highway expansion only brings more gridlock because it opens up more land to additional non-transit friendly development.
On your first point, I agree with you completely. I've been trying to make that point with posters in the Chas newspaper.
However, I have to disagree with your 2nd point. I'm not proposing that the city "pave its way out of traffic congestion". What I am suggesting is that for the traffic problem to be clearly reduced or even eliminated, a multi-faceted approach of in-city-limit highway widening
in conjunction with different forms of mass transit needs to be done. Widening current highways in the urban areas has to be done not to help alleviate current traffic but to prepare for the future amount of cars that
will come as the population grows throughout the years.
I also have to disagree with the notion that widening roads opens up more land. I'm not proposing to widen roads outside of the city...I'm talking about allowing room for the eventual traffic that will accumulate with infill. Besides, many developers still build their massive suburban neighborhoods with only 2-lane roads going to them, so that fact negates your theory.
Quote from: Charleston native on March 05, 2008, 02:57:15 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on March 05, 2008, 01:34:09 PM
I'm talking about producing a long range multi-faceted approach for the future of local mass transit, in general. This would include light rail, commuter rail, streetcars, BRT, express buses, JTA trolleys, etc. I do not believe that there is one mode of transit that can efficiently serve every section of town the same. For example, the environment of Springfield and Riverside are completely different from Argyle and Mandarin.
By the way, I also don't think you can alleviate traffic congestion by expanding roads, if you're not willing to develop growth boundaries, which is something I don't see a conservative city like Jax doing anytime soon. No city has ever paved their way out of traffic congestion. Highway expansion only brings more gridlock because it opens up more land to additional non-transit friendly development.
On your first point, I agree with you completely. I've been trying to make that point with posters in the Chas newspaper.
However, I have to disagree with your 2nd point. I'm not proposing that the city "pave its way out of traffic congestion". What I am suggesting is that for the traffic problem to be clearly reduced or even eliminated, a multi-faceted approach of in-city-limit highway widening in conjunction with different forms of mass transit needs to be done. Widening current highways in the urban areas has to be done not to help alleviate current traffic but to prepare for the future amount of cars that will come as the population grows throughout the years.
At some point, you reach a level where its not cost efficient or environmentally friendly to keep expanding expressways, especially through the city. This is where spending money on mass transit as an alternative option becomes feasible. Does this mean that no highway should be improved? No. But it does mean that it makes little sense to widen I-95 to an Atlanta-like 12 lane freeway through town and then dump additional money into building mass transit systems that serve the same destinations.
QuoteI also have to disagree with the notion that widening roads opens up more land. I'm not proposing to widen roads outside of the city...I'm talking about allowing room for the eventual traffic that will accumulate with infill. Besides, many developers still build their massive suburban neighborhoods with only 2-lane roads going to them, so that fact negates your theory.
Its not a theory of mine, its the conclusion of several studies on traffic congestion. Quite frankly widening roads to a point is just as effective as buying a longer belt to tuck in a growing belly because of a refusal to change eating and workout habits to lose weight as the doctor suggested. Not to mention its super expensive.
During the 1920s, Urban Jacksonville had twice as much density as it has now and traffic moved just fine with streetcars as an alternative source of transit. If reducing traffic congestion is really a goal for roads, the best thing you can do is to develop a grid system. You'll be better off having a grid of two lane roads spaced every mile or so, as opposed to one or two eight land highways spaced every five miles.
I'm not saying there are spots where road enhancements aren't necessary, but if you want successful mass transit, it not a good idea to keep developing roads in the fashion that we have for the past 50 years.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 05, 2008, 03:13:06 PM
At some point, you reach a level where its not cost efficient or environmentally friendly to keep expanding expressways, especially through the city. This is where spending money on mass transit as an alternative option becomes feasible. Does this mean that no highway should be improved? No. But it does mean that it makes little sense to widen I-95 to an Atlanta-like 12 lane freeway through town and then dump additional money into building mass transit systems that serve the same destinations.
