So I had this thought the other night about the skyway...(I'm doubting I'm the first to think of this so please let me know if this has been proposed before)
What about modifying the skyway to make it a pedestrian/bicycle only path a la the High Line in NYC? Imagine a series of unobstructed bike paths throughout the city. I think it would most certainly get used and give a mark of distinction.
It's been mentioned before. It's a bit of a different animal than the High Line, which makes it pretty impractical. Nevertheless, there's mass transit value in the skyway's elevated infrastructure. The technology just needs to be upgraded.
Already in the works for Miami......it's called The Underline.....
http://miami.curbed.com/archives/2015/07/09/underline-plans-renderings-before-after-revealed.php
At the ground level this would be pretty awesome... 'The Hanging Gardens of Hogan Street' etc. The upper level is way too narrow to create a safe passage for pedestrians or bikes. The designer of the Skyway told me it was engineered to hold streetcar/light-rail which is probably the way it should go if we do any changes at all.
Most of our bike infrastructure is already in place in the form of sidewalks. It would be way cheaper, and more practical IMO given the nature of how bikes aren't cars or anything like them (even if some cyclists like to pretend), to extend sidewalks to accommodate bike lanes. It would give safe passage for the majority of cyclists, kids, etc, and those who wish to ride on the roads & take their chances there could still do so.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Sidewalk_with_bike_path.JPG
Quote from: tpot on July 11, 2015, 06:00:31 PM
Already in the works for Miami......it's called The Underline.....
http://miami.curbed.com/archives/2015/07/09/underline-plans-renderings-before-after-revealed.php
Much of this stretch already has a plain jane shared use path under it. Nice to see there are plans to take that space to the next level.
Quote from: peestandingup on July 12, 2015, 01:10:05 PM
Most of our bike infrastructure is already in place in the form of sidewalks. It would be way cheaper, and more practical IMO given the nature of how bikes aren't cars or anything like them (even if some cyclists like to pretend), to extend sidewalks to accommodate bike lanes. It would give safe passage for the majority of cyclists, kids, etc, and those who wish to ride on the roads & take their chances there could still do so.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Sidewalk_with_bike_path.JPG
Those are an interesting option and can be quite effective. But in my experience, they tend to be quite impractical for any kind of heavy use/commuting. I don't see that as an issue in Jacksonville and they are likely to be fine given the amount of traffic (foot or bike) that can reasonably be expected.
Quote from: tpot on July 11, 2015, 06:00:31 PM
Already in the works for Miami......it's called The Underline.....
http://miami.curbed.com/archives/2015/07/09/underline-plans-renderings-before-after-revealed.php
Love this, but to say it's "in the works" is a stretch.
Quote from: Adam White on July 12, 2015, 02:59:34 PM
Quote from: peestandingup on July 12, 2015, 01:10:05 PM
Most of our bike infrastructure is already in place in the form of sidewalks. It would be way cheaper, and more practical IMO given the nature of how bikes aren't cars or anything like them (even if some cyclists like to pretend), to extend sidewalks to accommodate bike lanes. It would give safe passage for the majority of cyclists, kids, etc, and those who wish to ride on the roads & take their chances there could still do so.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Sidewalk_with_bike_path.JPG
Those are an interesting option and can be quite effective. But in my experience, they tend to be quite impractical for any kind of heavy use/commuting. I don't see that as an issue in Jacksonville and they are likely to be fine given the amount of traffic (foot or bike) that can reasonably be expected.
In the urban core, it's as simple as taking a lane or two off selected streets and restriping them as cycle tracks. Most of the streets aren't FDOT's, so it should not be too difficult to develop a decent connected network utilizing local streets. You can find decent examples in both big and small cities. Jax just needs to do it and get it over with.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 12, 2015, 03:43:50 PM
Quote from: Adam White on July 12, 2015, 02:59:34 PM
Quote from: peestandingup on July 12, 2015, 01:10:05 PM
Most of our bike infrastructure is already in place in the form of sidewalks. It would be way cheaper, and more practical IMO given the nature of how bikes aren't cars or anything like them (even if some cyclists like to pretend), to extend sidewalks to accommodate bike lanes. It would give safe passage for the majority of cyclists, kids, etc, and those who wish to ride on the roads & take their chances there could still do so.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Sidewalk_with_bike_path.JPG
Those are an interesting option and can be quite effective. But in my experience, they tend to be quite impractical for any kind of heavy use/commuting. I don't see that as an issue in Jacksonville and they are likely to be fine given the amount of traffic (foot or bike) that can reasonably be expected.
In the urban core, it's as simple as taking a lane or two off selected streets and restriping them as cycle tracks. Most of the streets aren't FDOT's, so it should not be too difficult to develop a decent connected network utilizing local streets. You can find decent examples in both big and small cities. Jax just needs to do it and get it over with.
