Next Up: A Makeover For Riverplace Blvd.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/471904607_AxF9L-L.jpg)
The Downtown Investment Authority (DIA) is moving forward with plans to rebuild the Southbank's Riverplace Boulevard into a pedestrian friendly strip between Prudential Drive and Main Street. Two conceptual alternatives have been developed for consideration. Take a look and let us know what option you prefer best!
Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2015-jan-next-up-a-makeover-for-riverplace-blvd
How does this fit with JTA's BRT route that goes along this same stretch of road?
Love the combination of a bike path and pedestrian sidewalk! I think I like option 1 better. Angled parking in that area with the large amount of traffic seems dangerous.
What would the on street parking even be for? I like 1 better. Curious about how the BRT fits in.
Who is paying for this? Are there not other areas that are in worse shape that would be a higher priority?
It would be nice if this went all the way to Mosh at the roundabout (that's not really a roundabout because it has stopsigns, not sure what's up with that??)
You can see a little bus lane in this picture.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/3848607215_jqzNn7N-L.jpg)
Two things:
1. I think it would make more sense to switch the sidewalk and bike path. The bike path should be the one closer to the street.
2. Why does the second lane always merge?
QuoteAngled parking in that area with the large amount of traffic seems dangerous.
Traffic counts are currently under 40% (37.45%) of the roadway's capacity according to the latest COJ data and vehicle to vehicle accidents are not high (although vehicle to bicylce crashes are high, particularly where Prudential turns into Hendricks). There is ample evidence that supports the structural capactiy for a road diet.
That said, there are positives and negatives. Angled parking generally increases parking capacity and puts drivers exiting vehicles out of harms way of oncoming traffic.
There was a study done in Lincoln, NE which concluded that when compensatig for an increase in parking volume (meaning more cars parked on the thoroughfare... and an increase in supply will have an effect on the raw number of accidents)... there was little statistical difference between the rate of crashes for paralell versus angled parking.
The newest 'innovation' in street parking is the back in angled parking... which has shown to decrease auto accidents when compared to front in angled parking in the dozen communities that implemented this style of parking (granted, the overall sample size in the data set is still relatively low).
Reverse angle parking in Baltimore's Hampden neighborhood:
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Baltimore-MD-2009/i-LmKvFr3/0/L/P1250960-L.jpg)
Frankly, both options are pretty stale at best.
Why not have something that integrates the pocket park in front of the condos? How about a plaza area along the undeveloped parcel in front of the condos (this would make a great outdoor seating area for a future restaurant on this site) or fronting the parking lot in front of the hotel (in the future, this parcel of land would make a great pedestrian scale row of shops... careful integration of more useable public space could result in outdoor seating areas for this kind of future use)?
Not to sure the bicycle infrastructure is as safe as can be either. The sidewalk/bike path configuration should be reversed.
Prudential Drive should be the vibrant Main Street of the Soutbank. These plans just place a few concrete bulbs here and there, sprinkles in some on-street parking and calls it a day.
The Southbank deserves MUCH better.
Quote from: mbwright on January 29, 2015, 08:08:27 AM
Who is paying for this? Are there not other areas that are in worse shape that would be a higher priority?
The property owners in the area are paying for this. It's money generated from the TIF that is to be used to pay for capital improvement projects for this neighborhood.
Quote from: jcjohnpaint on January 29, 2015, 08:06:41 AM
What would the on street parking even be for?
There's some stores in riverplace tower (I know of at least Harbees jewelers), sake house is nearby, a couple of banks, etc. It's also nice to park there rather than the parking garage if you're a visitor to the condos nearby.
I like them, both are good options, I'm just happy there's a REAL bike lane!
Bike lanes - especially *real* ones - are much needed on that strip. The current setup is frankly dangerous.
Both seem fine to me. I just hope we use something other than crap myrtles or scrub oaks for the shade providing trees. I would prefer the "back in" angled spaces though. There's nothing I hate more than the spots in 5-points.... Back up 5 inches, nearly get clobbered, wait a few seconds, nearly get clobbered again. I'd like to know what's coming before getting hit haha.
Also, the green median in front of The Strand and The Peninsula has got to go. It would force all of the residents to use the parking circle to get to the garage or come from the North bound lane on Hendricks, rather than the free flowing way it is now. I can see the traffic jams as residents come home from work / try to turn left now... :(
As I do not frequent the area, I am ignorant of the situation, but is there really a need for on street parking or is this just an extension of the city needing or wanting to build a BRT station?
What would really be nice for pedestrian access is making it easier and more obvious to access the Riverwalk from Riverplace Blvd. and vice versa.
The spaces get used all the time. The current setup prohibits parking from 7am-9am and 4pm-6pm, but I regularly see people parking there. The current set-up also make people wary of parking when no one else is there, because you're literally parking in a lane of the road. My guests always ask, "Are you sure I can park here? I feel like my cars going to get hit."
I was ok with both...slightly preferred the angled parking...until Field's posts. I am easily persuaded but YES, it should be better integrated and the Southbank and Jacksonville deserve better!!
I could go for some reverse angled parking. I remember that near Pike's Place and the Pier in Seattle.
Quote from: jcjohnpaint on January 29, 2015, 08:06:41 AM
What would the on street parking even be for? I like 1 better. Curious about how the BRT fits in.
Quote from: riverside_mail on January 29, 2015, 10:30:06 AM
As I do not frequent the area, I am ignorant of the situation, but is there really a need for on street parking or is this just an extension of the city needing or wanting to build a BRT station?
