Metro Jacksonville

https://www.youtube.com/v/VpUQ_EMV23c

Quote"Meet the Thighmaster of urban public policy: streetcars," proffers Reason TV's Rob Montz, who, other than borrowing one of Frank Gorshin's Riddler suits from the old Batman TV series, delivers a spot-on indictment of the graft and Barack to the Future mentality that, as he notes, causes "municipal politicians across the country" to convince themselves "that this costly, clunky hardware can revitalize their flabby downtown economies."

So true.

The key is having a fixed and exclusive way that does not have to cross traffic as often.

When street cars where the thing at the turn of the century, they ran on their own right of ways and let's face facts, few cars existed let alone were competing for space.  That is far from what we have today.  Fixed rail is a commercial development tool to some extent, which of course this presentation totally ignores because that would be contrary to it's reason for being made. And of course, the stats presented in this presentation are often ignored by those promoting street car. 

This brings us to the facts of the matter.  Like most things, street car only truly gives us all the potential benefits if done right.  Done right.  A phrase that can be seldom applied to much of anything these days. 

How is Tampa's new streetcar performing?  Doesn't Charlotte have a new one in addition to the light rail?  Curious to know how those are going.

My guess is once they get some of the quirky early issues sorted out with the DC system it will be more efficient and ridership will go up.

I think here in Jacksonville continue to improve the bus routes and BRT in and around the core, focus on medium rise infill development along these routes to increase ridership, and plan long term for a light rail system that reaches further out into the surrounding communities.  The light rail system doesn't make sense until there is more of a desire for people and businesses to locate downtown but there should be planning in place for it now.  30 years down the road this city will continue to be way behind if planning doesn't take place now.  My guess is most, if not all, cities that are currently over 1 million people in this country will have commuter rail in the next 50 years.  In Jax, it would probably make the most sense to construct new tracks along the existing rail lines to avoid conflicts with road traffic.  A good starter line in my opinion would be from Orange Park to downtown via the existing track route.  Perhaps Racetrack Road to downtown via the tracks next to Phillips.

I would assume a streetcar (or tram, as I prefer to call them) won't do much in isolation. But as part of a larger, coordinated plan, it should be able to help encourage development.

I think a lot of these criticisms seem to focus on different elements in isolation - but certainly the approach to regeneration should be multifaceted.

I look at the arguments against streetcars in the US similarly to the arguments against universal health care in the US.  How is it that every other developed country in the world can make it work but we can't?

Doesn't Charlotte have a new one in addition to the light rail?  Curious to know how those are going.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article17612207.html (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article17612207.html)

Quote
The first phase of Charlotte's streetcar is closer to reality: On-street testing started Tuesday and is expected to continue Wednesday, the Charlotte Area Transit System said.

Pedestrians, drivers and cyclists are asked to be careful during tests. The streetcar cannot swerve to avoid people or vehicles in its way. The streetcar is scheduled to open in June.

Drivers who park along Trade and Elizabeth should park within solid white parking lines, or they could face a citation or towing.

Quote from: finehoe on July 08, 2015, 09:10:33 AM
I look at the arguments against streetcars in the US similarly to the arguments against universal health care in the US.  How is it that every other developed country in the world can make it work but we can't?

The quasi-religious nutjobs at "Reason" don't think that way.

Quote from: finehoe on July 08, 2015, 09:10:33 AM
I look at the arguments against streetcars in the US similarly to the arguments against universal health care in the US.  How is it that every other developed country in the world can make it work but we can't?

Very few cities in the US are functionally like cities in Europe.  Putting a streetcar in Atlanta is not the same as putting in a streetcar in Ghent.  Europe and America are generally apples and oranges.  The streetcar isn't so much the problem - it's the layout and design of the city as well as the mentality of the people.

By the way, the most successful streetcar in America might be the E and F lines in San Francisco.  As a resident, I view them like I view the bus lines.  Tourists like them as well.  I don't actually view them or treat them as a separate streetcar and they aren't this clunky Siemens thing that the cities are all ordering that are more like full on light rail cars.  They are single heritage cars and I guarantee that these smaller older cars have far higher ridership than these clunky new cars that cities are putting in.  I would imagine the system in NOLA is similar...like a bus line for residents or a joyride for tourists.  Most new American streetcar systems are put in as seemingly touristy joyrides for residents!  Form over function.

Quote from: simms3 on July 08, 2015, 09:45:04 AM

Very few cities in the US are functionally like cities in Europe.  Putting a streetcar in Atlanta is not the same as putting in a streetcar in Ghent.  Europe and America are generally apples and oranges.  The streetcar isn't so much the problem - it's the layout and design of the city as well as the mentality of the people.

I disagree - to an extent. When discussing Europe and trams it's easy to think of charming city centres - unchanged in many ways for hundreds of years (or more). But modern European cities sprawl far beyond those picturesque areas and stretch out into suburbs. Take Strasbourg for example. The tram runs from the city centre well out into the suburbs - with wider streets, large apartment blocks and even detached houses.

Perhaps an argument can be made about the mentality of the residents - but mentalities can be changed. Happens all the time.

^^^Development patterns are still quite different.  I'm well aware that European cities sprawl ;)  But European sprawl is very different from American sprawl.  Besides, American cities are only building streetcars in the city centers, and the difference between American city centers and European city centers is even more stark than the difference between their sprawl.  Mentalities can't change that easily.

Making a city like Atlanta truly transit/walk first from where it is today could take 1,000 years at this point.  Even Euopeans today love their cars, but their cities weren't designed around the car and their cities are not conducive to making it easy to take trips with the car.

Also, to the point about race and trying to get white people to ride transit at the expense of bus lines that serve mostly black people...do you honestly think Europe has that problem like America does?  How backwards is this problem?!?  That's an American mentality that is a form of subtly, likely subconscious racism (let's call it prejudice...and it's probably not anti-black, more anti-lower class).  For whole generations now, transit has been a lower class thing.  It will take generations at least to change that in some people.  Europe *never* went through a phase where transit was just for lower class people.  And they never got rid of their transit lines and swapped them out for cars.  Mentalities are entirely fabricated.  Europe and America and largely opposite, so mentalities are largely opposite.

Mentalities can't just "change" and American cities can't just be rebuilt to be like the European cities that are covered in tram networks.  Agree to disagree!

Quote from: simms3 on July 08, 2015, 10:07:40 AM
^^^Development patterns are still quite different.  I'm well aware that European cities sprawl ;)  But European sprawl is very different from American sprawl.  Besides, American cities are only building streetcars in the city centers, and the difference between American city centers and European city centers is even more stark than the difference between their sprawl.  Mentalities can't change that easily.

Making a city like Atlanta truly transit/walk first from where it is today could take 1,000 years at this point.  Even Euopeans today love their cars, but their cities weren't designed around the car and their cities are not conducive to making it easy to take trips with the car.

Also, to the point about race and trying to get white people to ride transit at the expense of bus lines that serve mostly black people...do you honestly think Europe has that problem like America does?  How backwards is this problem?!?  That's an American mentality that is a form of subtly, likely subconscious racism (let's call it prejudice...and it's probably not anti-black, more anti-lower class).  For whole generations now, transit has been a lower class thing.  It will take generations at least to change that in some people.  Europe *never* went through a phase where transit was just for lower class people.  And they never got rid of their transit lines and swapped them out for cars.  Mentalities are entirely fabricated.  Europe and America and largely opposite, so mentalities are largely opposite.

Mentalities can't just "change" and American cities can't just be rebuilt to be like the European cities that are covered in tram networks.  Agree to disagree!

How are the development patterns that different? Or in what way/ways are they different enough to exclude tramways as a viable form of transport?

Regarding mentalities - I completely disagree. When I was just out of university in the mid-90s, I never would've expected gay marriage to be legalised in the USA. Beyond that - I never would've expected a majority of Americans to approve of it. When I moved to Jacksonville in 1979, I certainly didn't expect to ever see a black President. People can change - it just takes time. When it comes to transport, I'd argue it takes time and incentives.

Cars are a form of function, not a social opinion.  Mentalities regarding them are different than mentalities regarding gay marriage, in my opinion.

RE: differences in development patterns between Europe and America?  I'm not even going to go there.  I know you can select a few places in Europe that look like a few places in America, and they may even be served by trams, but overall the two continents are covered in cities that couldn't possibly be more different on the whole.

Quote from: simms3 on July 08, 2015, 10:28:10 AM
Cars are a form of function, not a social opinion.  Mentalities regarding them are different than mentalities regarding gay marriage, in my opinion.

RE: differences in development patterns between Europe and America?  I'm not even going to go there.  I know you can select a few places in Europe that look like a few places in America, and they may even be served by trams, but overall the two continents are covered in cities that couldn't possibly be more different on the whole.

But Simms - they can look different, but that doesn't mean they can't both use trams. But I don't even think they're that different.

But I cannot accept that trams won't work in USA cities because they're different. I'd need some actual evidence or rationale to back up a statement like that before I'll accept it.

Quote from: simms3 on July 08, 2015, 09:45:04 AM
Very few cities in the US are functionally like cities in Europe. 

It may come as a surprise to you, but there are developed societies outside of the US and Europe.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fc/TTCstreetcarmap-2005.png/650px-TTCstreetcarmap-2005.png)

(http://www.discoversydney.com.au/maps/sydney_metro_map.gif)

...to name just two.

I think that the streetcar in NOLA would be a good model for Jax to look at as a first attempt. When I was there for a week it seemed to be used at all hours of the day by both locals and tourists. I think they should put it on main st. like the old days of Jax running from DT out into Springfield. The development of transit and the development of uses have to happen at the same time though. If a streetcar went in today on main it would be a flop but if we see the elbow district become popular, more residents moving into springfield and downtown along with more business in the area then it could work. I think streetcars have to be done exactly right to work and DC did not accomplish that goal.

Quote from: simms3 on July 08, 2015, 10:07:40 AM
^^^Development patterns are still quite different.  I'm well aware that European cities sprawl ;)  But European sprawl is very different from American sprawl.  Besides, American cities are only building streetcars in the city centers, and the difference between American city centers and European city centers is even more stark than the difference between their sprawl.  Mentalities can't change that easily.

Making a city like Atlanta truly transit/walk first from where it is today could take 1,000 years at this point.  Even Euopeans today love their cars, but their cities weren't designed around the car and their cities are not conducive to making it easy to take trips with the car.

Also, to the point about race and trying to get white people to ride transit at the expense of bus lines that serve mostly black people...do you honestly think Europe has that problem like America does?  How backwards is this problem?!?  That's an American mentality that is a form of subtly, likely subconscious racism (let's call it prejudice...and it's probably not anti-black, more anti-lower class).  For whole generations now, transit has been a lower class thing.  It will take generations at least to change that in some people.  Europe *never* went through a phase where transit was just for lower class people.  And they never got rid of their transit lines and swapped them out for cars.  Mentalities are entirely fabricated.  Europe and America and largely opposite, so mentalities are largely opposite.

Mentalities can't just "change" and American cities can't just be rebuilt to be like the European cities that are covered in tram networks.  Agree to disagree!