Yeah - it's not that hard at all. You can also have bikes share bus lanes (if you have them). I prefer the idea of completely segregated cycle lanes, but those are hard to come by. I do think that actual bike lanes rather than so-called "sharrows" are the answer. You can use bike lanes (of the type you mention) mixed with things like the sidewalk bike lanes that PSU posted about (maybe for areas where the roads are too narrow or perhaps the traffic is a bit too scary).
Thanks for all the thoughtful responses. I understand the Skyway has among the highest ridership for JTA's routes, but I think the general consensus is that it's under-performing. Really too bad the Tiger application wasn't approved to get that spur into Brooklyn.
Ya, I think that the most important things for skyway success are expansion into more happening parts of the urban core and updating the technology. On the other hand, though it may not be practical to turn this into a highline project I have heard that the cultural council might use some of their $500,000 to add public art to the skyway infrastructure. Not sure how accurate that rumor is but I could see that making for a very cool addition DT.
Quote from: UNFurbanist on July 12, 2015, 10:25:01 PM
On the other hand, though it may not be practical to turn this into a highline project I have heard that the cultural council might use some of their $500,000 to add public art to the skyway infrastructure. Not sure how accurate that rumor is but I could see that making for a very cool addition DT.
Yeah, that's the plan. Maybe not all $500k for that but over the next three years I think they'll be investing about $500k into the urban core.
http://www.culturalcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Spark-Grant-Guidelines-2016-21.pdf
QuoteConcurrent with the grant period for the 2016 SPARK Grant Program, Jacksonville's Art in Public Places Program (APP) will be implementing Phase One of three planned phases of permanent public art projects through the Community Redevelopment Plan (CRA) Urban Art Façade and Streetscape Program, which is funded through Jacksonville's Downtown Investment Authority (DIA). During Phase One, an investment of $180,000 will be made in Skyway columns, utility boxes, bike racks, street furnishings, and outdoor sculpture.
Phase One projects will be concentrated in an area of the SPARK District that encompasses the Skyway Central Station to the west, City Hall and Hemming Park to the north, the Times-Union Center for the Performing Arts to the south, and engages Hogan Street and Laura Street from west to east.
Quote from: Ocklawaha on July 11, 2015, 08:47:55 PM
At the ground level this would be pretty awesome... 'The Hanging Gardens of Hogan Street' etc. The upper level is way too narrow to create a safe passage for pedestrians or bikes. The designer of the Skyway told me it was engineered to hold streetcar/light-rail which is probably the way it should go if we do any changes at all.
Question: Would there be a safe way to bring a light rail/street car system down to ground level? Just a gradual concrete ramp? Has that ever been seriously thought out? Could be interesting if you really did want to have a train head to Riverside or the stadium in the future.
It would be no different than the grade changes Charlotte's LRT makes (see below):
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Charlotte-LRT/i-nGHp5XS/0/L/P1560650-L.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Charlotte-LRT/i-BZSqRtM/0/L/P1560645-L.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Charlotte-LRT/i-PJjbqvv/0/L/P1560695-L.jpg)
Similar to what the Skyway already does in Brooklyn (see below):
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/plog-content/images/transit/skyway-operations-center/p1150892.JPG)
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/plog-content/images/transit/skyway-operations-center/p1150868.JPG)
That could be a really cool idea to maybe convert the existing skyway infrastructure to LRT and have it slope into regular LRT on Bay St. and Riverside Ave. potentially connecting 5 points to the stadium and everything in-between. Expensive, but in the right circumstances it could be a great system that would make these areas truly TOD. I know there have already been talks about making both those streets more pedestrian friendly.
Quote from: UNFurbanist on July 13, 2015, 10:00:27 PM
That could be a really cool idea to maybe convert the existing skyway infrastructure to LRT and have it slope into regular LRT on Bay St. and Riverside Ave. potentially connecting 5 points to the stadium and everything in-between. Expensive, but in the right circumstances it could be a great system that would make these areas truly TOD. I know there have already been talks about making both those streets more pedestrian friendly.
I think light rail is better suited to connect the outer neighborhoods with the core of a city like in Miami and Charlotte (for close examples). I still think a great starter route would be from the center of DT along Bay street on the existing elevated infrastructure to the Prime Osborne and then down to the ground west of the PO and share the existing rail corridor down through Murray Hill, St. Johns Park, Ortega, NAS Jax and then Orange Park (possibly all the way to Doctor's Inlet). An elevated rail through Riverside could get messy and very expensive, and buses can service that area pretty well. I'm all about using what's already there for rail.
