Quote(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Park-Street-Road-Diet-DDRB-/i-hFsjGfX/0/2f64eae7/L/Title-2-L.jpg)
A road diet could be coming to Brooklyn's Park Street. Here is a glimpse into would could lead to a resurgence of another historic walkable commercial corridor in Jacksonville's city center.
Read More: https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/a-new-look-for-brooklyns-park-street/
I'm a little surprised they went with the Shared lanes for Bikes and Cars, but otherwise I like it.
Remind me how this is going to be paid for?
I, too, am surprised at the Sharrow solution; but, given the low volumes, makes sense.
I am more surprised, and disappointed, the plan does not include undergrounding the existing utilities. Doing so would remove several impediments in the sidewalk, and may allow larger trees.
It is unclear to me where the streetlights are, and whether they will be street-oriented cobra heads, pedestrian-oriented acorns, or some combination.
Did they look at combining, eliminating, or narrowing driveways? What about potential future needs for driveways to accommodate new development? Also, the electrical supply business, between Stonewall and Jackson, has a loading dock that large semi-trucks currently back into, temporarily blocking Park Street. Will the design accommodate this maneuver?
Quote from: Charles Hunter on August 17, 2020, 11:12:08 AM
I, too, am surprised at the Sharrow solution; but, given the low volumes, makes sense.
I am more surprised, and disappointed, the plan does not include undergrounding the existing utilities. Doing so would remove several impediments in the sidewalk, and may allow larger trees.
It is unclear to me where the streetlights are, and whether they will be street-oriented cobra heads, pedestrian-oriented acorns, or some combination.
Did they look at combining, eliminating, or narrowing driveways? What about potential future needs for driveways to accommodate new development? Also, the electrical supply business, between Stonewall and Jackson, has a loading dock that large semi-trucks currently back into, temporarily blocking Park Street. Will the design accommodate this maneuver?
I don't have inside knowledge of this project, but based on prior history i'd say the answer to all of your questions is NO.
I am sadly a bit surprised by some of the concepts presented. While I love the wide pedestrian space, it is at the expense of cyclists...which is an issue given the connection to the Emerald Trail. Sharrows were all the rage...10 years ago. They also are not ideal with 10' travel lanes and a narrow on-street parking lane.
I'm also a bit skeptical about the use of mini-circles at some of the intersections.
Sharrows are perfect for Park.
Quote from: tufsu1 on August 17, 2020, 01:21:11 PM
I am sadly a bit surprised by some of the concepts presented. While I love the wide pedestrian space, it is at the expense of cyclists...which is an issue given the connection to the Emerald Trail. Sharrows were all the rage...10 years ago. They also are not ideal with 10' travel lanes and a narrow on-street parking lane.
I'm also a bit skeptical about the use of mini-circles at some of the intersections.
Yeah, sharrows are the wrong move there. Should be separated bike lanes.
Quote
I am more surprised, and disappointed, the plan does not include undergrounding the existing utilities. Doing so would remove several impediments in the sidewalk, and may allow larger trees.
It is my understanding that JEA did not want to pay for removing the overhead utilities. My understanding, is that JEA will be upgrading the lighting with the new LEDs, as part of this streetscape reconstruction.
The primary developer that has assembled most of the existing parcels along this roadway is very interested in keeping most of the remaining building stock intact, and it was found that some of those buildings would have been encroached upon if the existing utilities were modified.
As an aside, most of the remaining housing stock West of Park are not hooked into the City's sewer system.
Quote
It is unclear to me where the streetlights are, and whether they will be street-oriented cobra heads, pedestrian-oriented acorns, or some combination.
