Seattle Light Rail Opens. 92,000 Celebrate
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/600738248_xdCer-M.jpg)
"The crowds at light rail stations throughout the weekend showed the excitement people feel as we have become a light rail region. That excitement about our mass transit future will only grow as we continue to build and expand on the light rail system."
Sound Transit Board Chair and Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels
Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2009-jul-seattle-light-rail-opens-92000-celebrate
Just awesome! Hopefully our elected politicians will do their job and try their best for this in JAX.
This is actually a fairly expensive LRT system as much of it is above grade.....although the portions below ground downtown use an already existing busway that was used as a busway up until a few years ago.
That looks super sweet. I want to be there! Jax bring rail to Tally as well!
That is one bad-ass looking station in the photos. Does anyone know which stop that is?
Thats the Mount Baker Station.
(http://www.soundtransit.org/Images/riding/maps/link/route_schedule.jpg)
Shows what a city with vision can accomplish... get it together Jacksonville.
Quote from: ralpho37 on July 27, 2009, 12:09:43 PM
Shows what a city with vision can accomplish... get it together Jacksonville.
really?
There are those that have argued that Seattle should have had light rail 10+ years ago....remember, its a much bigger and denser metroplitan area than Jacksonville.
If anyone remembers the grunge/drama movie Singles from the early 90's...that is what Matt Dilon's character was trying to do. Although it got shot down by the mayor. I have no clue whether that part was based on something really going on at the time.
exciting stuff up there.
Quote from: stephendare on July 27, 2009, 01:30:55 PM
Having lived in and owned a business in Seattle, I can't attest to it being any bigger or even that much denser than Jacksonville.
but they do have Microsoft, Starbucks, Nintendo, T-Mobile, WaMu, Amazon.com, Boeing, Nordstroms, Costco, etc, and are home to the 11th largest university in the US. Thats gotta help.
The Seattle metro. poulation is 3.3 million people....compared to our 1.3 million....and clearly their downtown areas is far more dense.
Seattle is a larger and denser urban community all the way around. However, this should not be used as an excuse to why they can pull something rail-based off and we can't. For every dense community (Seattle, Los Angeles, NYC, Boston, New Orleans, Philly, etc.) that has invested in rail, you'll find another that is suburban (Phoenix, Charlotte, Tacoma, Little Rock, Nashville, Kenosha, etc.) and invested also.
Quote from: Lucasjj on July 27, 2009, 01:47:48 PM
If anyone remembers the grunge/drama movie Singles from the early 90's...that is what Matt Dilon's character was trying to do.
Close. Matt Dillon's character was the singer for the rock band Citizen Dick. The DOT employee who pitched the Supertrain idea to the mayor was played by Campbell Scott.
^ Thats right. I even watched that recently but confused the two.
Quote“Light rail was meant to be fed by people taking the bus, walking or biking,†said Rick Sheridan, spokesman for the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT). “It was not meant to be fed by cars.â€
The City of Seattle has had a policy of discouraging park-and-rides, per the news article on Seattle Times (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009479330_stparkingpic16txt1.html).
Marinating this creates an idea to increase the proposed Skyway extension to go all the way to the Publix in Riverside, build a station on top of the Publix building etc. That will make grocery shopping so much easier for a lot of people in Springfield, Downtown and San Marco. It will also increase shopper traffic between the Riverside Arts Market and Five Points.
Shows what a city with vision can accomplish... get it together Jacksonville.
[/quote]
really?
There are those that have argued that Seattle should have had light rail 10+ years ago....remember, its a much bigger and denser metroplitan area than Jacksonville.
[/quote]
There is nothing wrong with this statement ,Jacksonville does need to pull it together, doesnt matter that Seatlle is bigger, many other cities our size and smaller have acomplished alot more than we have. People need to stop running to the defense of Jax and its poor vision. This person is only stating the obvious.
and the flip side is also true Keith....people continue to bash Jackconville from the inside while looking at other cities from the outside....
Perhaps if you all did some research, you would find that the people of Seattle debated rail transit for over two decades...and that's in an urban area that is pretty progressive and environmentally progressive.
So how does that fit with the view that Seattle has vision and we don't?
Hopefully, we can learn from Seattle's +two decade debate.
We've been toying around off & on with the idea of rail transit since the early 1970s. If we're lucky, the national political environment will finally be enough to motivate our city to turn debate and ideas into reality.
I dont think people really bash Jax. Most are just wanting and expecting more. When the city continues to make mistakes and I we all do, but its time for them to get it together. I am sure all cities have their issues, homeless, money issues, taxes, etc. I see nothing wrong with applauding another city efforts and fact that they did pulled it together shows their resolve in getting it done despite some conflicts. I dont know if Bash is the right word I think people from other cities tend to bash us if anything. I do believe most on here just want us to be headed in the right direction. Tufsu1, there are people who dont care about DT or their own nieghborhood, so I am glad to see positive and negatives views.