^ I am all for connecting outer neighborhoods and using existing infrastructure as well. I guess maybe instead of LRT extension from the skyway I meant something more along the lines of a street car system sloping down onto Bay st. and Riverside Ave. It's all just a pipe dream anyway but conceptually I think it makes good sense. IMO Jax needs to focus on getting the urban core neighborhoods and DT well connected together with a solid transit system. That way you can sell the entire core as a kind of package when convincing people to move and invest there. If you can get on a (train, streetcar, skyway, whatever) and ride from Springfield to Riverside or any other combination fairly directly in 20 mins or less that would be a big deal and a great selling point.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 12, 2015, 03:43:50 PM
Quote from: Adam White on July 12, 2015, 02:59:34 PM
Quote from: peestandingup on July 12, 2015, 01:10:05 PM
Most of our bike infrastructure is already in place in the form of sidewalks. It would be way cheaper, and more practical IMO given the nature of how bikes aren't cars or anything like them (even if some cyclists like to pretend), to extend sidewalks to accommodate bike lanes. It would give safe passage for the majority of cyclists, kids, etc, and those who wish to ride on the roads & take their chances there could still do so.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Sidewalk_with_bike_path.JPG
Those are an interesting option and can be quite effective. But in my experience, they tend to be quite impractical for any kind of heavy use/commuting. I don't see that as an issue in Jacksonville and they are likely to be fine given the amount of traffic (foot or bike) that can reasonably be expected.
In the urban core, it's as simple as taking a lane or two off selected streets and restriping them as cycle tracks. Most of the streets aren't FDOT's, so it should not be too difficult to develop a decent connected network utilizing local streets. You can find decent examples in both big and small cities. Jax just needs to do it and get it over with.
Treating cyclists like cars are a mistake though & IMO is counterproductive & has set the infrastructure back, mostly due to road cyclists having the bigger mouths with the "look at me, imma car. Beep Beep! Go around!" & advocating for it. A cyclist is MUCH closer to a pedestrian & should be treated as such. I'm just saying, car VS cyclist/pedestrian you're gonna lose every time, spandex or no spandex. Guaranteed.
I've ridden in the types of lanes we're talking about (just painted stripes on a road) in huge metros & its not pleasant. You get honked at, road rage, close calls, sneers, its fucking loud, all that. And forget about kids using it. I personally am OK with it, but I know there are TONS that wouldn't be. Having them segregated makes much more sense, is best for everyone & can be done cheaply.
P.S. I realize cyclists can legally ride on the sidewalks in FL as of now, but its still not ideal. And that doesn't even mention a lot of states where you cant.
^This is an example of a cycle track (mentioned in my earlier post):
(http://www.downtownseattle.com/assets/2013/10/Cycle-track.jpg)
Cyclist are separated from cars.
^Yeah, NYC & DC I noticed while there has those on some of their major arteries (the rest are painted bike lanes within traffic). Woudnt that be a much bigger investment though (and more work) than extending sidewalks?? A good example of the width you'd likely need is the widening they did near the front of Cummer Museum.
Taking a lane or restriping on wide roadways (while providing ample buffer) will be cheaper for the most part. Extending the sidewalks would mean moving curb & gutter, which will probably involve the extra expense of dealing with drainage and utilities. If not, then you're looking at acquiring private property, which will be a greater expense.
I mean, in 20-25 years if the urban core continues to densify, would that be something you think would actually be a real option on the table? The elevation through downtown actually makes a street car so much quicker and out of traffic.
I can see it being an option sooner than that. It makes all the sense in the world for connecting DT to neighborhoods like San Marco. The skyway vehicles are becoming more obsolete by the minute. At some point JTA will have to decide on if it's worth doing a massive overhaul or switching the technology to something else. If a decision is made to switch, I believe streetcar is just of a decent option to consider, as another form of APM would be.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 14, 2015, 10:49:41 PM
I can see it being an option sooner than that. It makes all the sense in the world for connecting DT to neighborhoods like San Marco. The skyway vehicles are becoming more obsolete by the minute. At some point JTA will have to decide on if it's worth doing a massive overhaul or switching the technology to something else. If a decision is made to switch, I believe streetcar is just of a decent option to consider, as another form of APM would be.
I agree the Streetcar is a better option for Jacksonville Fl. And sooner the better.
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on July 15, 2015, 07:51:13 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 14, 2015, 10:49:41 PM
I can see it being an option sooner than that. It makes all the sense in the world for connecting DT to neighborhoods like San Marco. The skyway vehicles are becoming more obsolete by the minute. At some point JTA will have to decide on if it's worth doing a massive overhaul or switching the technology to something else. If a decision is made to switch, I believe streetcar is just of a decent option to consider, as another form of APM would be.