Ladies and gentlemen . . . . you don't have to leave the country to experience functioning mass transit systems and "white people taking buses."  Go to DC, Boston, NYC, Chicago, Philly, New Orleans, Portland, Seattle, SF and several other major cities.  In other words, real cities.  Real cities have other ways to get around other than car.  Jacksonville will never be comparable to the older cities whose infrastructure developed mostly before automobiles.  You can see it just by Google Mapping, the infrastructure is night and day Jacksonville vs say Boston or even closer, New Orleans.  But Jacksonville does have a lot of vacant land in the core and along transportation corridors so at least there is potential to be as efficient as possible in the future with smart development and redevelopment.  Trouble is you have to get the population here on board, and if you haven't been to these other places it is hard to visualize the concept.  Which I think is the problem with a vast majority of the population here, most people can't visualize it with what's already here.  They accept that the way it has been done for the last 50 years here is an ok way to continue.

Quote from: UNFurbanist on July 08, 2015, 11:08:10 AM
I think that the streetcar in NOLA would be a good model for Jax to look at as a first attempt. When I was there for a week it seemed to be used at all hours of the day by both locals and tourists. I think they should put it on main st. like the old days of Jax running from DT out into Springfield. The development of transit and the development of uses have to happen at the same time though. If a streetcar went in today on main it would be a flop but if we see the elbow district become popular, more residents moving into springfield and downtown along with more business in the area then it could work. I think streetcars have to be done exactly right to work and DC did not accomplish that goal.

^^^My impression of the streetcars in NOLA are that they are like the streetcars in San Francisco, essentially fixed rail buses that appeal functionally to residents and don't replace bus lines and aren't the "shiny new Siemens cars" bought to attract white yuppies to transit, and they appeal to tourists because they go where tourists want to go and are cute and different.

I would agree it's a much better system, functionally, then all these new little things that cities all over are putting in.  But it's also quite a bit of a different system.

Quote from: finehoe on July 08, 2015, 10:49:45 AM

Quote from: simms3 on July 08, 2015, 09:45:04 AM
Very few cities in the US are functionally like cities in Europe. 

It may come as a surprise to you, but there are developed societies outside of the US and Europe.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fc/TTCstreetcarmap-2005.png/650px-TTCstreetcarmap-2005.png)

(http://www.discoversydney.com.au/maps/sydney_metro_map.gif)

...to name just two.

Hahaha so funny...yea Toronto and Sydney are just like Charlotte and Tampa.  Yea...There are parts of Toronto, by the way, where you wouldn't even realize you were in North America.

Let's compare the top 5-6 cities in the US and the largest cities in Canada and Australia (which are very obviously a part of the empire and have far more similarities to European cities...as do the people have sensibilities more reminiscent of Europeans, than Americans), I digress...

Not to mention Toronto's streetcar system is "surviving", meaning, they never tore it down.  It is the original streetcar system!  As is San Francisco's, Philadelphia's, NOLA's, and Boston's.  Perfect examples to compare to the new ones in the following cities:

Atlanta - the most pointless thing I've ever seen
Charlotte - seems like it may have some use, better than Atlanta's!
Dallas streetcar - wtf is that
Little Rock - highlighted here on MJ.  Clearly a "development tool" for a tiny city
Memphis - one would think would be similar to NOLA's, and it uses heritage cars, but I heard nobody rides it at all
Seattle - surprisingly useless with low ridership...the bus system in Seattle is fantastic, why start building streetcars?
Tampa - we know how crappy this one is and nobody rides it
Tucscon - really?!?

Portland's system seems to be a success, and perhaps DC's will, but you're talking 2 cities that follow a much more European model and have a more European mentality than all of the cities on the list above (and moreso than most cities in the US).  The western US is generally so progressive in development and land use (for the 21st century...) that I don't think it can be computed or even comprehended by much of the S/TX/Midwest.  Portland had an intact core to begin with and has only built it up in a very old world style.  I'm sorry to say, Jacksonville won't even kick into gear to 10% of what Portland is doing to develop itself.  It just won't.  You'd need to swap the people of the two cities...the people in Jax will never get there.


The fact of the matter is that streetcars are slow and cumbersome.  They move at the speed of a bus line in a dense city...i.e. somewhere between walking and inner city light rail.  About the same speed as biking, perhaps even slower!

Someone explain to me how people in Jax are going to ditch their cars when free and abundant parking is everywhere and there is no traffic, to consistently ride a slow tram?  Even Charlotte's light rail is a failure in my eyes.  9 miles, 16K daily riders through the densest part of town connecting the most important things (residents, jobs, amenities).  My friggin inner city bus line (a trolley bus attached to a wire nonetheless) goes only 5 miles and carries 35-40K people a day...and it's slow and crowded as hell and it smells and yet everyone rides it.  It takes me ~30 minutes to walk to work, and almost as long sometimes to take the bus.

Density works with trams.  That's the golden ticket.  Jax has no density.  Riverside needs 5x the density, in my opinion, to even start to feel like a neighborhood worthy of a slow tram taking up streets.  The neighborhoods along my bus route have a minimum density of 5x that of Riverside.  My Census Tract is pushing 60K ppsm, close to 10x that of Riverside.

I think Jax will be far more successful playing with full on light rail...something that doesn't make frequent stops, can take on park N ride, and zip people around point A to B along a corridor that can be developed.


Save the Euro style trams for when Jax looks and feels like a real city and using a car is becomes pointless.

Quote from: simms3 on July 08, 2015, 11:37:13 AM
There are parts of Toronto, by the way, where you wouldn't even realize you were in North America.

And?  They also film movies there that are supposed to be set in New York.  The point is "the layout and design of the city" in Canada and Australia are virtually identical to those in the US, so your assertion that that is why they can't work here is obviously not true.

The New Orleans streetcar seems to be unique in the US in that it runs largely on a separate right of way. Of course, it also has had the added benefit of serving both where people are/live and where they want to go (has not relied on induced demand a justification for maintenance/expansion). NOLA's compact size and population density along major corridors also make the system more affordable and easily justifiable than other attempts.

Quote from: finehoe on July 08, 2015, 11:46:45 AM

Quote from: simms3 on July 08, 2015, 11:37:13 AM
There are parts of Toronto, by the way, where you wouldn't even realize you were in North America.

And?  They also film movies there that are supposed to be set in New York.  The point is "the layout and design of the city" in Canada and Australia are virtually identical to those in the US, so your assertion that that is why they can't work here is obviously not true.

No.  You're failing to see the overall point of the video, and my point.  There are 5-6 cities in the US that are "real" cities, and most of them have streetcars, heavy rail, high density, an old built form (pre-auto), etc etc.  There are a few other cities that are smaller but are very very progressive and also still have a larger built form and prewar density (i.e. Portland).

Fine and dandy...these cities *already* have streetcars, and that is not really wherein the complaint lies.  Portland was in the movie as being tied to an American streetcar manufacturer...the movie didn't focus on how wasteful its streetcar system was.

DC was in the movie, even though it's in that top tier 5-6 cities, as an example of where a streetcar was being used to coax white riders at the expense of more heavily used bus routes used by black people.  That is a real problem...paying for these shiny new systems that have fewer riders at the expense of existing systems that serve people that really need them.

Getting past DC and Portland, the real crux is all of these other American cities rushing to put streetcars in.  See my list.  Little Rock.  Tucscon. Tampa.  Dallas.  Atlanta.  Etc etc etc

These are the more "typical" American cities where most people live.  Most people don't live between NYC (which has no streetcars), Boston, SF, NOLA, and Portland.  Most people live in the Atlantas, Phoenixes, Houstons, Tampas, Charlottes, etc of America.

Streetcars are the cumbersome, slow, "small-scale" fixed rail transit option of what's out there.  They are also cheaper, but on a pound for pound basis are at best worthless in these typical American cities that are all rushing to install them.  That's the point.

You think a streetcar that stops every couple blocks going from Shoppes of Avondale to downtown will be heavily ridden?  That's many many miles at that speed.  Do you know how long that will take?  On a route of 3K ppsm where everyone has multiple cars and there really is no traffic and there is free and abundant parking, everywhere?  And not to mention no tourists or reason for tourists to use it to go to a neighborhood with some shops that looks like hundreds of other semi-older neighborhoods with shops around the country?

I mean...come on.  Find a corridor and replicate what Charlotte did with LYNX.  Yea I called it a "failure" because that is the best one can hope for in a newer city...it's doing well given the circumstances and they are expanding it.  It has spurred development.  It has attracted white riders (at I don't know what kind of service cutbacks across other bus routes serving black riders).  It has ok ridership, and its ridership is increasing.  It goes decently fast and doesn't stop every couple blocks until right in the city.  It has park n ride further out.

That is a full on light rail.  Not a streetcar.  That's what Jacksonville needs.  Not a tram (and Jax already has a Skyway...which is essentially a tram in the sky at much greater cost).

Once again, you gest as if I'm a clueless soul who has never been around, but I think you're either missing the point or you are the more clueless one.

LRT is essentially a modern version and operation of traditional streetcar technology. The technology is pretty much the same.  The difference is in how you operate them, capacity, route planning, etc. If you want to make a streetcar (I'm envisioning modern streetcar or tram, which is cheaper than LRT but can operate in a similar fashion) work in Jax, you don't operate it like Little Rock's or Tampa's. You set it up like an LRT starter line, by making sure you directly hit some key pedestrian scale destinations (especially at the end points), some areas where you'd like to encourage high density infill (think Charlotte's South End) and areas where it can be useful to transit dependent populations (in Jax, the higher density/transit dependent neighborhoods are in NW Jax, not Avondale, etc. so they can't be ignored). Once you have that in place, it needs to be operated like a high frequency transit spine, by having your transit system feed riders into it. In other words, not a tourist train that travels 5mph circling downtown and stopping at every other block. So, it's not the technology that needs to take a bad wrap, it's the application of that technology that many cities have been doing lately.

As for Jax, I say modern streetcar because we already have a out-dated fixed transit system in the Skyway.  At some point, it will need to be completely revamped. Of course further study would be needed, but modern streetcar is a technology that could probably utilize the skyway's existing infrastructure and give you the ability to drop the system down to grade, when the time comes to expand into neighboring districts. I'm not sure that infrastructure can support full blown LRT.

I just happened to stumble across this:

http://www.vox.com/cards/us-streetcar-trend-public-transportation

^Take it with a grain of salt. For example, cost estimates can range. Those numbers on Card 4 are pretty high and reflect systems proposed with all the bells and whistles (like Milwaukee's). There are plenty examples of costs being significantly lower when you stick to the basics of building and providing a reliable service. On the other hand, this dude compares those expensive projects with the cost of operating a regular city bus (not even BRT) on regular streets. Apples and oranges. My advice is to not get caught up on the technology. Instead figure out what type of environment you want your city to become in the future and invest in the types of technologies to incrementally get you to that dream.  If it's a regular city bus, so be it.  If it's streetcar, light rail, BRT, or a mix of everything, so be it.  No need to pit mass transit technologies against one another.

