Metro Jacksonville

I'm sure, this plan will drive Ocklawaha up a wall.  We've already discussed/debated in the past, the pros and cons of Tampa planning to install LRT in the median of an interstate and what that doesn't do for encouraging infill, density and TOD. 

(http://i.imgur.com/7oJfLmM.jpg)

We've also had our debates about building intermodal centers in/near downtowns, along rail lines, and at suburban airports.  How about a suburban interstate restaurant outparcel with no chance of walkability or surrounding infill TOD? Here is a recent concept from down there of just that being built on the site of O'Charley's Steakhouse in West Shore.

(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/522515_10151343192983017_1237304733_n.jpg)

It seems all the best practices applied in the last decade's most successful fixed transit rollouts are being ignored. It will be very interesting to see how all of this turns out.  Are they on to something or will we have an expensive end product the Tea Party will use as a poster child for why transit investment is a waste of taxpayer funding?

Don't worry lake....this is only one of the potential locations...and given some new partners, i think less likely now

Placing any transit in the median of an urban expressway is a political shortcut to avoid having to deal with myriad community groups and local entities in attempting to get it approved.

I agree Lake, it completely ignores the TOD and redevelopment that LRT brings to the table.

I hated the fact that the Chicago CTA went down the medians on the major expressways. While not LRT at all, that physical separation worked for expedience and reduction of cost, but it has taken the CTA many, many years to get "L" transit reoriented towards its local users.

Not quite as critical with LRT or Commuter Rail, then it would be with Streetcar or BRT. Using a stretch of freeway between stations might be key in allowing a much faster rail line. That being said, it should have places where it leaves the median for station purposes or have such stations span the roadway approachable from either side by pedestrians. With LRT/Commuter Rail you'll get that TOD at stations where ever ease of access makes it walkable and pedestrian friendly. With Streetcar or BRT you should be able to get TOD to virtually line both sides of a route and not just at the stations.

Again, being honest, BRT has not lived up to it's ridership projections, nor has it spurred any real estate stampedes. The poor performance of BRT and the high expense over the length of the projects should make streetcar/rapid streetcar/LRT a no brainer.

The whole line between the airport and DT appears to be in an expressway median. Yes, it maybe quicker but what's the point of being quick if you completely miss most of your pedestrian friendly destinations between the airport and DT? All you'll end up with is an expensive project that draws minimal ridership.

LRT in an interstate median seems like overkill.  I can understand heavy rail in an interstate median...since HRT often relies on park and ride and quick service up to 60-70 mph betwee major commercial points, but LRT?  This is a mode that is one step up from streetcars.

Would it be that much more expensive to use HRT tracks and trains on an interstate median than LRT track + trains?

Quote from: spuwho on March 16, 2013, 10:24:15 PM
Placing any transit in the median of an urban expressway is a political shortcut to avoid having to deal with myriad community groups and local entities in attempting to get it approved.

I agree Lake, it completely ignores the TOD and redevelopment that LRT brings to the table.

I hated the fact that the Chicago CTA went down the medians on the major expressways. While not LRT at all, that physical separation worked for expedience and reduction of cost, but it has taken the CTA many, many years to get "L" transit reoriented towards its local users.

In Chicago the Blue Line station entrances on the Eisenhower are all on overpasses that directly interact with the grid around them. No, it's not the most pedestrian-friendly environment but they interact well with the suburban bus system. The Blue line is one of only two 24 hour lines of the L, almost 200,000 in daily ridership. Popular enough that an expansion to Yorktown Mall is in the works (at about 30 miles from city, considered in the "near western suburbs"). This extension would complement 2 commuter rail lines that run parallel, with conventional stations that between them have about 100,000 in daily ridership.

In short, I'm a fan of median stations for light/heavy rail so long as they're integrated into the existing grid, especially since they don't require demolitions. It's weird that the station spacing and design (giant parking garage) looks like commuter rail, but the train length is clearly LRT. Overally, not sure how I feel about Tampa's plan. I'm curious how using LRT in a commuter rail mode would really work out.

I think the bigger question is why bother building rail if you're also going to widen the interstate from its current 6-8 lanes to 14 lanes

I think the Chicago example is an apples and oranges comparison to Tampa's.  Chicago has had continuous rail service for well over a century. The Blue line is also heavy rail and the freeway it utilizes, penetrates dense urban neighborhoods for miles outside of the Loop. It's a part of a much larger mass transit network the city has grown up around over the last century.

In Tampa, you're incrementally starting from scratch, which means every single segment needs to have a high level of success and ridership, on it's own.  Not only do you need high ridership generating end points, you need to have stations along the way that hit major destinations themselves. If you put something out there that's expensive and fails to generate decent ridership, you risk killing the rest of the plan before it has a chance to become reality.  Being in Jax, we should be well aware of this because that's exactly what happened with our Skyway.