Why doesn't it make sense? As I said in the comment section of the article, many people in this country will continue to use the automobile because of the independence it gives. Therefore, regardless of how many people use light rail, commuter rail, or bus transit, the amount of cars on the road will increase as the population increases. We need to prepare for the increase of residents and transient travelers that will inevitably occur within the next 40-50 years. As far as enviromentally friendliness, I think it's a moot point when you're talking about an area that has already been altered from its natural landscape.
QuoteIts not a theory of mine, its the conclusion of several studies on traffic congestion. Quite frankly widening roads to a point is just as effective as buying a longer belt to tuck in a growing belly because of a refusal to change eating and workout habits to lose weight as the doctor suggested. Not to mention its super expensive.
During the 1920s, Urban Jacksonville had twice as much density as it has now and traffic moved just fine with streetcars as an alternative source of transit. If reducing traffic congestion is really a goal for roads, the best thing you can do is to develop a grid system. You'll be better off having a grid of two lane roads spaced every mile or so, as opposed to one or two eight land highways spaced every five miles.
I'm not saying there are spots where road enhancements aren't necessary, but if you want successful mass transit, it not a good idea to keep developing roads in the fashion that we have for the past 50 years.
Lake, it sounds like what has to be done is to let traffic deteriorate for drivers in order to force them into living downtown or into using mass transit. Many proponents of strictly mass transit have used the same "longer belt" analogy, and I just don't buy it. What truly alleviates the "obesity" problem is population control, and I don't think you're proposing that. However, that is the only true option that will eliminate the growth. Reducing cars on the road can be accomplished with mass transit, but the effect will only be temporary as the population will inevitably grow, unless a catastrophic event occurs. I think providing a street grid is a good alternative, but not as 2-lane streets. If there is any form of an obsolete road, 2-lane roads are it.
BTW, if highways are so "50 years ago", why do approximately 150 million drivers still use them for commuting and traveling? Highways are still a much preferred method of transportation. However, this does not mean eliminating options. The only way for efficient and effective transportation in the city is to provide multiple venues for transportation: highways, light rail, commuter rail, and buses.
ALL of these things combined will help the traffic problem.
QuoteBTW, if highways are so "50 years ago", why do approximately 150 million drivers still use them for commuting and traveling? Highways are still a much preferred method of transportation. However, this does not mean eliminating options. The only way for efficient and effective transportation in the city is to provide multiple venues for transportation: highways, light rail, commuter rail, and buses. ALL of these things combined will help the traffic problem.
I think you've answered your own question here. Highways are the enemy of green, livable space, yet they do offer freedom. So the best solution is a matrix of transit choices, like a woven fabric, it needs to serve the WHOLE City and most of the burbs. In the core, there needs to be many choices. Jacksonville is well positioned to make such a system in short order: Example: Skyway, Bus, (electric shuttle buses or vans), Streetcars, Commuter Rail and Water Taxi's. Once people have a choice of modes and a choice of connections and schedules, they'll go transit. Ask anyone which City in America is known for it's Highway-Auto-Love Affair? Los Angeles! Yet once Metro-Link, Metro-Rail, BRT, got dense enough to form a network, no businessman or woman in their right mind would commute on those freeways if they can avoid it. It happened overnight, after an earthquake. I saw it... Lived it. A City transformed by emergency rail equipment sent in because 1/2 the freeways were in shambles. Ridership boomed, then exploded when the freeways got fixed and new connector links come on line. My last trip, I went all over the LA basin and NEVER TOUCHED A CAR!
Unreal. Charleston, or Jacksonville, and I firmly believe Ocala, or Palatka, could have the same success with a well connected mix, scaled to the size of the town. Ocklawaha
Quote from: Charleston native on March 05, 2008, 03:46:14 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on March 05, 2008, 03:13:06 PM
At some point, you reach a level where its not cost efficient or environmentally friendly to keep expanding expressways, especially through the city. This is where spending money on mass transit as an alternative option becomes feasible. Does this mean that no highway should be improved? No. But it does mean that it makes little sense to widen I-95 to an Atlanta-like 12 lane freeway through town and then dump additional money into building mass transit systems that serve the same destinations.