Seattle had to rationalize fares on their streetcar.

http://www.theurbanist.org/2015/01/09/seattle-streetcar-rationalizing-fares-in-march/

After reading it, Lake is right.

But you will notice the oddity in that this streetcar does not belong to the transit agency (METRO). It belongs to the City of Seattle. METRO just operates it.

METRO didnt want streetcars, they prefer buses.

Sound familiar?

Quote from: spuwho on July 08, 2015, 02:25:13 PM
But you will notice the oddity in that this streetcar does not belong to the transit agency (METRO). It belongs to the City of Seattle. METRO just operates it.

It's a similar story for the streetcar in DC.  Metro didn't build it and won't operate it.

Yes. the city has a vision for what it wants to become and the transit agency doesn't share that same vision. Thus, Seattle had the balls to do what they felt was necessary to keep pushing towards their overall goal, as opposed to letting their dreams be decided by another entity that operates from a more pigeon-holed perspective. In some situations, that's what it takes to get things done.  Man up and do it yourself, if you truly believe in it. 20 years from now, we'll see who was right.

The western cities, Seattle included, are in my opinion the most progressive cities in the country.  Most of these cities are largely new and post-war cities, yet they are still developing towards being real mixed-mode, high density, high quality of life cities.

Seattle's metro today is 4-5x the population it was during WWII.  Meaning it's a new city.  It had only about 50% more people at the start of the war than Jacksonville had in its present day city limits (i.e. 200-300K people roughly), with not much more in the "metro".

Yet Seattle today is more urban than all but the top few cities in America.  It has gone down a different path...

Count Portland, Denver, San Diego, Boise, and even Salt Lake City amongst those cities that are doing things differently.  Metro Portland isn't that much bigger than Jax in the grand scheme of things, but it feels A LOT larger (many many times larger) without feeling all that congested and hectic.

Having recently moved to DC, I will say I was surprised at how utterly unwilling choice Metrorail riders are to use a bus for any reason. Americans' prejudice against anything other than fixed line, dedicated right of way transit is a stark reality. I'm quite curious how a "gold-level" (http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/17389/the-us-has-only-5-true-brt-systems-and-none-are-gold/) BRT system would fare here.

At least in DC, the idea of a bus feeder system for fixed-transit seems more notional than actual. The city is of a scale that the vast majority of desirable neighborhoods are within walking distance of a Metro stop. In most sprawl-based cities, barring some unforeseen spigot of capital funding opening up, the only viable route to choice ridership is Japan-like TOD where the transit provider is also the real estate developer.

I bring all this up in a streetcar thread as a rebuke to many of the current US streetcart/LRT projects that are often just more expensive buses that can't maneuver around traffic. Even in Portland, I saw no reason to use their system as walking was easy and Uber only slightly more expensive for longer trips.

Quote from: JFman00 on July 08, 2015, 04:03:24 PM
Having recently moved to DC, I will say I was surprised at how utterly unwilling choice Metrorail riders are to use a bus for any reason. Americans' prejudice against anything other than fixed line, dedicated right of way transit is a stark reality. I'm quite curious how a "gold-level" (http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/17389/the-us-has-only-5-true-brt-systems-and-none-are-gold/) BRT system would fare here.

At least in DC, the idea of a bus feeder system for fixed-transit seems more notional than actual. The city is of a scale that the vast majority of desirable neighborhoods are within walking distance of a Metro stop. In most sprawl-based cities, barring some unforeseen spigot of capital funding opening up, the only viable route to choice ridership is Japan-like TOD where the transit provider is also the real estate developer.

I bring all this up in a streetcar thread as a rebuke to many of the current US streetcart/LRT projects that are often just more expensive buses that can't maneuver around traffic. Even in Portland, I saw no reason to use their system as walking was easy and Uber only slightly more expensive for longer trips.

When I lived in Chicago I didn't notice any unwillingness by anyone to take the bus except when of course an "L" stop was within walking distance, then it is much faster to take the train.  The advantage of the Chicago "L" is that it is an elevated subway and does not get caught up in traffic, thus usually the fastest option during rush hour.  The other thing to note is that parking anywhere near downtown Chicago or DC is incredibly expensive.  This is another factor that forces people to take mass transit, it is not only the fastest option but it is also the cheapest option.  As long as property values in downtown Jacksonville are low, parking cheap, and driving relatively easy, most people will not commute via mass transit.  This is why when things start picking up and more people populate the core and it gets congested it is not the best solution to just widen the road, the best solution in urban cores is to invest in mass transit.  Jacksonville needs to incentivize smart development along the transportation corridors in and around downtown (Riverside Ave, North Main, Hendricks, North San Marco Blvd and Atlantic from Hendricks through St. Nicholas to get ridership up.  There is a serious lack of modern or renovated urban apartment/loft options on these corridors for a city of a million people.  Get the density up in those areas and people will ride.  Seriously, the only options south and east of the river are suburban style apartments far away from downtown which are going like hot cakes because there are no other options!

With self-driving cars on the horizon, cities need to take a really hard look at building additional infrastructure for light rail and streetcars. There will soon be better solutions that utilize our existing roads in a whole new way.

https://www.yahoo.com/autos/s/uber-ceo-tesla-sell-half-million-autonomous-electric-110000053.html (https://www.yahoo.com/autos/s/uber-ceo-tesla-sell-half-million-autonomous-electric-110000053.html)

Quote from: simms3 on July 08, 2015, 02:51:15 PM
The western cities, Seattle included, are in my opinion the most progressive cities in the country.  Most of these cities are largely new and post-war cities, yet they are still developing towards being real mixed-mode, high density, high quality of life cities.

Seattle's metro today is 4-5x the population it was during WWII.  Meaning it's a new city.  It had only about 50% more people at the start of the war than Jacksonville had in its present day city limits (i.e. 200-300K people roughly), with not much more in the "metro".

Yet Seattle today is more urban than all but the top few cities in America.  It has gone down a different path...

Count Portland, Denver, San Diego, Boise, and even Salt Lake City amongst those cities that are doing things differently.  Metro Portland isn't that much bigger than Jax in the grand scheme of things, but it feels A LOT larger (many many times larger) without feeling all that congested and hectic.

Having lived in Seattle....geographics had a huge role in the development of their urbanism.

And dont think the eastern sprawl onto the Sammamish Plateau hasnt been without its problems. Like Los Angeles they will be bumping up against the Cascade Mountains in due time.

For what its worth, Sound Transit announced another quarter of rider growth and has been holding hearings on how they can expand further. Only the streetcar service was flat and they expect that to change after new fare rules are implemented.

Thanks for the upload.

Quote from: simms3 on July 08, 2015, 02:51:15 PM
Count Portland, Denver, San Diego, Boise, and even Salt Lake City amongst those cities that are doing things differently.  Metro Portland isn't that much bigger than Jax in the grand scheme of things, but it feels A LOT larger (many many times larger) without feeling all that congested and hectic.

Can you expound on Boise? I'm curious about that place but haven't had an opportunity to visit.

Quote from: JFman00 on July 08, 2015, 04:03:24 PM
Having recently moved to DC, I will say I was surprised at how utterly unwilling choice Metrorail riders are to use a bus for any reason. Americans' prejudice against anything other than fixed line, dedicated right of way transit is a stark reality.

This is true. From my experience, riding buses in NYC and CHI was not preferred but not specifically avoided...if it was more convenient then people rode it. In DC I'm pretty certain I never once rode the bus. Perhaps because it wasnt practical/convenient, but possibly also because it isn't a free transfer like CHI and NYC. It is an extra $1.25. (Of course the fare system for the DC Metro is different from CHI and NYC, charging by distance rather than per ride)

Quote from: goldy21 on July 08, 2015, 05:08:42 PM
With self-driving cars on the horizon, cities need to take a really hard look at building additional infrastructure for light rail and streetcars. There will soon be better solutions that utilize our existing roads in a whole new way.

Yeah, this is kinda hard to imagine but we could be looking at a vastly different horizon in just 10 years. If autonomous vehicles really do become commonplace then there could be two drastic shifts: personal car ownership could be nearly non-existent and parking structures/lots could entirely become a thing of the past. Crazy.

Quote from: goldy21 on July 08, 2015, 05:08:42 PM
With self-driving cars on the horizon, cities need to take a really hard look at building additional infrastructure for light rail and streetcars. There will soon be better solutions that utilize our existing roads in a whole new way.

https://www.yahoo.com/autos/s/uber-ceo-tesla-sell-half-million-autonomous-electric-110000053.html (https://www.yahoo.com/autos/s/uber-ceo-tesla-sell-half-million-autonomous-electric-110000053.html)

Most who will be able to afford a self driving car probably aren't using public transit frequently anyway. I'm still waiting to see how people who can barely afford a home mortgage or rent are going to pay for a self driving car.  Seems like a situation of the haves and have nots.  There's social justice issues all over this that many are paying attention too. In the end, public transit will still have a place.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/biz-columns-blogs/development/article27017140.html (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/biz-columns-blogs/development/article27017140.html)

Quote

Charlotte's streetcar line is a small stretch of rails, just 1.5 miles, but big hopes are riding on it.

Tuesday's opening of the Gold Line has redevelopment plans moving again on Elizabeth Avenue. Grubb Properties, which has been assembling land along the streetcar line for more than a decade, told me this week the company plans to build up to 550 new apartments at the corner of Elizabeth Avenue and Torrence Street.

The development, part of a long-awaited plan to transform one of Charlotte's historic main streets, will also include space for new shops and restaurants.

Gold Line supporters hope that's just the beginning. The streetcar line is meant to eventually run from Johnson C. Smith University through uptown towards Central Avenue, creating an east-west linkage to complement the north-south Blue Line light rail.

Quote[The Knight Foundation last month gave a $1.5 million grant to help kick-start the effort to revitalize the Beatties Ford Road/West Trade Street corridor. Charlotte Center City Partners will lead the effort, hiring a director for the Historic West End district.

In a statement, the Knight Foundation said: "The largest driver of new opportunities for the district will be the CityLynx Gold Line streetcar."

QuoteThe first phase of the streetcar cost $37 million, with a federal grant paying $25 million and the city kicking in $12 million. The city is expected to pay $75 million of the $150 million cost of the second phase of the project, which could open in 2019. The other half could be paid with a federal grant. A divided City Council last month approved spending $7.7 million for the next phase of design work.

Quote from: thelakelander on July 08, 2015, 10:41:28 PM

Quote from: goldy21 on July 08, 2015, 05:08:42 PM
With self-driving cars on the horizon, cities need to take a really hard look at building additional infrastructure for light rail and streetcars. There will soon be better solutions that utilize our existing roads in a whole new way.

https://www.yahoo.com/autos/s/uber-ceo-tesla-sell-half-million-autonomous-electric-110000053.html (https://www.yahoo.com/autos/s/uber-ceo-tesla-sell-half-million-autonomous-electric-110000053.html)

Most who will be able to afford a self driving car probably aren't using public transit frequently anyway. I'm still waiting to see how people who can barely afford a home mortgage or rent are going to pay for a self driving car.  Seems like a situation of the haves and have nots.  There's social justice issues all over this that many are paying attention too. In the end, public transit will still have a place.