Currently, that section of Park has a mixture of the old (actual) historic streetlights, and the new COJ approved historic lookalikes. It is my understanding that the new poles will remain in place, while the old poles will come down. It is my understanding that the standard yellow beacons are being added to crosswalks at each of the proposed traffic circles, with ladder striping or brick crosswalks (ladder striping is used throughout Brooklyn, but the actual brick crosswalks are preferred for Park)... all consistent with current COJ streetscape standards for the CBD. My understanding, is that there won't be Park Street-specific wayfaring signage (like you'd see along Gaines Street in Tallahassee, for example). There will be one mid-block crossing added where the old red brick building was (the Communist prison-looking structure that was torn down a few years ago), and a marked section of the Emerald Trail begins near the Gliddens building.
Quote
Did they look at combining, eliminating, or narrowing driveways? What about potential future needs for driveways to accommodate new development?
Essentially, one developer controls most of Park Street. All of the current driveway placements will remain, and future redevelopment will be planned off that traffic placement.
As an aside, COJ put in ADA compliant curbs at each intersection late last year. (as part of the ongoing ADA compliance settlement/corrections going up all around the county)... all of that work will be ripped up when Park St road diet breaks ground (likely not until Q4 of 2022).
Also, JTA plans to install some of their new BRT stations along with the road diet construction.
Quote from: tufsu1 on August 17, 2020, 01:21:11 PM
I am sadly a bit surprised by some of the concepts presented. While I love the wide pedestrian space, it is at the expense of cyclists...which is an issue given the connection to the Emerald Trail. Sharrows were all the rage...10 years ago. They also are not ideal with 10' travel lanes and a narrow on-street parking lane.
I'm also a bit skeptical about the use of mini-circles at some of the intersections.
The existing traffic signals are completely worthless. Hugely in favor of replacing those unnecessary relics with an alternative traffic calming device.
Also, the primary developer of this area has an overwhelming desire (rightly I might add) to add as much outdoor dining space as possible, and is keenly interested in keeping as much as the existing building stock in place. As you know, within 60' of ROW... there are choices to be made. The preferential choice would be to prioritize pedestrian space and redevelopment of existing buildings... over accommodating a cycle track and having to heavily modify existing building stock in order to accommodate the preferred vibrant pedestrian streetscape desired, as a result of constructing a cycle track.
Quote from: tufsu1 on August 17, 2020, 01:21:11 PM
I am sadly a bit surprised by some of the concepts presented. While I love the wide pedestrian space, it is at the expense of cyclists...which is an issue given the connection to the Emerald Trail. Sharrows were all the rage...10 years ago. They also are not ideal with 10' travel lanes and a narrow on-street parking lane.
I'm also a bit skeptical about the use of mini-circles at some of the intersections.
Yea I was expecting something a little more similar to Riverplace Blvd. I realize the ROW isn't nearly as wide on Park but It seems like some of the concepts could have been embraced. It's a somewhat narrow ROW and I wouldn't want to touch any of the buildings so maybe they did what they could do?
In terms of the traffic circle I guess they were trying to calm traffic without keeping the lights.
I do wish the power could be undergrounded, but I bet that would add a LOT to the price of this. Perhaps the design could be done in a way so that if they chose to do it later the entire street/sidewalk wouldn't have to be ripped up?
Quote from: fieldafm on August 17, 2020, 02:29:17 PM
As an aside, COJ put in ADA compliant curbs at each intersection late last year. (as part of the ongoing ADA compliance settlement/corrections going up all around the county)... all of that work will be ripped up when Park St road diet breaks ground (likely not until Q4 of 2022).
Also, JTA plans to install some of their new BRT stations along with the road diet construction.
Why is this going for Final Approval now if not until late 2022?
Quote from: Steve on August 17, 2020, 02:39:39 PM
Quote from: fieldafm on August 17, 2020, 02:29:17 PM
As an aside, COJ put in ADA compliant curbs at each intersection late last year. (as part of the ongoing ADA compliance settlement/corrections going up all around the county)... all of that work will be ripped up when Park St road diet breaks ground (likely not until Q4 of 2022).
Also, JTA plans to install some of their new BRT stations along with the road diet construction.