I agree the Streetcar is a better option then a tram for Jacksonville Fl. And sooner the better.
"streetcar" and "tram" are two different names for the same thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tram (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tram)
Quote from: Adam White on July 15, 2015, 08:57:57 AM
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on July 15, 2015, 07:51:13 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 14, 2015, 10:49:41 PM
I can see it being an option sooner than that. It makes all the sense in the world for connecting DT to neighborhoods like San Marco. The skyway vehicles are becoming more obsolete by the minute. At some point JTA will have to decide on if it's worth doing a massive overhaul or switching the technology to something else. If a decision is made to switch, I believe streetcar is just of a decent option to consider, as another form of APM would be.
I agree the Streetcar is a better option then a tram for Jacksonville Fl. And sooner the better.
"streetcar" and "tram" are two different names for the same thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tram (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tram)
Thanks teacher I don't want a METRO or MARTA in Jacksonville Florida OK?
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on July 15, 2015, 09:43:31 AM
Quote from: Adam White on July 15, 2015, 08:57:57 AM
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on July 15, 2015, 07:51:13 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 14, 2015, 10:49:41 PM
I can see it being an option sooner than that. It makes all the sense in the world for connecting DT to neighborhoods like San Marco. The skyway vehicles are becoming more obsolete by the minute. At some point JTA will have to decide on if it's worth doing a massive overhaul or switching the technology to something else. If a decision is made to switch, I believe streetcar is just of a decent option to consider, as another form of APM would be.
I agree the Streetcar is a better option then a tram for Jacksonville Fl. And sooner the better.
No need to be rude. Streetcars and trams are the same thing - so based on that, your comment doesn't really make sense.
"streetcar" and "tram" are two different names for the same thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tram (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tram)
Thanks teacher I don't want a METRO or MARTA in Jacksonville Florida OK?
No need to be rude. Streetcars and trams are the same thing - so based on that, your comment doesn't really make sense.
OK Adam white how about this "I agree the Streetcar is a better option for Jacksonville Fl. And sooner the better." ::)
Pretty much any city that adds public transportation to it's list of amenities does it because it's citizens need trains and buses to get around due to a lack of parking space or because there's a historical precedent for train infrastructure in residential areas. Take Chicago for example, it's not feasible for everyone who works in the Loop district to drive because there's not enough parking. Same goes for New York and Manhattan. Downtown Jax has a long way to go before it has tens of thousands of workers piling into downtown skyscrapers to work a 9 to 5 job. That's why spending money on light rail is a total waste and possibly even a corrupt boondoggle.
As an alternative, creating dedicated transportation/recreational paths not only increases tourism, it's a cheaper way to increase mobility for year around citizens. Imagine a recreational path that spanned both the south bank and north bank? That would be an amazing amenity that pretty much any tourist would want to enjoy. Cafes, clubs, shops would be lining the path and create an experience.
The good news is the waterfront of Jax is almost a clean slate. The potential is amazing. Think about riding a bike from Avondale/Riverside/Downtown to San Marco, having dinner on the square, and then enjoying the sunset while crossing back over a dedicated bridge with no cars? Or the other way around? Or walk/bike from the south to a Jags game? That would be epic and unique.
Uniqueness is what drives people to want to live in a particular city. Our competition is Tampa and Orlando. Tampa has Bayshore Boulevard but it's mostly through a residential neighborhood and used almost strictly for exercise. Orlando is almost landlocked so they have to develop areas like Winter Park for uniqueness. Jacksonville has the ability to create something unique that would attract folks and would be impossible to replicate in Tampa or Orlando.
From a strictly selfish standpoint all of the stakeholders in the city will want to see this happen. Property owners will see their property values increase as Jax becomes more of a destination city. The government will get more money in property taxes. Citizens will see their job prospects increase. Tourists will pump money into the local economy because they stayed an extra day and enjoyed the area. It's not a stretch to see folks from Ocala/Gainesville/Starke/Villages going back home and telling their friends how great the Jax Bridge was to walk across after the Jags game. Then they would show off something they bought, chocolate purchased at Peterbrooke, beer bought at Aardwolf, etc. As they are flipping through pictures on their phone there would a selfie shot of the sunset on the bridge. Then their kids will see Jax as a destination city and lay the groundwork for the next generation of visitors. Think landmark, think unique.
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on July 15, 2015, 11:22:38 AM
Pretty much any city that adds public transportation to it's list of amenities does it because it's citizens need trains and buses to get around due to a lack of parking space or because there's a historical precedent for train infrastructure in residential areas.
Wouldn't this be Jax?