The expectation is that self-driving cars will replace car ownership. So really you're talking about displacing taxi drivers with self-driving taxis, which are actually also supposed to make them cheaper to operate and lower the fares. Again, pretty crazy to imagine but people in the industry expect it to happen at least in the next two decades, perhaps much sooner. From the technological standpoint that's a very conservative estimate. What would take the longest are the safety regulations, as well as general public mindset to adopt such a shift. Like I said, I know some folks in real estate (in Asia) who are long-range already planning for this transformation.

Also just an aside, the technology within the autonomous vehicle should only cost a few thousand dollars.

We'll see. Call me skeptical on the timeline of mass implementation in the US. Nevertheless, it would seem they'd impact roadway expansion and construction moreso than the need for mass transit in the core of cities. We'd end up with a bunch of highways that have way more capacity than needed.

Actually, streetcars are faster and have more brake power on grades then buses do, but if you saddle them into the same role as a modern block by block city bus in traffic then I agree... what's the point? They (including the older models) have acceleration rates that will leave a modern bus in their dust, (ever push down the peddle on an electric golf cart?). As Lake has said, streetcars and LRT are virtually the same animal with some slight variations for faster boarding and higher speeds. Even those old streetcars can run entrained and most of the original companies, including Jacksonville, St. Augustine and Fernandina Beach used both power cars and 'trailers' for peak loads.

One of the main differences in the implementation of rail compared to BRT is typically the need to punch a fixed line through the central business district. You've got to have tracks and there is usually no free space except in a roadway to do so. Once the streetcar/LRT reaches the edge of the CBD it can usually be built upon railroad RofW, high power line easements, drainage easements etc.. Many of these one, two and three mile starters are being done with that core idea in mind and an eye to future extensions into the burbs.

BRT on the other hand can operate on existing roadways, but it can't do so efficiently and arguments that say it can are simply bogus. For BRT to approach the efficiencies of rail it must also have dedicated/exclusive roadways, both in downtown and in the burbs. Over time the built in savings in O&M with rail will make even the best of the BRT systems appear to be expensive toys.

Driverless cars leaves me laughing. Yes you can do it on well known streets, but as long as the average google map or your onboard navigation can't find that new addition, or the old dirt road, it ain't going to 'universally' happen.

Quote from: thelakelander on July 11, 2015, 01:22:10 PM
We'll see. Call me skeptical on the timeline of mass implementation in the US. Nevertheless, it would seem they'd impact roadway expansion and construction moreso than the need for mass transit in the core of cities. We'd end up with a bunch of highways that have way more capacity than needed.

I'm pretty skeptical as well. But I have lived just long enough now to experience some dramatic things happening that were hard to imagine beforehand.

As to your point about capacity and transit, I think you are right. I hope that that's what will keep some semblance of balance between larger capacity mass transit and smaller vehicles (autonomous or not). I saw a study that explained that more vehicle-miles are logged with ridesharing/taxis despite a reduction in number of vehicles. That's because these "taxis" have to drive around to pick people up. If, for instance, every single person always had a vehicle with them, they would drive exactly how far they travel and then leave their cars parked. With ridesharing, you reduce the number of vehicles but those fewer vehicles are covering much longer distances driving back and forth in addition to driving passengers where they want to go. So, more vehicle-miles probably means more road capacity necessary. Mass transit is the only way to reduce the toll on the environment and infrastructure. Of course, uber and others are trying to use technology to also increase carpooling within ridesharing...so again who knows what will happen?

Ock, it seems like many really aren't familiar with the various types of fixed transit, how much they really cost and the different ways various technologies can be operated. Most streetcar conversations I have, typically end up with someone claiming they are slow and stop at every other block. In reality, they don't have to be if you don't want them to be.

Quote from: ProjectMaximus on July 11, 2015, 01:48:00 PM
I'm pretty skeptical as well. But I have lived just long enough now to experience some dramatic things happening that were hard to imagine beforehand.

As to your point about capacity and transit, I think you are right. I hope that that's what will keep some semblance of balance between larger capacity mass transit and smaller vehicles (autonomous or not). I saw a study that explained that more vehicle-miles are logged with ridesharing/taxis despite a reduction in number of vehicles. That's because these "taxis" have to drive around to pick people up. If, for instance, every single person always had a vehicle with them, they would drive exactly how far they travel and then leave their cars parked. With ridesharing, you reduce the number of vehicles but those fewer vehicles are covering much longer distances driving back and forth in addition to driving passengers where they want to go. So, more vehicle-miles probably means more road capacity necessary. Mass transit is the only way to reduce the toll on the environment and infrastructure. Of course, uber and others are trying to use technology to also increase carpooling within ridesharing...so again who knows what will happen?

I'd be interested to see how much the fare on these riderless "taxis" will be. We've got a good portion of our transit dependent population that struggles to come up with $1.25 to $2.50 one-way trip fares. Without a massive government forced switch or big time subsidization of the concept, it will be nearly impossible for an all out switch.

Quote from: Ocklawaha on July 11, 2015, 01:39:23 PM
Actually, streetcars are faster and have more brake power on grades then buses do, but if you saddle them into the same role as a modern block by block city bus in traffic then I agree... what's the point? They (including the older models) have acceleration rates that will leave a modern bus in their dust, (ever push down the peddle on an electric golf cart?). As Lake has said, streetcars and LRT are virtually the same animal with some slight variations for faster boarding and higher speeds. Even those old streetcars can run entrained and most of the original companies, including Jacksonville, St. Augustine and Fernandina Beach used both power cars and 'trailers' for peak loads.

One of the main differences in the implementation of rail compared to BRT is typically the need to punch a fixed line through the central business district. You've got to have tracks and there is usually no free space except in a roadway to do so. Once the streetcar/LRT reaches the edge of the CBD it can usually be built upon railroad RofW, high power line easements, drainage easements etc.. Many of these one, two and three mile starters are being done with that core idea in mind and an eye to future extensions into the burbs.

BRT on the other hand can operate on existing roadways, but it can't do so efficiently and arguments that say it can are simply bogus. For BRT to approach the efficiencies of rail it must also have dedicated/exclusive roadways, both in downtown and in the burbs. Over time the built in savings in O&M with rail will make even the best of the BRT systems appear to be expensive toys.

Driverless cars leaves me laughing. Yes you can do it on well known streets, but as long as the average google map or your onboard navigation can't find that new addition, or the old dirt road, it ain't going to 'universally' happen.

My experience is that an aggressive bus driver will accelerate and slow down much faster than a streetcar.  A streetcar may be physically capable of accelerating faster, but why should it?  Also, disclosure, most of the buses I ride are trolley buses attached to wires.  Maybe that has something to do with it.  Some days you appreciate the faster acceleration, other days it's almost enough to make you nauseous.  I rarely find myself sitting in a bus in a larger city - whereas in Jax you could be the only one on the bus, and that way you get a forward facing seat towards the middle, allowing for maximum ride comfort, in Boston or SF or Seattle at best you're getting a backward facing seat in the back or a side seat up front, likely standing though.  In order to let people off, other people need to step out of bus.  This whole notion that acceleration/deceleration and loading/unloading times with streetcars or buses goes out the window when they are that crowded.

Also, in terms of cost, I would think depending on the city there could be a huge cost difference between true BRT and LRT.  For instance, here in SF they are building two parallel lines of roughly similar length, only about 0.5-0.75 miles apart from each.  One is an LRT subway that costs over $1Bn per mile, and the other one is full on separated BRT that will total to about $800M.  Depending on how you discount back public transit or calculate return on cost, I don't see the O&M of the BRT catching up to the sheer upfront cost of the LRT anytime soon.

And RE: navigation/maps for driverless cars.  I'm just going to chalk it up that you are unaware of the technologies coming out of Silicon Valley ;)

^How much would the BRT cost if it were a subway?

They (literally everyone working on the technology from Google to MB) are already testing out driverless cars on the streets of San Francisco and in the Bay Area.  These things are definitely coming.

But they are still cars.  Cities like NYC, SF, and DC have impressive carless ownership rates and high transit use rates, but still see worse congestion than you'll ever eve come close to having in Jacksonville.  Chalk it up to so many people in such a small area, but driverless cars won't be getting rid of or replacing transit.

Also, they will be very expensive at first and it will take many years to sort out regulations.  This is a more significant disruptor than Uber, so the two aren't really all that comparable.

Not to mention, many people actually like to drive.  You'll never get rid of the sports car or the idea that people like to grip the wheel, the clutch, press the gas, etc etc.  Driverless and driver cars *will* mix.  That will be a much larger challenge than figuring out navigation, which for all intents and purposes is basically already done.

Quote from: thelakelander on July 11, 2015, 02:21:45 PM
^How much would the BRT cost if it were a subway?

Not sure, but the point of saying they were parallel lines only 0.5-0.75 miles apart was to indicate that had the other been subway, it would have cost a similar amount (well over $1Bn per mile).  Where the subway line is going in could never have been a BRT.  The BRT follows Van Ness, and given how expensive everything is to build here, I actually think if it saves a little money and achieves the same thing, then I'm happy for it.  Just wish that even though it were only BRT, it didn't take 5+ years to build.  Wish it only took 1-2 years to build (we're only talking a couple miles here).

Where I see inefficiencies in labor today is the fact that we still have conductors on subway trains.  These are the most incompetent people, with the cushiest employment contracts.  Trains are *already* automated and operated by computers.  Every single fatal accident or disaster is caused by human error - likely some union employee who doesn't give two shits about his job but easily pulls in a base of $90K and like 30 paid sick days.

I would love it if we could eliminate these wasteful jobs already...I've literally been delayed 5-7 minutes when a conductor misused his/her break time to smoke while we're all smushed in a packed train.  Then a month later they strike and we don't have any service.  I mean talk about technology *already* available and in use to eliminate these greedy and lazy people!

I don't have the same enmity with surly taxi drivers (I appreciate them greatly) as I do with transit workers, which are just the worst employees in any major city...

Quote from: thelakelander on July 11, 2015, 01:50:24 PM
Ock, it seems like many really aren't familiar with the various types of fixed transit, how much they really cost and the different ways various technologies can be operated. Most streetcar conversations I have, typically end up with someone claiming they are slow and stop at every other block. In reality, they don't have to be if you don't want them to be.

Yes it's probably time for another primer article.

It's been one of the most amazing things to me that over the last 20 years the attacks against all things rail; "No tax for Tracks," "Big Choo-Choo," and the ubiquitous rants from "The Anti-Planner," have become more vocal. The root of the whole scam is CATO, Reason, Heritage, Liberty and another dozen or so conservative "think-tanks." There is a dedicated effort to destroy every railroad project in our country.

"You will realize too late that the electric railway is unquestionably more comfortable, more reliable, safer and cheaper to use than the bus system. But what can you do about it once you have permitted the tracks to be torn up? Who do you think you can find to finance another deluxe transit system for your city?" E. Jay Quimby, 1946

...And its the EXACT SAME CHARACTERS behind it all.