Why is this going for Final Approval now if not until late 2022?
Riverplace Blvd streetscape went before DDRB about 2.5/3 years before work began, for context.
Quote from: tufsu1 on August 17, 2020, 01:21:11 PM
I am sadly a bit surprised by some of the concepts presented. While I love the wide pedestrian space, it is at the expense of cyclists...which is an issue given the connection to the Emerald Trail. Sharrows were all the rage...10 years ago. They also are not ideal with 10' travel lanes and a narrow on-street parking lane.
I'm also a bit skeptical about the use of mini-circles at some of the intersections.
This is supposed to be a BRT corridor as well. 10' travel lanes, mixed with cars and cyclist aren't ideal for that type of transit service.
Quote from: fieldafm on August 17, 2020, 02:44:37 PM
Quote from: Steve on August 17, 2020, 02:39:39 PM
Quote from: fieldafm on August 17, 2020, 02:29:17 PM
As an aside, COJ put in ADA compliant curbs at each intersection late last year. (as part of the ongoing ADA compliance settlement/corrections going up all around the county)... all of that work will be ripped up when Park St road diet breaks ground (likely not until Q4 of 2022).
Also, JTA plans to install some of their new BRT stations along with the road diet construction.
Why is this going for Final Approval now if not until late 2022?
Riverplace Blvd streetscape went before DDRB about 2.5/3 years before work began, for context.
My question still stands:)
I also think the mini roundabout things are overkill and a waste of money but I do love the use of chicanes. They are a great way to slow motorized traffic down within a ROW constrained corridor.
Quote from: Steve on August 17, 2020, 03:04:16 PM
Quote from: fieldafm on August 17, 2020, 02:44:37 PM
Quote from: Steve on August 17, 2020, 02:39:39 PM
Quote from: fieldafm on August 17, 2020, 02:29:17 PM
As an aside, COJ put in ADA compliant curbs at each intersection late last year. (as part of the ongoing ADA compliance settlement/corrections going up all around the county)... all of that work will be ripped up when Park St road diet breaks ground (likely not until Q4 of 2022).
Also, JTA plans to install some of their new BRT stations along with the road diet construction.
Why is this going for Final Approval now if not until late 2022?
Riverplace Blvd streetscape went before DDRB about 2.5/3 years before work began, for context.
My question still stands:)
What's shown in this presentation won't be built like that. The pictures are pretty but when they move into some detailed design work, they're going to discover items typically overlooked with a +100 year old corridor. It will be either value engineered and/or the budget will balloon. From that angle, it's early to get design approval but I guess that's the process Jax has in place.
If the design is being done to accommodate "one developer that controls most of Park Street," is this developer contributing anything to the design or construction costs?
Can JTA's BRT buses pass when going in opposite directions on a 20' roadway without bumping mirrors?
Quote from: thelakelander on August 17, 2020, 03:07:42 PM
I also think the mini roundabout things are overkill and a waste of money but I do love the use of chicanes. They are a great way to slow motorized traffic down within a ROW constrained corridor.
Are there any studies that show that people expecting a straight road, "hop the curb" and create a dangerous situation for a pedestrian?
I like the concept better than a roundabout, but I tend to look at this like the "lane shift" done on I-95 between the end of the overland bridge project and Emerson. There's a lane shift that looks like it was done to create a larger shoulder on the left side. Fine, but it results in a permanent unnatural lane shift where you wouldn't expect it.
I sort of look at this the same way.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on August 17, 2020, 03:17:50 PM
If the design is being done to accommodate "one developer that controls most of Park Street," is this developer contributing anything to the design or construction costs?
Can JTA's BRT buses pass when going in opposite directions on a 20' roadway without bumping mirrors?
I think a more accurate description is that the project consultants are designing a streetscape that accommodates the desires of surrounding property owners. They have also held numerous public meetings and incorporated suggestions from the public into the proposed design. Ultimately they designing the streetscape to support economic development within a walkable corridor, in a way that supports the redevelopment of existing building stock. Kind of the way that public engagement is supposed to work?