Not seeing what the overall layout of the Bay Area's LRT dreams, I assume they desire for LRT to one day cross the Howard Franklin, tying into whatever Pinellas ends up doing.  The problem I see is if you drop $300-$600 million on completely median based LRT line that ends up drawing less than 10,000 riders a day, that will be all opponents need to kill off the rest. The Wendell Cox followers will be all over this and the unfortunate thing is that most of their arguments will be valid.

Quote from: tufsu1 on March 17, 2013, 03:43:10 PM
I think the bigger question is why bother building rail if you're also going to widen the interstate from its current 6-8 lanes to 14 lanes

This is a problem too.  If you're going to also put in lexus lanes, you might as well scrap LRT and buy a bus.

Except that FDOT has now stated that buses will likely not be permitted to run in new express lanes

Quote from: simms3 on March 17, 2013, 12:59:27 PM
LRT in an interstate median seems like overkill.  I can understand heavy rail in an interstate median...since HRT often relies on park and ride and quick service up to 60-70 mph betwee major commercial points, but LRT?  This is a mode that is one step up from streetcars.

Would it be that much more expensive to use HRT tracks and trains on an interstate median than LRT track + trains?

Quick! Think of an LRT line that operates at streetcar speeds?  I can't. Think of one that operates at 60-70 and I can name a dozen without looking them up. Streetcars and Interurbans share a common ancestor but they're were worlds apart in general practice. The same thing exists in todays LRT and streetcar lines, most LRT operates entrain at much higher speeds and stations spaced a couple of mile apart. Denver, Dallas, Portland, San Jose, Los Angeles etc... all operate LRT on freeway right-of-way, Denver, Dallas and Portland using a side of the road approach which is very conducive to TOD on one side of the super slab. San Jose and Los Angeles both use the center median with freeway spanning stations which have worked in Pasadena and not as well in San Jose.

San Jose might be a good study because the system has struggled with ridership issues as a result of building a freeway (The Guadalupe Corridor) at the same time as building Light Rail. As the system morphs into more of a network the Guadalupe Corridor issues will mean less but it has provided Cox and O'Toole with a boatload of anti-railway tripe.

Ock, I consider your examples like the Chicago Blue Line. Apples and Oranges.  Out of your examples, I'm not aware of any where the entire first phase was in the middle of a freeway with no real attempt to integrate TOD planning and land use changes early on. From my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong), this corridor between Tampa's airport and downtown would be their LRT system's first phase?  In this case, this isn't a segment, it's the entire thing or something you "hope" can get expanded at a later date.  Massive early spending with limited economic return and potential minimal ridership is a huge risk to put yourself in if your goal is to expand to a much larger system.  You almost ignore the political reality of the first phase struggling to the point to where it becomes a political bomb that detonates support for future phases.

Quote from: Ocklawaha on March 17, 2013, 07:17:52 PM

Quote from: simms3 on March 17, 2013, 12:59:27 PM
LRT in an interstate median seems like overkill.  I can understand heavy rail in an interstate median...since HRT often relies on park and ride and quick service up to 60-70 mph betwee major commercial points, but LRT?  This is a mode that is one step up from streetcars.

Would it be that much more expensive to use HRT tracks and trains on an interstate median than LRT track + trains?

Quick! Think of an LRT line that operates at streetcar speeds?  I can't. Think of one that operates at 60-70 and I can name a dozen without looking them up. Streetcars and Interurbans share a common ancestor but they're were worlds apart in general practice. The same thing exists in todays LRT and streetcar lines, most LRT operates entrain at much higher speeds and stations spaced a couple of mile apart. Denver, Dallas, Portland, San Jose, Los Angeles etc... all operate LRT on freeway right-of-way, Denver, Dallas and Portland using a side of the road approach which is very conducive to TOD on one side of the super slab. San Jose and Los Angeles both use the center median with freeway spanning stations which have worked in Pasadena and not as well in San Jose.

San Jose might be a good study because the system has struggled with ridership issues as a result of building a freeway (The Guadalupe Corridor) at the same time as building Light Rail. As the system morphs into more of a network the Guadalupe Corridor issues will mean less but it has provided Cox and O'Toole with a boatload of anti-railway tripe.

LRT in a highway median?  Especially as first phase?  Sure there are massive LRT systems with segments that follow interstates or go 60 mph, but of all the LRT I have ridden, 80-90% seems neighborhoody and 30-40 mph at best.  I've ridden several LRTs used as airport-CBD connectors, and none seem applicable to the Tampa situation.