Quote from: ProjectMaximus on July 15, 2015, 12:08:43 PM
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on July 15, 2015, 11:22:38 AM
Pretty much any city that adds public transportation to it's list of amenities does it because it's citizens need trains and buses to get around due to a lack of parking space or because there's a historical precedent for train infrastructure in residential areas.
Wouldn't this be Jax?
Yes...
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on July 15, 2015, 11:22:38 AM
Pretty much any city that adds public transportation to it's list of amenities does it because it's citizens need trains and buses to get around due to a lack of parking space or because there's a historical precedent for train infrastructure in residential areas. Take Chicago for example, it's not feasible for everyone who works in the Loop district to drive because there's not enough parking. Same goes for New York and Manhattan. Downtown Jax has a long way to go before it has tens of thousands of workers piling into downtown skyscrapers to work a 9 to 5 job. That's why spending money on light rail is a total waste and possibly even a corrupt boondoggle.
As an alternative, creating dedicated transportation/recreational paths not only increases tourism, it's a cheaper way to increase mobility for year around citizens. Imagine a recreational path that spanned both the south bank and north bank? That would be an amazing amenity that pretty much any tourist would want to enjoy. Cafes, clubs, shops would be lining the path and create an experience.
The good news is the waterfront of Jax is almost a clean slate. The potential is amazing. Think about riding a bike from Avondale/Riverside/Downtown to San Marco, having dinner on the square, and then enjoying the sunset while crossing back over a dedicated bridge with no cars? Or the other way around? Or walk/bike from the south to a Jags game? That would be epic and unique.
Uniqueness is what drives people to want to live in a particular city. Our competition is Tampa and Orlando. Tampa has Bayshore Boulevard but it's mostly through a residential neighborhood and used almost strictly for exercise. Orlando is almost landlocked so they have to develop areas like Winter Park for uniqueness. Jacksonville has the ability to create something unique that would attract folks and would be impossible to replicate in Tampa or Orlando.
From a strictly selfish standpoint all of the stakeholders in the city will want to see this happen. Property owners will see their property values increase as Jax becomes more of a destination city. The government will get more money in property taxes. Citizens will see their job prospects increase. Tourists will pump money into the local economy because they stayed an extra day and enjoyed the area. It's not a stretch to see folks from Ocala/Gainesville/Starke/Villages going back home and telling their friends how great the Jax Bridge was to walk across after the Jags game. Then they would show off something they bought, chocolate purchased at Peterbrooke, beer bought at Aardwolf, etc. As they are flipping through pictures on their phone there would a selfie shot of the sunset on the bridge. Then their kids will see Jax as a destination city and lay the groundwork for the next generation of visitors. Think landmark, think unique.
How is that different from the Riverwalk? I already ride my bike between the core, the games, Riverside, and the Southbank. Wider would be better, and more destinations preferable, but the path is there.
^Ya I was thinking the same thing. Also there is a pedestrian section of the Main St. bridge isnt there? Making it more accessible from the riverwalks would be nice, sure, but it exists. I think FDOT has plans for a bike/ pedestrian path to connect Riverside to San Marco so that part is on the way too.
Quote from: UNFurbanist on July 15, 2015, 02:31:51 PM
^Ya I was thinking the same thing. Also there is a pedestrian section of the Main St. bridge isnt there? Making it more accessible from the riverwalks would be nice, sure, but it exists. I think FDOT has plans for a bike/ pedestrian path to connect Riverside to San Marco so that part is on the way too.
There are two pedestrian lanes on the Main Street Bridge. It's been disrupted quite a bit by the constant construction and closures. The two sides aren't all that well connected to the Riverwalk, and the Soutbank Riverwalk isn't well connected to the surrounding neighborhood.
And yes, the latest plans for the Fuller Warren expansion include a separated bike/ped element. FDOT was brought kicking and screaming by our Council reps and advocacy groups.
I think bike accessibility and the short distances between downtown neighborhoods is completely NOT understood by the suburban folks. That's why I'm hopeful that all of those Brooklyn people will be all over the Core. It's just a short mosey away.
Quote from: Tacachale on July 15, 2015, 02:57:14 PM
Quote from: UNFurbanist on July 15, 2015, 02:31:51 PM
^Ya I was thinking the same thing. Also there is a pedestrian section of the Main St. bridge isnt there? Making it more accessible from the riverwalks would be nice, sure, but it exists. I think FDOT has plans for a bike/ pedestrian path to connect Riverside to San Marco so that part is on the way too.
There are two pedestrian lanes on the Main Street Bridge. It's been disrupted quite a bit by the constant construction and closures. The two sides aren't all that well connected to the Riverwalk, and the Soutbank Riverwalk isn't well connected to the surrounding neighborhood.
And yes, the latest plans for the Fuller Warren expansion include a separated bike/ped element. FDOT was brought kicking and screaming by our Council reps and advocacy groups.