As for conductors, you'll have to take that up with the Federal Railroad Administration.

New Orleans kept a tiny token of it's once sprawling system. The idea that they are 'growing this carefully route by route,' is kind of comical as they already had a massive system that not unlike Jacksonville, was trashed. The big difference in the two is that New Orleans retained two lines as 'historic' and with them preserved the two maintenance and car facilities. Here are just a few of the original system's lines.
Coliseum line,
Magazine line,
Canal Street.
Desire line,
Freret line,
Gentilly line,
St. Claude line,
S. Claiborne line,
St. Charles line,

As a fun aside; The 1929 streetcar strike was tough on the city and the striking employees. The poor fellows on the picket line were fed sandwiches which will forever be known as PO-BOYS.

Quote from: thelakelander on July 11, 2015, 02:21:45 PM
^How much would the BRT cost if it were a subway?

No doubt it would be close to the same, however, those discount priced BRT buses JTA is so happy about? They won't be around in 15 years! New Orleans operates car #29 built by Ford, Bacon & Davis (FB&D) in 1896!

Quote from: simms3 on July 11, 2015, 02:26:50 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on July 11, 2015, 02:21:45 PM
^How much would the BRT cost if it were a subway?

Not sure, but the point of saying they were parallel lines only 0.5-0.75 miles apart was to indicate that had the other been subway, it would have cost a similar amount (well over $1Bn per mile).  Where the subway line is going in could never have been a BRT.  The BRT follows Van Ness, and given how expensive everything is to build here, I actually think if it saves a little money and achieves the same thing, then I'm happy for it.  Just wish that even though it were only BRT, it didn't take 5+ years to build.  Wish it only took 1-2 years to build (we're only talking a couple miles here).

Seems like San Francisco considered various transit technologies for the specific corridors and based on the terrain, one type was selected over the other.  This is how it should be.  I think too many times, we get in debates about which is better, throwing darts at one mode, in an effort to promote the other.

Very true, which is why if you want a quick 'Wal-Mart' type fix, you build BRT, but you need to understand at the get-go that this is not a long-term 'rapid transit system,' unless your investment approaches rail, in which case you should probably have built rail in the first place.

What Jacksonville is getting with the First Coast Flyer is an improvement over the bus system that has operated here since 1932. More frequency, better buses and a few other small perks including some exclusive lanes. What Jacksonville needs to understand is that we will be on our third set of new buses, and third recap of the pavement before Charlottes Streetcar go is for a midlife overhaul.

Quote from: simms3 on July 11, 2015, 02:31:01 PM
Where I see inefficiencies in labor today is the fact that we still have conductors on subway trains.  These are the most incompetent people, with the cushiest employment contracts.  Trains are *already* automated and operated by computers.  Every single fatal accident or disaster is caused by human error - likely some union employee who doesn't give two shits about his job but easily pulls in a base of $90K and like 30 paid sick days.

Maybe it's that way in provincial little towns like SF or Atlanta, but that's quite a contention to make. As a former member of RMT, I find it practically offensive.

Quote from: Adam White on July 08, 2015, 09:33:24 AM
The quasi-religious nutjobs at "Reason" don't think that way.

Please elaborate on this? They are about as liberal/libertarian as one can get (not saying that all of the left are anti-religious). It's nice to see something from the left that isn't fully enveloped within the party-towing bubble (on how the almighty streetcar is flawless, no questions asked).

Quote from: I-10east on July 11, 2015, 06:46:19 PM

Quote from: Adam White on July 08, 2015, 09:33:24 AM
The quasi-religious nutjobs at "Reason" don't think that way.

Please elaborate on this? They are about as liberal/libertarian as one can get (not saying that all of the left are anti-religious). It's nice to see something from the left that isn't fully enveloped within the party-towing bubble (on how the almighty streetcar is flawless, no questions asked).

Talk about your oxymorons 'liberal/libertarian,' is funny. These guys are so far to the right that John Birch is on their left!

^^^Reason TV is libertarian, which is NOT an oxymoron with classical liberalism. Many libertarians have predominantly left leaning philosophies, like Bill Maher. IMO they do a pretty good job of mostly playing down the middle, but of course when they say something controversial to the left (and tell the truth) like this streetcar thing, suddenly they are 'heavily right leaning'...

What's so left or right about public transit and roads? It's simply infrastructure for crying out loud. A well designed community needs a good integrated mix of both.

Quote from: I-10east on July 11, 2015, 06:46:19 PM

Quote from: Adam White on July 08, 2015, 09:33:24 AM
The quasi-religious nutjobs at "Reason" don't think that way.

Please elaborate on this? They are about as liberal/libertarian as one can get (not saying that all of the left are anti-religious). It's nice to see something from the left that isn't fully enveloped within the party-towing bubble (on how the almighty streetcar is flawless, no questions asked).

Quasi-religious doesn't mean religious. My point is that so-called "Libertarians" are practically a cult. Rand, Hayek, Friedman et al are the apostles and Reason is like the Watchtower or something. It's a metaphor, I-10.

Quote from: thelakelander on July 12, 2015, 01:31:47 AM
What's so left or right about public transit and roads? It's simply infrastructure for crying out loud. A well designed community needs a good integrated mix of both.

There shouldn't be anything left or right about infrastructure. But I think it's fair to question how some of these things are funded - especially when you get trendy things like streetcars involved and every city wants one in order to keep up with the Joneses. It's like the Simpsons and their monorail. I am not knocking streetcars - it's just that they're probably not the best fit for every city.

It's like the stupid trend of putting a ferris wheel in your downtown. It costs a bunch of money and you do it on the promise that it will revitalize your downtown and bring in tourists - and similar promises which never seem to pan out. One could argue the same for professional sports franchises - the NFL will make Jacksonville a first-tier city! Yeah, how's that worked out?

Quote from: Adam White on July 12, 2015, 03:09:52 AM

Quote from: thelakelander on July 12, 2015, 01:31:47 AM
What's so left or right about public transit and roads? It's simply infrastructure for crying out loud. A well designed community needs a good integrated mix of both.

There shouldn't be anything left or right about infrastructure. But I think it's fair to question how some of these things are funded - especially when you get trendy things like streetcars involved and every city wants one in order to keep up with the Joneses. It's like the Simpsons and their monorail. I am not knocking streetcars - it's just that they're probably not the best fit for every city.

That's the question I ask myself about the funding behind projects like the FCE (Outer Beltway). If only one of these small streetcar lines (peanuts) added up to those type of numbers.  Unfortunately, people rarely question the big boondoggles.

QuoteOne could argue the same for professional sports franchises - the NFL will make Jacksonville a first-tier city! Yeah, how's that worked out?

Only a fool would believe such a line. No one has ever claimed that Green Bay is a first-tier city. Jax will be a second/third tier city for at least our lifetimes.  The gulf between the first tier is way too big to overcome.....even if we wanted too.

Quote from: thelakelander on July 12, 2015, 11:49:55 AM

Quote from: Adam White on July 12, 2015, 03:09:52 AM

Quote from: thelakelander on July 12, 2015, 01:31:47 AM
What's so left or right about public transit and roads? It's simply infrastructure for crying out loud. A well designed community needs a good integrated mix of both.

There shouldn't be anything left or right about infrastructure. But I think it's fair to question how some of these things are funded - especially when you get trendy things like streetcars involved and every city wants one in order to keep up with the Joneses. It's like the Simpsons and their monorail. I am not knocking streetcars - it's just that they're probably not the best fit for every city.

That's the question I ask myself about the funding behind projects like the FCE (Outer Beltway). If only one of these small streetcar lines (peanuts) added up to those type of numbers.  Unfortunately, people rarely question the big boondoggles.

QuoteOne could argue the same for professional sports franchises - the NFL will make Jacksonville a first-tier city! Yeah, how's that worked out?

Only a fool would believe such a line. No one has ever claimed that Green Bay is a first-tier city. Jax will be a second/third tier city for at least our lifetimes.  The gulf between the first tier is way too big to overcome.....even if we wanted too.

A lot of people seemed to have bought into that at the time. I recall Ed Austin repeating that line. Football teams don't make cities successful - but successful cities can attract football teams.

Quote from: Adam White on July 12, 2015, 03:09:52 AM

Quote from: thelakelander on July 12, 2015, 01:31:47 AM
What's so left or right about public transit and roads? It's simply infrastructure for crying out loud. A well designed community needs a good integrated mix of both.

There shouldn't be anything left or right about infrastructure. But I think it's fair to question how some of these things are funded - especially when you get trendy things like streetcars involved and every city wants one in order to keep up with the Joneses. It's like the Simpsons and their monorail. I am not knocking streetcars - it's just that they're probably not the best fit for every city.

It's like the stupid trend of putting a ferris wheel in your downtown. It costs a bunch of money and you do it on the promise that it will revitalize your downtown and bring in tourists - and similar promises which never seem to pan out. One could argue the same for professional sports franchises - the NFL will make Jacksonville a first-tier city! Yeah, how's that worked out?

Left or right shouldn't play into the argument at all, but unfortunately it is increasingly clear that the traditional right Republicans and Libertarians have declared a war on all things on rails. It makes no sense, the arguments are silly and they ignore hard facts from places like Portland and Tampa. Is it so important if it doesn't carry a lot of passengers but delivers $3 B in new development? Well, yes it is important, if you are going to spend $100M for a streetcar/LRT start then it should connect ABC with XYZ. In the case of Tampa, if the line was actually finished with the LRT connections (it is LRT compatible) we'd all be talking about what a smashing success it is. The systems should be able to deliver both passenger need/benefit and spur mega-TOD development.

'The streetcars are not a good fit,' argument is empty rhetoric.  Chances are if a bus fits in your city, then a streetcar can. If higher levels of BRT fit in your city then LRT can. It all depends on what you want out of it in the end. If your looking for a better bus then BRT is your mode of choice and if your looking for a landscape changer then it almost has to be on rails. Any city Jacksonville, St. Augustine, Fernandina etc that grew up on streetcar lines can find a way to return to them if it has the will.

The 'War on Rail' is one of the craziest phenomenons I have seen in my lifetime.

Quote from: Ocklawaha on July 12, 2015, 01:08:09 PM
it is increasingly clear that the traditional right Republicans and Libertarians have declared a war on all things on rails.

It probably stems from their bizzaro belief that anything even vaguely communal is "socialism."

Many people in one conveyance = communism
One person per vehicle = truth, justice and the American way

I've got to steal that line Finehoe!

Quote from: thelakelander on July 12, 2015, 01:31:47 AM
What's so left or right about public transit and roads? It's simply infrastructure for crying out loud. A well designed community needs a good integrated mix of both.

Because mostly the US left pushes these things down people's throat when they are seemingly unnecessary. Contrary to many thinking that MTA trains running everywhere in NY, it has the largest US bus fleet that is vital, not some 3 mile yuppie express between a Whole Foods and a Trader Joes. Make no mistake, streetcars are politicized as quality transit and green. The black people on the yt video were correct concerning the DC yuppie express. 