Fwiw there is already lots of parallel parking there during non-rush hour. I go by regularly and usually see a few parked cars. I do, however, recall one incident where there were no cars parked and as I slowed down and pulled alongside the curb to park myself, I got honked at by several cars behind me who apparently did not realize there was street parking.
Grade-separated bike lanes? I don't believe you!
For Jacksonville to implement back-in parking, they would have to conduct a 10 year study of nothing at all before concluding that they way they did it 20 years prior is certainly the best.
Quote from: mbwright on January 29, 2015, 08:08:27 AM
Who is paying for this? Are there not other areas that are in worse shape that would be a higher priority?
We should certainly be solving world hunger before putting any of our tax money towards improvement or maintenance of infrastructure. :P
Quote from: ProjectMaximus on January 29, 2015, 10:54:37 AMFwiw there is already lots of parallel parking there during non-rush hour. I go by regularly and usually see a few parked cars. I do, however, recall one incident where there were no cars parked and as I slowed down and pulled alongside the curb to park myself, I got honked at by several cars behind me who apparently did not realize there was street parking.
Is there
really parallel parking though? It's certainly not marked for it. I know people do it all the time but you're pretty much parking in a travel lane as the road is now.
I for one don't like either of these plans again our leaders think bicycles should be on the sidewalk. Hello Bicycles are vehicles and should be treated as such. Also bike paths that include pedestrians are a pain for cyclist. Pedestrians never stay on their side of the path they wonder into on coming bicycle traffic. Also people on bicycles don't know the rules for riding on bike paths especially paths that don't provide marked 2 way traffic. People on bicycles will treat this as any other sidewalk and just ride downstream and upstream as they please which could cause accidents. There needs to be a clear division between bicycles ( as a vehicle on the roadway) and pedestrians. These plans are not providing that and are not treating bicycles as vehicles but rather as wheelchairs for able bodied pedestrians on a sidewalk. If you want to separate bicycle traffic from motor vehicle traffic that is fine but don't place pedestrians in the same path with vehicles if nothing else for the protection of the pedestrians. A painted line on the path will not stop pedestrians from walking out in front of a cyclist just like it does not stop pedestrians from walking in front of other vehicles. Also who polices the cyclist since they are vehicles? Is it a roadway or a sidewalk? If a pedestrian walks in front of a cyclist who is at fault? When this happens in a bike lane normal road laws apply. When it happens on a sidewalk or shared path it is the cyclist fault for not waiting for the pedestrian to move. Anyway these are both horrible ideas for the cyclist and pedestrians. It looks like as usually cyclist and pedestrians are an after thought but it was so nice of them to have multiple options for motor vehicles to park. I don't see any bicycle parking do you? I don't see any traffic controls for the "bike path" do you? There has to be a better way than this people! No offense but I would rather have a normal bike lane then to put up with sidewalk foot traffic. At least on the road as a vehicle Cyclovist have Rights & Responsibilities.
Quote from: acme54321 on January 29, 2015, 01:53:06 PM
Is there really parallel parking though? It's certainly not marked for it. I know people do it all the time but you're pretty much parking in a travel lane as the road is now.
It is, there are signs clearly designating it. However, the streets are not marked or painted, so if someone is riding on your butt they may slam into you because they don't see any stripes.
For what it's worth...I lived at the Peninsula for several years and witnessed a few cars plowing into parked cars at nighttime. Also, it's my understanding that there were once plans to build another high-rise on the vacant land between the Peninsula and Riverplace Blvd. but it was shelved indefinitely when the real estate market tanked. If that were ever revived, I'd imagine a section of this would be altered again.
Time flies. The project was "The Vu". It was supposed to be a 40-story, 190-unit condominium tower.
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-6847-vu_final.jpg)
^Here is an image from a "dead DT projects" article we put together in 2008:
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2008-oct-results-of-the-boom-dead-projects
Quote from: Wacca Pilatka on January 29, 2015, 10:36:00 AM
What would really be nice for pedestrian access is making it easier and more obvious to access the Riverwalk from Riverplace Blvd. and vice versa.
I agree. I love the plans for bike lanes, new sidewalks and even the parallel parking additions. However I think this is a missed opportunity to provide a clear path or entry plaza/park from the sidewalks and bike lanes that formerly connects to Riverwalk to the Pedestrian path on riverplace. Even though the Riverwalk is literally right on the other side of the Strand/Peninsula and Wyndham properties, I feel that a better entry point that connects the public to it from Riverplace would be more accessible, attractive, and functional for all properties and persons involved.
QuoteI don't see any bicycle parking do you?
IF the Downtown Investment Authority's CRA gets passed by City Council (which is being held up by this http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,23579.0.html (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,23579.0.html)), then there would be money to expand bicycle racks and the like throughout downtown. That's not to say that this project's budget shouldn't include bike racks, and the like (it should).
That said, the success of these types of project depends on how well they integrate with current and future land uses (hence my comments about plazas that could integrate public space/outdoor seating for future ground-level businesses), pedestrian-friendly landscaping features (IE having shade trees along the sidewalk instead of more useless palme trees) and provide a place for all modes of transportation options (which both of these plans do in most respects, although things like flipping the configuration of the bike and pedestrian paths would provide better safety to both cyclists and pedestrians).
I've worked at both Riverplace Tower and The Charthouse... I'm indifferent to both plans but at least glad to see that the 4 lanes are going down to 2 and that there'd be a dedicated, separated bike path.
I also feel it's a bit odd that the bike path would be on the outside portion. That would make for an awkward situation of pedestrians having to cut across a bike lane to reach any establishments along the corridor. I also agree that reverse angled parking makes better sense.
Good news.
I'd love to see that proposed tower project next to the Peninsula revived. Maybe if the Broadstone fills up quickly?