There is also a ped path on the Acosta Bridge already which is nice and I feel far safer running across than even the Main Street Bridge. Anyway, you can go from Riverside/Brooklyn all the way to the Landing without much interruption on the Northbank Riverwalk which is usually dead until the Landing. We have bigger problems and opportunities to spend money on.
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on July 15, 2015, 11:22:38 AM
Pretty much any city that adds public transportation to it's list of amenities does it because it's citizens need trains and buses to get around due to a lack of parking space or because there's a historical precedent for train infrastructure in residential areas.
That's why spending money on light rail is a total waste and possibly even a corrupt boondoggle.
Jacksonville has the strongest 'historical precedent,' for streetcar and/or light-rail in the State of Florida. The city grew up along its neighborhood streetcar routes/roots. Everything from Ortega Village, Murray Hill and NAS JAX to Moncrief and Lackawanna; and from San Jose to Panama Park, Talleyrand and West Beaver Street all owes its development to the city creating aspect of rail. It only stands to reason that a city with so much steel just below its streets would benefit from returning to the vehicle that birthed it.
Add that to the extreme numbers that streetcar and light-rail have brought in the way of development and ROI virtually everywhere it has been built and it remains a boondoggle that we are not laying track.
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on July 15, 2015, 11:22:38 AM
Pretty much any city that adds public transportation to it's list of amenities does it because it's citizens need trains and buses to get around due to a lack of parking space or because there's a historical precedent for train infrastructure in residential areas. Take Chicago for example, it's not feasible for everyone who works in the Loop district to drive because there's not enough parking. Same goes for New York and Manhattan. Downtown Jax has a long way to go before it has tens of thousands of workers piling into downtown skyscrapers to work a 9 to 5 job. That's why spending money on light rail is a total waste and possibly even a corrupt boondoggle.
As an alternative, creating dedicated transportation/recreational paths not only increases tourism, it's a cheaper way to increase mobility for year around citizens. Imagine a recreational path that spanned both the south bank and north bank? That would be an amazing amenity that pretty much any tourist would want to enjoy. Cafes, clubs, shops would be lining the path and create an experience.
The good news is the waterfront of Jax is almost a clean slate. The potential is amazing. Think about riding a bike from Avondale/Riverside/Downtown to San Marco, having dinner on the square, and then enjoying the sunset while crossing back over a dedicated bridge with no cars? Or the other way around? Or walk/bike from the south to a Jags game? That would be epic and unique.
Uniqueness is what drives people to want to live in a particular city. Our competition is Tampa and Orlando. Tampa has Bayshore Boulevard but it's mostly through a residential neighborhood and used almost strictly for exercise. Orlando is almost landlocked so they have to develop areas like Winter Park for uniqueness. Jacksonville has the ability to create something unique that would attract folks and would be impossible to replicate in Tampa or Orlando.
From a strictly selfish standpoint all of the stakeholders in the city will want to see this happen. Property owners will see their property values increase as Jax becomes more of a destination city. The government will get more money in property taxes. Citizens will see their job prospects increase. Tourists will pump money into the local economy because they stayed an extra day and enjoyed the area. It's not a stretch to see folks from Ocala/Gainesville/Starke/Villages going back home and telling their friends how great the Jax Bridge was to walk across after the Jags game. Then they would show off something they bought, chocolate purchased at Peterbrooke, beer bought at Aardwolf, etc. As they are flipping through pictures on their phone there would a selfie shot of the sunset on the bridge. Then their kids will see Jax as a destination city and lay the groundwork for the next generation of visitors. Think landmark, think unique.
(That's why spending money on light rail is a total waste and possibly even a corrupt boondoggle.) God what a stupid statement! Yes I know it's your Opinion but it is still Stupid to me, which is my Opinion. >:(
Jacksonville can't maintain the parks at ground level properly. What make people think they could maintain an elevated park? Just curious...
Quote from: JaxNative68 on July 17, 2015, 12:34:30 PM
Jacksonville can't maintain the parks at ground level properly. What make people think they could maintain an elevated park? Just curious...
It depends on the park and which side of town it's on. Besides I have a better chance picking up pixie sticks with my Butt Cheeks :o before any elevated park comes to Jacksonville Florida.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APJAvHdSx8g
Anyone see this? They are seriously making fun of the streetcar project in Charlotte right now because of how slow the thing moves.
Quote from: For_F-L-O-R-I-D-A on July 18, 2015, 02:01:09 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APJAvHdSx8g
Anyone see this? They are seriously making fun of the streetcar project in Charlotte right now because of how slow the thing moves.
That's the solution! People just need to run everywhere.