Hmm. I guess it's a matter of perspective. Locally, we're getting toll roads pushed down our throats by a tea party guy...and being double taxed for the privilege to use them. Yet, we've got a five page thread about the validity of a few streetcar projects being built in other communities....go figure.

Quote from: I-10east on July 12, 2015, 11:42:41 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on July 12, 2015, 01:31:47 AM
What's so left or right about public transit and roads? It's simply infrastructure for crying out loud. A well designed community needs a good integrated mix of both.

Because mostly the US left pushes these things down people's throat when they are seemingly unnecessary. Contrary to many thinking that MTA trains running everywhere in NY, it has the largest US bus fleet that is vital, not some 3 mile yuppie express between a Whole Foods and a Trader Joes. Make no mistake, streetcars are politicized as quality transit and green. The black people on the yt video were correct concerning the DC yuppie express.

Speaking of black people... The general consensus for a starter line in Jacksonville has been along Bay/Water across downtown then a line down to Riverside in the Park and King area. I have been pushing using the original link (Myrtle Avenue Subway) for years for exactly that reason. The community of NW JAX is underserved and a line shooting straight up Myrtle would cover all of Durkeeville and could even take up on the 'S' line well into North Jax. This Demographic is on two original streetcar routes, and America's only black owned streetcar company. I think thats worth rebuilding.

Quote from: I-10east on July 12, 2015, 11:42:41 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on July 12, 2015, 01:31:47 AM
What's so left or right about public transit and roads? It's simply infrastructure for crying out loud. A well designed community needs a good integrated mix of both.

Because mostly the US left pushes these things down people's throat when they are seemingly unnecessary. Contrary to many thinking that MTA trains running everywhere in NY, it has the largest US bus fleet that is vital, not some 3 mile yuppie express between a Whole Foods and a Trader Joes. Make no mistake, streetcars are politicized as quality transit and green. The black people on the yt video were correct concerning the DC yuppie express.

I don't really know what you mean re buses - no one (I hope) is contending that it should be an either/or situation (either rail or buses). I believe it's more about having a mix of options - buses usually complement rail.

Not to be all "simms" about this, but I take a bus every morning...to the local Underground station (and then take a train or combination of trains to work). This weekend I took a bus to go to a barbecue - and I have to take buses to go shopping, etc. Rail transport can provide people with a good way to get from point A to point B (and many points in between) - but for local transport, you'll almost always use a bus.

Trams/street cars are basically the same. They do one thing - they don't replace all other modes of transport. They work in concert with buses, rail, taxis, river boats, etc.

As far as the "yuppie express" - if "Libertarians" had their way, that's all we'd ever have. We'd have private rail/tram/whatever services that exist only if they can turn a profit - so they invariably will go where the "market" dictates. No transport for poor people - they can move to the wealthy neighborhoods if they want to partake. After all, the market knows best!

The same is true in Boston.  It wasn't a train, or bus, question.  It was simply a matter of which mode, or combination of modes got you to where you wanted to go, and was available time wise.  Certain lines would end, late at night, and you would need to plan so you would not be stranded at the end of the line.

Quote from: mbwright on July 13, 2015, 08:06:47 AM
The same is true in Boston.  It wasn't a train, or bus, question.  It was simply a matter of which mode, or combination of modes got you to where you wanted to go, and was available time wise.  Certain lines would end, late at night, and you would need to plan so you would not be stranded at the end of the line.

I think it's fair to say that Jacksonville is too spread out for buses to be the only option. And if everyone just drives, the roads are going to get more and more crowded. Some other option or options will be required.

Maybe you put in something like a streetcar to help alleviate congestion in Riverside (for example). And develop better cycling infrastructure to encourage people to get out of their cars.

In London (sorry) TfL has recognized that building more roads - or widening the existing roads - isn't sustainable. The population is growing too fast. They are actually working on ways to discourage driving and encourage using alternative forms of transport, whether it be mass transit or cycling (or even walking). There was a very interesting documentary about this on BBC last year (I think).

Also - there is a congestion charge zone which covers the center of London (basically travelcard zone 1). You can't drive through this area during certain hours without paying a fee (currently £11.50). Not only does this help reduce congestion (and pollution), but the money raised is invested in transport.

^^^Also suburban London is more dense than Riverside/Five Points, so it stands to reason that it's more difficult/costly to build roads in general around Greater London and while not any cheaper, it does make more sense to build rail.  Generalizing.  I was with a friend in Palo Alto this weekend.  2x as dense as Riverside/Five Points, and merely a suburb 20-30 miles outside of San Francisco.  I don't know what it's going to take to get Jax to build in a more responsible, sustainable fashion, but as it stands now roads are pretty much the only logical form of transport for 99% of the city/metro, and yet even then roads are still so costly and stupid to build because the whole area is that scattered and poorly planned.

The city does need to consider what Portland has also done in growth boundaries and reel in the boundaries where it is even legally possible to build.

Quote from: simms3 on July 13, 2015, 11:42:48 AM
The city does need to consider what Portland has also done in growth boundaries and reel in the boundaries where it is even legally possible to build.

Will never happen in FL.  Look at the UDB in Miami-Dade.  The thing is constantly being breached.

Quote from: simms3 on July 13, 2015, 11:42:48 AM
^^^Also suburban London is more dense than Riverside/Five Points, so it stands to reason that it's more difficult/costly to build roads in general around Greater London and while not any cheaper, it does make more sense to build rail.  Generalizing.  I was with a friend in Palo Alto this weekend.  2x as dense as Riverside/Five Points, and merely a suburb 20-30 miles outside of San Francisco.  I don't know what it's going to take to get Jax to build in a more responsible, sustainable fashion, but as it stands now roads are pretty much the only logical form of transport for 99% of the city/metro, and yet even then roads are still so costly and stupid to build because the whole area is that scattered and poorly planned.

The city does need to consider what Portland has also done in growth boundaries and reel in the boundaries where it is even legally possible to build.

Yes, more dense for sure. But likely not nearly as dense as you'd think. Out where I live there are few terraces - most of the houses are detached or semi-detached. There are so many more motorists out here. In many ways it reminds me of the US.

We have a greenbelt which surrounds the region - theoretically this should reduce sprawl and encourage infill. I've always thought Jax should look into a growth boundary and impact fees for developers (not sure if that is a city or state issue).

Quote from: Adam White on July 13, 2015, 02:06:46 PM

Quote from: simms3 on July 13, 2015, 11:42:48 AM
^^^Also suburban London is more dense than Riverside/Five Points, so it stands to reason that it's more difficult/costly to build roads in general around Greater London and while not any cheaper, it does make more sense to build rail.  Generalizing.  I was with a friend in Palo Alto this weekend.  2x as dense as Riverside/Five Points, and merely a suburb 20-30 miles outside of San Francisco.  I don't know what it's going to take to get Jax to build in a more responsible, sustainable fashion, but as it stands now roads are pretty much the only logical form of transport for 99% of the city/metro, and yet even then roads are still so costly and stupid to build because the whole area is that scattered and poorly planned.

The city does need to consider what Portland has also done in growth boundaries and reel in the boundaries where it is even legally possible to build.

Yes, more dense for sure. But likely not nearly as dense as you'd think. Out where I live there are few terraces - most of the houses are detached or semi-detached. There are so many more motorists out here. In many ways it reminds me of the US.

We have a greenbelt which surrounds the region - theoretically this should reduce sprawl and encourage infill. I've always thought Jax should look into a growth boundary and impact fees for developers (not sure if that is a city or state issue).

Aren't there already impact fees?  Isn't that what CDD fees are in a way?  They are all over the place in Suburban Jax and St. John's County but people still move there. 

Quote from: CCMjax on July 13, 2015, 03:42:15 PM

Quote from: Adam White on July 13, 2015, 02:06:46 PM

Quote from: simms3 on July 13, 2015, 11:42:48 AM
^^^Also suburban London is more dense than Riverside/Five Points, so it stands to reason that it's more difficult/costly to build roads in general around Greater London and while not any cheaper, it does make more sense to build rail.  Generalizing.  I was with a friend in Palo Alto this weekend.  2x as dense as Riverside/Five Points, and merely a suburb 20-30 miles outside of San Francisco.  I don't know what it's going to take to get Jax to build in a more responsible, sustainable fashion, but as it stands now roads are pretty much the only logical form of transport for 99% of the city/metro, and yet even then roads are still so costly and stupid to build because the whole area is that scattered and poorly planned.

The city does need to consider what Portland has also done in growth boundaries and reel in the boundaries where it is even legally possible to build.

Yes, more dense for sure. But likely not nearly as dense as you'd think. Out where I live there are few terraces - most of the houses are detached or semi-detached. There are so many more motorists out here. In many ways it reminds me of the US.

We have a greenbelt which surrounds the region - theoretically this should reduce sprawl and encourage infill. I've always thought Jax should look into a growth boundary and impact fees for developers (not sure if that is a city or state issue).

Aren't there already impact fees?  Isn't that what CDD fees are in a way?  They are all over the place in Suburban Jax and St. John's County but people still move there.

My bad. I didn't think there were impact fees. Back when I was in university, it was something that was mentioned a number of times in the TU - that's how I even know what they are. I guess things might've changed since the early/mid-90s? Who would've thunk it...

Quote from: Adam White on July 13, 2015, 02:06:46 PMWe have a greenbelt which surrounds the region - theoretically this should reduce sprawl and encourage infill. I've always thought Jax should look into a growth boundary and impact fees for developers (not sure if that is a city or state issue).

We implemented a mobility fee in 2011. It included a funding mechanism that would generate the money needed to build a streetcar line between Riverside and San Marco, and the local portion of funding for JTA's future commuter rail lines. It hasn't been followed and council has modified the concept so much, we're now reimbursing developers for building internal roadway networks for suburban strip development. Only Jax would find a way to turn something that encourages infill and redevelopment into a tool that subsidizes sprawl. ???

Quote from: thelakelander on July 13, 2015, 05:12:26 PM

Quote from: Adam White on July 13, 2015, 02:06:46 PMWe have a greenbelt which surrounds the region - theoretically this should reduce sprawl and encourage infill. I've always thought Jax should look into a growth boundary and impact fees for developers (not sure if that is a city or state issue).

We implemented a mobility fee in 2011. It included a funding mechanism that would generate the money needed to build a streetcar line between Riverside and San Marco, and the local portion of funding for JTA's future commuter rail lines. It hasn't been followed and council has modified the concept so much, we're now reimbursing developers for building internal roadway networks for suburban strip development. Only Jax would find a way to turn something that encourages infill and redevelopment into a tool that subsidizes sprawl. ???

Thanks for the clarification. It makes you wonder why they bothered to pass the regulation if they were going to take the teeth out of it. Jax does have a problem with sprawl. One thing I find really depressing is the way a new subdivision will spring up and they'll build a strip mall or two near the entrance. After a few years, someone builds a new subdivision less than a mile away - with a new strip mall. The old stip mall then dies off (not like it was ever fully occupied anyway).

Jax needs infill of some sort. I think a thriving DT would make that happen, as property values close to the urban core would rise.