Not intending to sound like a smart@ss, but 10' bus lanes on a 25mph thoroughfare are a thing. JTA doesn't have a problem with the lane width. I can understand the preference to not mix bike traffic with bus and auto traffic... but Gaines Street in Tallahassee is very much the model used for Park Street, where the pedestrian realm has been prioritized over bike lanes (particularly a pedestrian realm that can accommodate robust outdoor dining options while also accommodating special events, IE festivals and the like). High frequency buses operating on a 25mph roadway with sharrows, seem to be working just great there.
As far as 'is this developer contributing anything to the design or construction costs?', the Mobility Plan and specifically Downtown's TCEA are setup to encourage this very sort of development. If you want a developer to now contribute the same mobility fee that a suburban developer pays for new construction, in order to rehab an existing building in an urban neighborhood that has been around for over 150 years... then we might as well bulldoze whatever is left of the urban core.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on August 17, 2020, 03:17:50 PM
Can JTA's BRT buses pass when going in opposite directions on a 20' roadway without bumping mirrors?
Mirror to mirror is typically 10.5' or so for a bus, but maybe JTA has something different. Typically don't recommend lane widths of less than 10.5' on transit corridors. There will likely be some clips and sideswipes along the way but it will help slow traffic down if that's the goal.
Quote from: fieldafm on August 17, 2020, 03:42:30 PM
Not intending to sound like a smart@ss, but 10' bus lanes on a 25mph thoroughfare are a thing. JTA doesn't have a problem with the lane width. I can understand the preference to not mix bike traffic with bus and auto traffic... but Gaines Street in Tallahassee is very much the model used for Park Street, where the pedestrian realm has been prioritized over bike lanes (particularly a pedestrian realm that can accommodate robust outdoor dining options while also accommodating special events, IE festivals and the like). High frequency buses operating on a 25mph roadway with sharrows, seem to be working just great there.
Sharrows are fine for 25 mph however the recreational or leisure bike rider will avoid it and use side streets. Given the width of the travel lanes, with transit included, actual travel speeds may likely be lower. Travel lane width wise, Gaines appears to be a bit wider for transit. It's got a middle turn lane and curb and gutter that probably adds another 2' or so of horizontal width, in addition to the actual width of the asphalt travel lanes. Because of the type of curb and gutter used, and the presence of a suicide lane with spot medians, bi-directional transit on that corridor is spaced apart. In this scenario, I can see bus drivers waiting or slowing down in order to pass each other at intersections, where there's some more space to get around each other.
Quote from: fieldafm on August 17, 2020, 02:34:30 PM
Also, the primary developer of this area has an overwhelming desire (rightly I might add) to add as much outdoor dining space as possible, and is keenly interested in keeping as much as the existing building stock in place. As you know, within 60' of ROW... there are choices to be made. The preferential choice would be to prioritize pedestrian space and redevelopment of existing buildings... over accommodating a cycle track and having to heavily modify existing building stock in order to accommodate the preferred vibrant pedestrian streetscape desired, as a result of constructing a cycle track.
If the developer/primary property owner has this much sway over the design, are they contributing anything to the project, dollars or in-kind? Seems like they will be the #1 beneficiary and it's a lot to benefit mostly a single owner (mayor's buddy, Shad, the exception!) who hasn't gone public with their plans for the area.
Don't get me wrong, I support projects like this, but there are corridors all over the NW Quadrant, for example, that could use a makeover like this after decades of neglect and we are told there is no money for it. Who decides Park Street comes ahead of these other areas under these circumstances?