Denver, Dallas, Portland and LA all have very extensive systems (multiple lines, 50+ miles in length, etc).  To compare those systems to a starter line, first LRT ever in FL seems to be overkill, just like to me it seems to be overkill to put LRT in the median of a 14 lane highway.

Quote from: thelakelander on March 17, 2013, 07:52:47 PM
Ock, I consider your examples like the Chicago Blue Line. Apples and Oranges.  Out of your examples, I'm not aware of any where the entire first phase was in the middle of a freeway with no real attempt to integrate TOD planning and land use changes early on. From my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong), this corridor between Tampa's airport and downtown would be their LRT system's first phase?  In this case, this isn't a segment, it's the entire thing or something you "hope" can get expanded at a later date.  Massive early spending with limited economic return and potential minimal ridership is a huge risk to put yourself in if your goal is to expand to a much larger system.  You almost ignore the political reality of the first phase struggling to the point to where it becomes a political bomb that detonates support for future phases.

Chicago wasn't my example though I know what your saying. My post was actually a response to Simms3 pondering why LRT would be in a freeway presumably because it resembles and/or operates like a New Orleans streetcar. Though the distinction is blurring more every day by various hybrids, a true LRT and Streetcar are quite a universe apart.

Quote"...since HRT often relies on park and ride and quick service up to 60-70 mph betwee major commercial points, but LRT?  This is a mode that is one step up from streetcars."

Perhaps a history lesson is indicated here:

QuoteWould it be that much more expensive to use HRT tracks and trains on an interstate median than LRT track + trains?

Railroad right-of-ways often have lease space available for pipelines, electrical or fiber optic cables and in other states it is not uncommon for them to allow Light Rail to run alongside their tracks. In slow speed congested areas there are even examples of lines that share the same track but this is very hard to get approved. 

Many people feel like streetcars and interurban/LRT are trains, so the big railroads would welcome them (even help us build one) with open arms. Actually railroads were so burned by passenger business that suggesting such a thing could get one tossed out of the upper floor of the CSX building.

No Lake, I'm with you on this, my point being that it could travel along a length of the freeway between stops (for speed and ease of approval) but as we've both pointed out using Light Rail as a development tool will require walk up facilities that are pedestrian friendly.

QuoteDenver, Dallas, Portland and LA all have very extensive systems (multiple lines, 50+ miles in length, etc).  To compare those systems to a starter line, first LRT ever in FL seems to be overkill, just like to me it seems to be overkill to put LRT in the median of a 14 lane highway.

Denver only has 35 miles in operation, and both lines enter the city on the same route (they split up south of downtown) the dual route segment weaves around, over, under, and alongside the freeway.  As I've already stated, I've got no problem using a median to 'escape' downtown or an airport, any more then I do hugging close to the CSX mainline. Where Lake and I are in total agreement is that if you are expecting or hoping for TOD, then you've got to get the tracks into an area that is more conducive to pedestrian activity. I also realize you probably know most of what I've posted, but there are a lot of folks out there that don't.

^^^Ock I think we're on the same page, but I think you misinterpreted my question.  I know that the railroads aren't friendly to allowing passenger rail on their tracks...I learned that years ago on this very site, prolly from you :)

My question rephrased, which has more to do with curiosity about costs of LRT vs HRT:
Considering everyone says HRT is too expensive, and the only recent expansions have been airport extensions in Miami and in DC ($7B), could it be possible to do HRT in this Tampa case without much added cost?  Is it that much more expensive to lay track that's a few inches wider with a 3rd rail rather than overhead wires?  Are HRT trains that much more expensive?  Is HRT much more operationally expensive?

I know this is all moot if Tampa has plans for an extensive LRT system where this would be but one line that connects and syncs up, because HRT and LRT don't mix, but are there such plans?  Or is this a one-off high capacity rapid transit route between airport and CBD meant to move lots of people fast rather than connect neighborhoods and spur infill along the way?

Aside from that I can agree with you in some ways that LRT is far and above streetcars in terms of potential capacity, speed, station spacing, etc, and disagree with you in other ways.  We can mince words and warp any and all transit systems to make our points...I have every mode and variations in each mode here in SF at my disposal :)  Yay

Here's the latest on plans for Westshore intermodal hub....to connect Tampa and Pinellas systems w/ the airport

http://www.tampabay.com/news/transportation/masstransit/westshore-will-be-the-hub-when-8212-or-if-8212-mass-transit-comes-to-tampa/2113026

and here's the proposed tie-in (people mover) at the Tampa airport

http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/airlines/new-vision-for-tampa-international-airport-cleared-for-takeoff/2113102