Quote from: Adam White on July 13, 2015, 05:16:41 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on July 13, 2015, 05:12:26 PM

Quote from: Adam White on July 13, 2015, 02:06:46 PMWe have a greenbelt which surrounds the region - theoretically this should reduce sprawl and encourage infill. I've always thought Jax should look into a growth boundary and impact fees for developers (not sure if that is a city or state issue).

We implemented a mobility fee in 2011. It included a funding mechanism that would generate the money needed to build a streetcar line between Riverside and San Marco, and the local portion of funding for JTA's future commuter rail lines. It hasn't been followed and council has modified the concept so much, we're now reimbursing developers for building internal roadway networks for suburban strip development. Only Jax would find a way to turn something that encourages infill and redevelopment into a tool that subsidizes sprawl. ???

Thanks for the clarification. It makes you wonder why they bothered to pass the regulation if they were going to take the teeth out of it. Jax does have a problem with sprawl. One thing I find really depressing is the way a new subdivision will spring up and they'll build a strip mall or two near the entrance. After a few years, someone builds a new subdivision less than a mile away - with a new strip mall. The old stip mall then dies off (not like it was ever fully occupied anyway).

Jax needs infill of some sort. I think a thriving DT would make that happen, as property values close to the urban core would rise.

Exactly.  The good thing for developers of strip style developments and most of these ridiculously unsustainable subdivisions is that they get a good quick return on the new shiny development they have.  But the problem is they don't hold their value.  Like you mentioned, there is always something newer and better being built down the street but the developments never feed off eachother, they only compete with eachother.  Usually the newer one wins and people move out of the older one and the area declines.  Kind of like how the Baymeadows area on the SS used to be a nice place to live, now it is pretty unattractive with all the strip development that has taken place.  Sprawl leads to more sprawl.  The only neighborhoods that really seem to hold their value the best are the older neighborhoods like San Marco where that strip development can't really take hold.

Washington, D.C. Streetcar Nightmare: Then and Now

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1T8CqSPL7I

^The author is essentially our Robert Mann with a different perspective on streetcars in his particular city.  I'd love to see Ock chime in with his opinion.  There are some parts of the discussion I agree with and others I don't, based on my own studies of transportation and land use. The book appears to have the same exact cover as Ock's Jacksonville streetcar book, so both were mostly published by Arcadia.

(https://www.arcadiapublishing.com/getmetafile/dbbd552e-a08e-49ef-a49f-b17c2ed59240/9781626197077.aspx) (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51rO%2BQ1wKbL._SX326_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)

^^^Very interesting. Thanks for that info Lake.

Just one man's opinion on youtube (spunkitydoda). Portland's streetcar is often seen as this 'crowned jewel of success' concerning US streetcars, but this person's take was very critical and seemingly unbiased. I totally agree that the hatred of cars (and buses) spurred on the revival of streetcars. To me the ideal rail transit is something that doesn't interfere with ground traffic (heavy rail, subway etc).

QuoteRails were a passing phase. A vehicle confined to tracks became a joke for urban use. Now it is simply hatred of cars that has people resurrecting this dinosaur of the nineteenth century. Portland Oregon residents cover the 80% of costs that ridership fails to meet year after year, as the promoters count their millions, year after year. PGE is a major supporter, and profiteer. The only light rail that makes any sense is one that runs from the airport to the downtown train station. Cyclists now have to deal with tracks, usually wet. Maybe you saw the video of the train rolling through a flooded track- it is typical misappropriation.



Streetcars don't have to interfere with ground traffic either and not all streetcar systems did. Jax, for example, had several streetcar routes where they operated on their own ROW. This is one of the arguments people make against streetcars, that I don't agree with.  In reality, a streetcar is a form of technology.  How you integrate that type of technology into your urban landscape, streets and ROW is up to you.

Boston streetcar operating on grade separated ROW:
(http://railroad.net/articles/railfanning/mbtatrolley/media/mbta-cg3.jpg)

New Orleans streetcar operating on own ROW in street median:
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/832380577_wUGug-M.jpg)

San Francisco streetcar operating on own ROW in street median:
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/624239659_z9iYA-M.jpg)

Tampa streetcar operating on own ROW on side of street with transit oriented infill development adjacent to station:
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/3788028487_pQBFXf8-M.jpg)

Washington streetcar tracks (under construction in 2013) and sharing lanes with regular car traffic:
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/2660662349_FzBbfGP-M.jpg)

IMO, there's nothing wrong with streetcar technology. However, why a city would want to spend millions installing any type of fixed transit to only share travel lanes with cars makes no sense to me. Yet, Washington's poor planning should not be used as a claim to say a certain type of technology is bad.

Quote from: I-10east on February 19, 2016, 08:44:15 AM
Just one man's opinion on youtube (spunkitydoda). Portland's streetcar is often seen as this 'crowned jewel of success' concerning US streetcars, but this person's take was very critical and seemingly unbiased. I totally agree that the hatred of cars (and buses) spurred on the revival of streetcars. To me the ideal rail transit is something that doesn't interfere with ground traffic (heavy rail, subway etc).

QuoteRails were a passing phase. A vehicle confined to tracks became a joke for urban use. Now it is simply hatred of cars that has people resurrecting this dinosaur of the nineteenth century. Portland Oregon residents cover the 80% of costs that ridership fails to meet year after year, as the promoters count their millions, year after year. PGE is a major supporter, and profiteer. The only light rail that makes any sense is one that runs from the airport to the downtown train station. Cyclists now have to deal with tracks, usually wet. Maybe you saw the video of the train rolling through a flooded track- it is typical misappropriation.



Another gripe of mine. This dude "rails" off about Portland residents covering 80% of a transit system's direct operating costs but they also cover 100% of every locally maintained street in the city and a good chunk of highways funded by their DOT. He also totally overlooks the tax revenue generated into the local municipality by the complementing dense development following those lines, due to good transit infrastructure/land use integration policies. That alone, more than covers the direct costs for operating the system.

We just returned from New Orleans and one thing we will miss dearly is the street cars.  They seemed to be used equally by the locals as well as the tourists, which, as you might guess, are there in substantial numbers.  You can get anywhere you need to go via street car in the urban areas.  For the vast majority of the tracks, they are indeed separate from the cars however, in a few areas, they do share the road and one can readily see the issues that causes. On some lines, part of the route is in a separate lane that is also accessible to cars and even in light traffic, the cars can not seem to stay out of the way of the street cars, who from the reactions of the street car drivers, have the right of way to start with. The parts of the lines that were in the medians and had two way tracks seemed faster than driving the longer distances as well. It certainly was easier.

I did not notice a lot of new development along the routes, but as one of the longest lines (St Charles) has essentially been running since 1820 something, I guess I would not expect a lot of new TOD. Some was obvious on the Canal Street lines but as Katrina sort of did a number on the area, hard to tell what is TOD and what is "Hurricane Oriented Development". 

From a layman's perspective, NOLA is a great example of what to do and what not to do in terms of street car.  The positives seem to out weight the negatives and for Jacksonville, a dedicated track lane system would seem to help move this city forward. It all comes down to doing it right rather than just doing something just to do it.  In other words, if we can't do street car the right way, we shouldn't do it at all.

^Pretty much. I'd apply that philosophy to just about every type of public investment. New Orleans currently has 4 streetcar lines with a combined route length of 22 miles. They pretty much operate in the urban core of the city. To reach the burbs, you'll need a car or take a bus. Also, the streetcar system averages around 21,600 riders per day. One thing I found interesting and actually like about the New Orleans system is that the median based lines were also used by cyclist.

Here's some random pics from my stay in New Orleans a few years ago:

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/832382097_d9ohB-M.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/832382301_NiPFZ-M.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/New-Orleans-April-2010/i-pTD43pQ/0/M/P1330485-M.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/New-Orleans-April-2010/i-P9DKFLH/0/M/P1330606-M.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/New-Orleans-April-2010/i-t3sfsbm/0/M/P1330905-M.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/New-Orleans-April-2010/i-NTW3x9z/0/M/P1340019-M.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/New-Orleans-April-2010/i-9rqPQ2t/0/M/P1340036-M.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/New-Orleans-April-2010/i-m8Vm3Z7/0/M/P1340034-M.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/New-Orleans-April-2010/i-GgvJM4f/0/M/P1340082-M.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/New-Orleans-April-2010/i-PDxR9q9/0/M/P1340048-M.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/New-Orleans-April-2010/i-SsMGcMc/0/M/P1340045-M.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/New-Orleans-April-2010/i-SqDPq3k/0/M/P1330282-M.jpg)

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/New_Orlean_Streetcars.svg)
System map. The black lines are existing, the orange is under construction and the yellow lines are proposed.

DC's long-awaited streetcar to open Feb. 27

By Associated Press
WASHINGTON — The District of Columbia's long-delayed streetcar line will begin carrying passengers on Feb. 27.

Mayor Muriel Bowser announced Thursday that her administration has settled on an opening date for the streetcar, which runs along the busy H Street, Northeast, corridor.

The project has been beset by delays and cost overruns. District officials have spent $200 million on the 2.4-mile streetcar line, which would be the first working trolley in the nation's capital in more than 50 years. Additional streetcar lines have not moved past the planning stage.

Fares will be free for an unspecified amount of time. The trolley will be open Monday-Saturday, with extended service until 2 a.m. Saturday and 2 a.m. Sunday. It will not run the rest of the day on Sunday.

Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Quote from: thelakelander on February 19, 2016, 06:06:36 AM
^The author is essentially our Robert Mann with a different perspective on streetcars in his particular city.  I'd love to see Ock chime in with his opinion.  There are some parts of the discussion I agree with and others I don't, based on my own studies of transportation and land use. The book appears to have the same exact cover as Ock's Jacksonville streetcar book, so both were mostly published by Arcadia.

(https://www.arcadiapublishing.com/getmetafile/dbbd552e-a08e-49ef-a49f-b17c2ed59240/9781626197077.aspx)

Chiming in Lake. I'll respond to the video and as always, I'm happy to answer questions. Both books are by the same publisher but no, Reason didn't interview me because they wouldn't like my answers and it won't fit their agenda.

QuoteVIDEO-'Streetcars involved major engineering headaches and they required enormous amounts of capital investment and maintenance.'

They pull an interesting sleight-of-hand in the video, streetcars are good because the efficiency of rails over a roadway is about 10x, to wit;
'A horse could pull 10 times the weight on rails,' which is said just a bit later in the film, after stating that; 'Streetcars involved major engineering headaches and they required enormous amounts of capital investment and maintenance.' Then they mention the growth of the hilly suburbs and the fact that a horse couldn't make the grade (literally). They are not talking about streetcars here but they never mention it as the casual observer completely misses the insinuation that horsecars were not replaced by streetcars, they were replaced by 'C A B L E C A R S !' And while cablecars might look like streetcars, they are completely different animals requiring obscene amounts of investment and maintenance. Fact is the Washington and Georgetown Railway converted to cablecars in 1890, by which time that entire industry was in free-fall thanks to the ease of engineering and building electric streetcar lines. Cable Railways were once found in virtually every major metropolitan area except in the deep south, maybe we were not as dumb as some people seem to think we are?