Why doesn't it make sense? As I said in the comment section of the article, many people in this country will continue to use the automobile because of the independence it gives.
That's fine, but that does not mean that freedom should come over trampling the urban neighborhoods the construction of wider roads in the inner city cause or the continued destruction of greenspace. Driving is a privilege, not a right.
QuoteTherefore, regardless of how many people use light rail, commuter rail, or bus transit, the amount of cars on the road will increase as the population increases. We need to prepare for the increase of residents and transient travelers that will inevitably occur within the next 40-50 years.
I think were already prepared as far as road construction goes. Its the alternative modes we need to be putting a majority of our investments into if we really want a true integrated system. You're also overlooking the importance that land use and zoning plays in this discussion. The reorganization of this alone can have a dramatic affect on the amount of road and mass transit construction needed.
QuoteAs far as enviromentally friendliness, I think it's a moot point when you're talking about an area that has already been altered from its natural landscape.
I don't agree here. The land in Riverside has been altered from its natural landscape. However, this does not mean we should go into that historic district and widen Park to four lanes because more cars are on the way. We also still have plenty of natural greenspaces that are being leveled on an everyday basis. Just look at Nocatee.
QuoteIts not a theory of mine, its the conclusion of several studies on traffic congestion. Quite frankly widening roads to a point is just as effective as buying a longer belt to tuck in a growing belly because of a refusal to change eating and workout habits to lose weight as the doctor suggested. Not to mention its super expensive.
During the 1920s, Urban Jacksonville had twice as much density as it has now and traffic moved just fine with streetcars as an alternative source of transit. If reducing traffic congestion is really a goal for roads, the best thing you can do is to develop a grid system. You'll be better off having a grid of two lane roads spaced every mile or so, as opposed to one or two eight land highways spaced every five miles.
I'm not saying there are spots where road enhancements aren't necessary, but if you want successful mass transit, it not a good idea to keep developing roads in the fashion that we have for the past 50 years.
Lake, it sounds like what has to be done is to let traffic deteriorate for drivers in order to force them into living downtown or into using mass transit.[/quote]
No, I realize we have a limited supply of tax dollars that can be used for transportation. Traffic will continue to deteriorate no matter how many lanes you put in, as long as the same land use mentalities stay in effect. On the other hand, its cheaper to invest more in mass transit and less in asphalt highway construction in the long run. Its also easier to increase capacity when the time comes, as opposed to taking people's homes, businesses and destroying their neighborhoods for additional highways and freeways.
QuoteMany proponents of strictly mass transit have used the same "longer belt" analogy, and I just don't buy it. What truly alleviates the "obesity" problem is population control, and I don't think you're proposing that. However, that is the only true option that will eliminate the growth.
I'd focus on more efficient zoning and land use patterns, as opposed to population control. With proper planning, Jax could handle a significant population boost without expanding outward at the degree it does today.
QuoteReducing cars on the road can be accomplished with mass transit, but the effect will only be temporary as the population will inevitably grow, unless a catastrophic event occurs.
I'm not advocating reducing road capacity. I just don't agree that widening roads to an insane number of lanes does anything to improve traffic congestion if we aren't willing to change our growth patterns.
QuoteI think providing a street grid is a good alternative, but not as 2-lane streets. If there is any form of an obsolete road, 2-lane roads are it.
You're focusing only on highways. I consider local and collector streets as being just as important in moving and diffusing traffic flow and congestion.
QuoteBTW, if highways are so "50 years ago", why do approximately 150 million drivers still use them for commuting and traveling? Highways are still a much preferred method of transportation. However, this does not mean eliminating options.
I think Ock's response answers this question.
QuoteThe only way for efficient and effective transportation in the city is to provide multiple venues for transportation: highways, light rail, commuter rail, and buses. ALL of these things combined will help the traffic problem.
Well we have highways covered pretty well. We've proven we can build them with the best of them, without any regard to how they interact with the neighborhoods they slice through. Now its time to invest a lot more in integrating alternative transportation solutions.