Quote from: thelakelander on August 17, 2020, 04:30:59 PM
Quote from: fieldafm on August 17, 2020, 03:42:30 PM
Not intending to sound like a smart@ss, but 10' bus lanes on a 25mph thoroughfare are a thing. JTA doesn't have a problem with the lane width. I can understand the preference to not mix bike traffic with bus and auto traffic... but Gaines Street in Tallahassee is very much the model used for Park Street, where the pedestrian realm has been prioritized over bike lanes (particularly a pedestrian realm that can accommodate robust outdoor dining options while also accommodating special events, IE festivals and the like). High frequency buses operating on a 25mph roadway with sharrows, seem to be working just great there.
Sharrows are fine for 25 mph however the recreational or leisure bike rider will avoid it and use side streets. Given the width of the travel lanes, with transit included, actual travel speeds may likely be lower. Travel lane width wise, Gaines appears to be a bit wider for transit. It's got a middle turn lane and curb and gutter that probably adds another 2' or so of horizontal width, in addition to the actual width of the asphalt travel lanes. Because of the type of curb and gutter used, and the presence of a suicide lane with spot medians, bi-directional transit on that corridor is spaced apart. In this scenario, I can see bus drivers waiting or slowing down in order to pass each other at intersections, where there's some more space to get around each other.
Fully understand that Gaines has a wider ROW due to the turn lane/median islands.... my point was in relation to the mix of auto/bus traffic with bicycle traffic via sharrows. Actual speed along Gaines is slower than 25mph, and I believe there has only been one bicycle crash (not fatal) on Gaines since they redid the roadway. Sharrows seem to work fine when auto traffic is very slow.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on August 17, 2020, 04:32:47 PM
Quote from: fieldafm on August 17, 2020, 02:34:30 PM
Also, the primary developer of this area has an overwhelming desire (rightly I might add) to add as much outdoor dining space as possible, and is keenly interested in keeping as much as the existing building stock in place. As you know, within 60' of ROW... there are choices to be made. The preferential choice would be to prioritize pedestrian space and redevelopment of existing buildings... over accommodating a cycle track and having to heavily modify existing building stock in order to accommodate the preferred vibrant pedestrian streetscape desired, as a result of constructing a cycle track.
If the developer/primary property owner has this much sway over the design, are they contributing anything to the project, dollars or in-kind? Seems like they will be the #1 beneficiary and it's a lot to benefit mostly a single owner (mayor's buddy, Shad, the exception!) who hasn't gone public with their plans for the area.
Don't get me wrong, I support projects like this, but there are corridors all over the NW Quadrant, for example, that could use a makeover like this after decades of neglect and we are told there is no money for it. Who decides Park Street comes ahead of these other areas under these circumstances?
See response above about TCEA/Mobility Fees.
You won't get an argument out of me that there are corridors within NW Jax that don't deserve infrastructure investments.
You also won't get an argument out of me, that an urban neighborhood that has existed for more than 150 years with houses that still do not have access to sewer lines... and a corridor that will directly connect to the Emerald Trail (which will also go through many of those NW Jax neighborhoods you reference)... isn't also deserving of a few million in infrastructure upgrades (the overall price tag isn't particularly high). You can walk and chew gum at the same time in a city that is over 800 square miles.
If you think Brooklyn infrastructure hasn't been influenced by large property owners over the last 30 years.... then you are mistaken.
Since everything West of Park Street has basically been torn down... there are several additional developers that have assembled parcels in that area, who will also benefit from the Park Street redevelopment. You'll see a lot more infill in that long-neglected area over the next 5 years, in conjunction with Park Street breaking ground.
Vestcor didn't decide to erect an affordable housing project in Brooklyn, by throwing darts at a dart board and randomly hitting Stonewall Street.
Quote from: fieldafm on August 17, 2020, 04:41:51 PM
Sharrows seem to work fine when auto traffic is very slow.
Posted speeds of 35 mph and under on a low volume street are fine for sharrows.
yes Gaines Street has sharrows - but parallel roadways have separated and buffered bike lanes. Perhaps the Park Street project should be done in concert with changes to Riverside Avenue.