QuoteVIEDO - 'Power cables ran in a slot in the street and were inefficient.'

True. This wasn't by design, it was by law in DC that forbade overhead electric lines. We wouldn't want a single wire to obstruct our view of that impressive capital. This was a bad idea then, and it's a bad idea today but did anyone else notice the Skyway replacement study from JTA mentions a streetcar option with, wait for it... you guessed it, 'power cables in a slot in the street.' If you need a local historical reference you need only go as far as St. Augustine which early on flirted with a variation of the same idea with a 'box system'. Boxes buried in the street would pop open as the car rolled over them feeding 600 volts DC, then after the car passed over it would recede as the next box popped up. Um yeah, those boxes are still buried in the dirt about MLK, King, San Marco and Cedar Streets. Good idea in theory, but when a couple of boxes got clogged up and failed to recede you exposed the whole community to 600 volts of 'kick-butt! The whole thing had to be engineered with overhead wire.

QuoteVIDEO - 'The bus moved freely, nimble, quiet, comfortable and just so much better.'

Correction, if the bus moved 'freely' it was only because the streets it ran on were largely paved with tax revenue from the streetcar companies. In one of the worst cases of robbing Peter to pay Paul, the cities saw the streetcars as Milch Cows to be used for any and all municipal projects. Around 1912 a nationwide campaign circulated for municipal ownership of all streetcar lines because following the lead of Chicago, it would result in the end of property taxes. Jacksonville likewise had such a movement but no action was ever taken outside of bleeding the company dry. There is something to be said for 'nimble' buses, as a bus can change lanes, and go around objects blocking it's path and rail vehicles cannot. 'Quiet?' Just how quiet is a 1920/30 vintage bus? How about if I told you they generally sound like a WWII fighter plane? Rubber tires on a smooth pavement might be quieter than a steel wheel going over a rail joint, but modern streetcar lines have very few rail joints so that part of the argument has changed meanwhile, electric motors hum while internal combustion or diesel engines chug or sputter. 'Comfortable?' Do you enjoy diesel or gas fumes? Ever been behind a local school bus until you are turning green? Tell me how comfortable that is? As to seating, Horses could pull more because there is next to no friction with a steel wheel on a steel rail and that equates to a silky smooth ride. Perhaps DC's early buses had velvet interiors? Hey, but then many early streetcars actually did. 'So much better,' Sorry but that is in the eye of the beholder, from a passenger prospective a rail vehicle is much larger, much smoother and generally quieter.

Quote'VIDEO - People preferred buses.'

While this might have been true in a few isolated locations, the facts are that when buses replaced streetcars ridership plummeted. The worst case I've found is Oklahoma City which suffered a sudden -97% drop in ridership almost overnight. Some others were Detroit -93%, Dallas -89%, St. Louis -87% and WASHINGTON DC -85%. (you can google this fact, it is on several sites) . (you can google this fact, it is on several sites)

Quote'VIDEO - There is a hard to kill conspiracy theory, it is just not true.'

Pick up a copy of my book, in the appendix you will see copies of several FBI letters documenting the exact fact this video is attempting to refute. There was also the civil court cases that were filed by several cities (also in the book). I find it irresponsible that any historian or political think tank would sweep away the charges and the convictions (for the lesser crime of conspiracy in the sale of buses) with a claim that it never happened.

Quote'VIDEO - The people wanted to get rid of streetcars.'

How does that square with what happened in Oklahoma City or the fact that cities were suing over the loss of their streetcars?

QuoteVIDEO - 'Streetcars don't coexist well; tracks next to parked cars is wrong'

No argument here that streetcars at their best are on exclusive right-of-way. Streetcars are railroad vehicles and their size, weight and construction guarantees that in any conflict between pedestrian, bike, car or bus and a streetcar, the streetcar wins. As much as 50-65% of Jacksonville's system used exclusive right-of-way. Moncrief, Pearl, Davis, Kings, Main, Phoenix, Panama, East 8Th, San Jose, Fairfax-Ortega-NAS JAX and about ⅓ of the Murray Hill line were not in the path of automobiles.

QuoteVIDEO - 'Résurrection of this expensive 19Th Century Dinosaur,' 'Limited (modern day) national application (is expected).'

Do they really want to go there? As Lake pointed out a streetcar that returns 25% of it's cost through the farebox is returning 25% more than any road. Toll roads likewise do not 'make money'. A roadway will last about 10 years according to FDOT before it needs attention, and a roadway with heavy vehicles such as JTA'S 'almost BRT' will become worn out even quicker. The bus vehicles themselves have a lifespan of about 8-12 years, (12 is the current standard but the industry is pushing for 8 years).  According to the FRA streetcar track is good for 50 years and the vehicles 30+ though several cities are currently running streetcars that are over 100 years old.  '19Th Century Dinosaur's' Amazing, I can date the Via Appia was built by Romans under Appius Claudius Caecus in 350 BCE, which would date highways and roadway vehicles to a tad before the 19Th Century Dinosaur's mentioned in the article.

IN CONCLUSION:

For Jacksonville, the streetcar should be seen as 'cheap light-rail' which is generally considered a poor man's metro system. In other words, ours should be an even cheaper metro system. Use streetcar along the 'S' line from Gateway to the Prime Osborn. Use them from Maxwell House to the old Springfield rail yard where it could intersect that Gateway line. Use them along the CSX and FEC right of ways in area's where they would not in any way interfere with rail traffic or future industrial land uses. Send them at their full 35-45mph speeds to 'The Avenues' to 'Yukon and hence via the Ortega River green belt to Blanding in Orange Park. In downtown, we have an amazing broad boulevard running east-west in Water Street and with a remake, it could have that beautiful green median seen in the New Orleans photos. Replace the current Skyway with elevated Streetcars and ramp them down at Atlantic in San Marco, Rosa Parks and hence north through the park borders to UF Health, and east to the Stadium. The Riverside-Downtown link would make for a great nostalgia attractor of TOD, but the really useful aspects of the streetcar concept seem to evade this city's thought processes.

Here's my take on what happened in Washington DC, it's quite different from the public-in-love with the bus tripe in the video.

Capital Transit was formed by merger in 1933, at the time it was considered one of America's 'model' transit operations. From 1937-1946 it completely modernized it's fleet with PCC Streetcars, the latest models then available and it carried hundreds of millions of people during the World War II years.

A change in US Security Law's was actively pursued by General Motors (remember them? The 'hard to kill conspiracy myth?')
Streetcars were generally part of the nations major electric utility companies in effect subsidizing any loss from transportation through the generation of electricity. GM clearly couldn't force the utilities to sell its transit lines, but the Federal Government sure could. And it did, through the passage of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935. This is contained in Title 15 Chapter 2 (c) and it is an incredibly complex law. But it had the suspiciously useful (to GM) effect of stripping transit lines away from their utilities and mandating them out on their own, to either live or die.

After the war, the new securities laws forced Capital Transit's parent company to separate its transit operations from its electric power operations. The streetcar company was purchased by Louis Wolfson a scrap dealer and investor that snatched up a company with $7 million in cash reserves for a mere $2.2 million. Then Wolfson set about stripping the cash reserves and refused to maintain or improve the property. Not willing to make the heavy rail investment that was essential to relieving congestion of its cars in front of the White House. Accordingly, the company sought to replace Benning number 10–12 line rail cars with buses on different streets to relieve rail congestion. PUBLIC PROTESTS AGAINST LOSS OF STREETCAR SERVICE were overcome, and the change was made. Ridership began a sharp decline, forcing Wolfson to severely truncate Maryland service to keep solvent.

As might be expected Wolfson also got cross-wise of the transit unions resulting in a 51-day strike in 1955. The now-despised Wolfson agreed to sell the company.

For a time, no responsible new operator could be found, but eventually the owner of Trans-Caribbean Airlines, O. Roy Chalk, came forward with $600,000 down and the promise to pay $2.5 million cash in two weeks, as well as assuming the outstanding debt. He used the company's own cash to buy the system. Finding that streetcars were more efficient than buses, tries to resist city pressure (pressed by the auto lobby) to convert the system. He even air conditions one streetcar, but city officials, the Senate District Committee and the Washington Post are adamant. This buyer then sought relief from the rail abandonment order, but to no avail. In 1963, rail service was terminated, and ridership continued on a 25 year decline until the low point in 1973, 67 percent below 1948 levels, despite the opening of the Shirley busway to suburban Virginia. In 1976, rapid rail transit came to the area, and ridership has doubled.

^^^^^Some very thought-provoking counterpoints to the DC streetcar argument. But let's get back to modern times with the current H St DC Streetcar that's gaining less headway and more headaches. I can't see how succesful it would be in it's current iteration especially down H St. and I should probably direct my questions to a local transit website there to see if any of these options and scenarios were considered.

To stop traffic from halting streetcars, why not put H St on a road diet and make the streetcar lane exclusive to streetcars and busses? That would make the most sense to me although H St. is heavily utilized.

Related to that, Did they consider making H St. one-way and change G or "Eye" St. to go the opposite way to deal with the switch? Oh I'm sure the residents there would be marching to the capitol with lighted torches and pitchforks at that suggestion but still.

Speaking of road diets...Did they consider the possibility of a "sidewalk diet" to give a liitle more room for streetcars from hitting parked cars? I know, just what the small restauraunt and cafe owners need. Any more pitchforks and torches left?

I can only imagine the clusterf@#& situation if it were to snow more than 5 inches, did the streetcar planners? Some of you are familiar with the fact that snowbanks from freshly plowed streets that are supposed to go on the sidewalk but after significant snowfall inevitably spills over to side parking lanes where people tend to park around them. But with the streetcar in the way that would be impossible and you just can't carry that much snow away.

Since emergencies do happen that could back up streetcar right-of-way, have they considered installing temporary switches at certain intervals that could make streetcars move around temporary jams? They could be coordinated with regular traffic signals or done manually to prevent multi-streetcar backups.

Needless to say, hope there will be countless lessons learned from this.

Leave it to Washington DC to take a great idea and screw it up beyond all recognition. I would hope this is more of a lesson on ''what not to do,' than it is a lesson of 'Don't do it.'  BTW, many streetcar systems of the past had heavy rail based snow removal equipment, a problem Jacksonville would never encounter.

Please check out this short video for a AUDIO FACT CHECK!

https://youtu.be/G43aaYP4tPM

Predictably Vox has a more positive outlook for streetcars than ReasonTV. Mainly saying that the streetcars will be successful if it goes hand and hand with a ridiculous amount of new adjoining development.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RftqoygXXHk&t=3s

I guess I don't get it. I didn't see any part of that video that displayed Vox having a positive outlook on streetcars

Seems like a hit piece or one that forgets about the impact on proper planning but economic development is a sound reason for investment in improving public transit options. That's basically why we also invest in more expensive road projects like the First Coast Expressway and SR 9B.  It's the same reason many desire redevelopment like Cowford Chophouse would prefer JEA to upgrade its infrastructure under downtown streets. The peice would be better and more informational if they focused on identifying why some projects work and others have not, instead of tossing an entire technology in the same boat.