Quote from: For_F-L-O-R-I-D-A on July 18, 2015, 02:01:09 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APJAvHdSx8g
Anyone see this? They are seriously making fun of the streetcar project in Charlotte right now because of how slow the thing moves.
LRT=Light Rail Transit
BRT=Bus Rapid Transit
Are we dealing with children here? Really? This is getting pretty silly, transit or pedestrian greenway has never been a one or the other proposition. There is no reason why any city given our current infrastructure couldn't have both.
The idea that a greenway could be done on the elevated structure of the Skyway is pretty recidivous. It is simply too narrow to accommodate any other use then a fixed rail vehicle, not even JTA'S beloved buses could be made to ride above the streets like that and for bicycles and pedestrians the narrowness and elevation would present all sorts of dangers. I wouldn't say it can't be done, but I will say it won't be done...ever. The situation in New York/NJ is totally different. The old railroad being used in these applications were full sized double tracked and sometimes triple tracked deck bridges or trestles anywhere from 50 to 100' feet wide. The Skyway beams by comparison are measured in inches... 23" of them. Nobody in the general public would ever be invited to walk up there.
Down below the Skyway, there is certainly room to create landscaped urban trails, with lush foliage. Hogan Street would make for an amazing trellis of hanging vines and flowers, while other segments such as Bay offer a covered sidewalk or trail.
Laughing at the streetcar in Charlotte was just another of those lame cutie-pie funnies that appear in the daily Yahoo's around the world. The facts are quite different:
it's no secret that one of the primary justifications for installing light rail transit (LRT) is to improve the speed of transit service – to provide a faster ride for transit passengers and a transit alternative more competitive with the private automobile. How well do new LRT systems meet this goal?
Not well at all, if you would believe the claims of many light rail opponents, who concoct an image of slow-moving "trolley cars" dawdling along from transit stop to stop. in one of his familiar boilerplate tracts, the pre-eminent Road Warrior ideologue Wendell Cox explains "Why Light Rail Won't Work for San Antonio" (and both he and Randall O'Foole will show up the day Jacksonville announces its intention to return to the rails) The following is from Mr. Cox in his campaign against rail (Texas Public Policy Foundation, January 2000):
QuoteSlow speed: Even in the few corridors served by new light rail systems, it provides no speed advantage compared to highway alternatives .... New light rail systems average 17.2 miles per hour, and the fastest at-grade system operates at 18.2 miles per hour.
This same "slow speed" Old Wives' Tale is picked up and re-articulated in a variety of forms by anti-rail zealots across the country. During the fiercely fought light rail campaign in Austin, Texas in 2000, for example, the anti-transit highway-boosting group ROAD (Reclaim Our Allocated Dollars) asserted that "light rail trolley cars travel at an average speed less than 17 miles per hour ...." indeed, during the campaign, some ROAD zealots preached that LRT "trolleycars" would plod through Austin no faster than 9 mph! According to opponents' rhetoric, LRT just seems to be going slower ... and slower ... and ...
So what's the real lowdown on the LRT "slowdown"? Supporters of improved urban mobility can take heart in the fact that the reality is not at odds with what common sense tells them – LRT really is a relatively fast mode of urban transportation, especially for public transit.
City buses in NY and many other cities both large and small have generally fallen below 9 mph average speed in the last couple of years. Bus Rapid Transit has bumped that up in area's where it is implemented closer to the 15-20 mph mark.
Modern light rail systems have
average speeds in the range of 20 mph or faster.
This is faster than local transit bus speeds of 12-13 mph, and competitive with the average speeds of automobiles -- 23-25 mph in urban traffic conditions (a mix of freeways, arterials, and local streets). .
LIGHT-RAIL SYSTEM & AVERAGE MPH
Baltimore 24
Dallas (Red Line) 21
Dallas (Blue Line) 19
Denver (Alameda-Littleton) 38
Denver (Downtown-Littleton) 26
Los Angeles (Blue Line) 24
Los Angeles (Green Line) 38
Salt Lake City 24
It should be kept in mind that these are average schedule speeds including station stops to board and let off passengers. They may also reflect speed restrictions, such as in streets or arterials, and relatively slow progress through central areas with frequent stops.
The more sophisticated LRT opponents often base their low-balled "average speed" values on average operating speeds reported by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in its National Transportation Data Base (NTDB). The problem with the NTDB data, however, is that it includes vehicle (or train) layover time at the ends of routes – a delay not experienced by passengers. The data we have presented are calculated from actual schedule times and route lengths provided by the various transit agencies, and reflects the actual average travel speeds LRT passengers truly experience.
Also, the FTA "national average" data opponents typically quote includes the slower speeds of streetcar-type LRT operations in cities like Boston, San Francisco, and Philadelphia. This tends to skew the national average speed downward. Modern LRT and even well planned modern or heritage streetcar built in exclusive lanes or in medians or side-of-the-road would be much faster. Electric vehicles from the oldest streetcar to the newest Tesla can blow the socks off of any diesel or gas powered transit vehicle.
Opponents also frequently confuse their audience by playing "mix-and-match" games with average schedule speed and maximum speed, to concoct an image of "slow" LRT trains crawling at 17 or 20 mph, vs. speedy cars and buses on freeways blazing past at 55 mph. in reality, LRT maximum speeds in public thoroughfares are typically the same as the posted traffic speed (often ranging from 25 to 50 mph) and up to 50-55 mph on highspeed (usually exclusive) sections of alignment, like railroad corridors. This potential for highspeed operation is reflected in the amazingly high average speeds (nearly 40 mph, including station stops) achieved by Los Angeles's Green Line and a major segment of the newly completed Littleton LRT line in Denver.
Sources: Calculated from schedule and route
data from Baltimore MTA; DART; Denver RTD;
LACMTA; Salt Lake City UTA
Ock, would you turn the Skyway into a streetcar? The thing could move pretty fast on its elevated ROW.
Quote from: For_F-L-O-R-I-D-A on July 19, 2015, 04:23:47 AM
Ock, would you turn the Skyway into a streetcar? The thing could move pretty fast on its elevated ROW.
There is merit in thinking that using the elevated structure for streetcar would not only be beneficial, it would put us in a leading role in transit rather then the proverbial tail of the dog. JTA says the structure is designed to handle 'light rail' vehicles, but in Jacksonville's case (our size/density) I would suggest that 'rapid streetcar' is a better and more economical/scaled approach to our needs. The following would add about 7,000 feet to the current elevated structures, but once done, no more elevated work would have to be added. I do think that the 'ideal' would be to continue the elevated:
1.) Through the length of Bay Street East at least to the area of the Hart Bridge Ramps. At that point a line could easily go on the ground and directly UNDER the freeway. Street trackage could eventually extend north on A. P. Randolph.
2.) Across State Street, coming down to surface level north of that point in the FSCJ campus area, hence curve it along the south and west edge of the Springfield Parks in the grass, double track, sodded over with grass and landscaped all the way to UF Health.
3.) In the Southside, continue and extend the elevated structure south over the Florida East Coast Railway and then bring the track down to the surface, entering Atlantic Blvd into San Marco Square.
4.) In Brooklyn, the track would come down to the surface as it now does, then swing alongside Riverside Ave to Forrest Street, entering Riverside Avenue to Post to Oak to King to Park/College. King Street is an opportunity for a landscaped median/track.
5.) At the Prime Osborne/JRTC the track could descend to the side of Bay Street rather then make the jog into the current Skyway Station (which could convert to the new Multi-Modal Terminal), hence to Myrtle and north into Durkeeville.
ULTIMATELY:
6.) Trackage on the Southbank needs to be reconfigured with the inclusion of a line running from Healthy Town to Baptist, having two junctions one at or near the current San Marco Station and the other at or near the current King Street Station. This option would add another 2000 feet M/L to the elevated sections. It could set up a future surface/median expansion down Beach or Atlantic eastbound.
I like these ideas a lot! If only we had the funding :-\
Quote from: UNFurbanist on July 20, 2015, 12:52:00 AM
I like these ideas a lot! If only we had the funding :-\
Raise taxes for all the people in Jacksonville Florida and we could pay for these other things we need. But this will never happen with Lenny in office. Damn even Brown didn't raise taxes. :-\
Ya, we need increased tax funding badly. I think the mayor should at very least put it to a referendum so he has deniability and can say it was the will of the people. Put a 5 year time limit on it and give us some options like:
1/2 cent sales tax increase for infrastructure
1/2 cent increase for downtown revitalization projects
1/2 cent increase for parks
1/2 cent increase for public safety
that way if we pass at least one or all of them, specific areas of importance to the city can get funded and maybe some dollars are freed up in the general fund to be used in other neglected areas. Personally I would vote yes on all of these, 2 1/2 cents in sales taxes seems like nothing to me if you can actually get something good out of it. Chicago charges like 10 so I think Jax charging around 3 is reasonable.
Seems like something similar to BJP is needed. Whatever it is should probably include money for a lot of different interests and needs, assuming its backers want it to actually pass.
Seems like a sales tax as well as gas tax increase are inevitable. I'm in favor of it if it saves the city from becoming a complete dump. You barely notice these marginal increases anyway. Unfortunately Curry just started his first term and wants to get reelected and raising taxes can be political suicide so we'll see if it actually gets done in the first term.