Quote from: Abhishek on July 27, 2009, 04:56:41 PM
Marinating this creates an idea to increase the proposed Skyway extension to go all the way to the Publix in Riverside, build a station on top of the Publix building etc. That will make grocery shopping so much easier for a lot of people in Springfield, Downtown and San Marco. It will also increase shopper traffic between the Riverside Arts Market and Five Points.
Yep, extending the $ky-high-way would probably cure cancer based on the enthusiasm of its proponents.
How many people do you think would carry arm loads of heavy grocery bags to an elevated platform, cram into a "bus" ride for 15 to 25 minutes (with stops) across town with the bags smooshed in their lap, elbow their way out of the "bus", ride the escalator down, and walk several blocks or more to their homes? And, by now, their ice cream is melted, the frozen food is half thawed, the condensation in the heat has soaked through the paper bags, and the rider is exhausted.
RAM is open on Saturdays for about 6 or 7 hours. Despite its success to date and its connection to the riverwalk, so few people care to ride the $ky-high-way to access the riverwalk a block or two from some of its stations, that JTA just eliminated Saturday service. Not a good sign that RAM will make a difference.
Please jump over to our thread on a "Riverside Extension" where you can enjoy, once again, a rehash of the debate over the $ky-high-way rather than compel us to start again here :) !
See: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,5549.0.html
huh...please explain how the current skyway gpes anywhere near the RAM?
I'm still trying to figure that one out. RAM should have zero impact on skyway operations.
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 27, 2009, 09:27:34 PM
huh...please explain how the current skyway gpes anywhere near the RAM?
It doesn't. If you read my post again, you will see I said the RIVERWALK (that connects to RAM) is a block or two from some stations. Details, details.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 27, 2009, 09:46:01 PM
I'm still trying to figure that one out. RAM should have zero impact on skyway operations.
My point exactly. It doesn't and it probably never will .
(Sigh)...if only this were Jacksonville celebrating the opening of light rail. From looking at the map, we could do the same...that is, from the Southern portion of Duval County (or even a metro light rail starting in St. Johns County) and ending either at the Airport or Fernandina in Nassau County. Maybe one day.
Heights Unknown
The numbers prove my original point. Seattle is a much larger and denser urban area.
Quote from: stephendare on July 27, 2009, 11:03:40 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 27, 2009, 04:14:49 PM
Seattle is a larger and denser urban community all the way around. However, this should not be used as an excuse to why they can pull something rail-based off and we can't. For every dense community (Seattle, Los Angeles, NYC, Boston, New Orleans, Philly, etc.) that has invested in rail, you'll find another that is suburban (Phoenix, Charlotte, Tacoma, Little Rock, Nashville, Kenosha, etc.) and invested also.
Jacksonville
- City 794,555 (13th)
- Density 1,061.6/sq mi (409.89/km2)
- Urban 913,125
- Metro 1,313,228
Seattle
- City 602,000 (US: 25th)
- Density 7,179.4/sq mi (2,772/km2)
- Urban 2,712,205
- Metro 3,344,813 (US: 15th)
here are the actual numbers. The main difference between the two areas is that there are no vast tracts of land that are completely undeveloped in seattle the way there is in jacksonville.
Here are two more important numbers:
Seattle urban area density: 2,844.1
Jacksonville urban area density: 2,149.2
The main difference is that Jax is consolidated with Duval County and Seattle is not, with King County. Nevertheless, the numbers above still demonstrate that Seattle is a larger and denser urban area. Imaginary municipal limit boundaries don't amount to much in this case because Jax is consolidated with a significant portion of its suburbs (Mandarin, Argyle, Oceanway, etc.) and Seattle is not.
QuoteThe actual population of Seattle is significantly less than Jacksonville's.
We all know true development is rarely contained to imaginary municipal boundaries, thus urban area statistics are more accurate to compare because the data used to compile them is the same for each city.
City limit wise, Jax has the benefit of being consolidated with Duval, thus covering over 767 miles of land area, with a population of 807,815. On the other hand, Seattle manages to pack in 602,000 people in 142 miles of land area. King County has nearly 2 million residents. If Seattle's unconsolidated municipal borders were extended to cover the same land area as Jax's consolidated, it would be much larger and denser. When you look at urban area numbers (apples to apples), it is.
QuoteAlso their 'metropolitan area' includes the entire cities of Tacoma and Bellevue. This would be like claiming Orlando and Daytona as part of the Jacksonville Metropolitan area. While the cities are closer together, trust me they are quite separate.
Seattle to Bellevue = 13 miles
Seattle to Tacoma = 37 miles
Jacksonville to Orange Park = 15 miles
Jacksonville to Fernandina Beach = 34 miles
Jacksonville to St. Augustine = 40 miles
Tacoma & Bellevue are to Seattle what Orange Park, Fernandina Beach and St. Augustine are to Jacksonville. Suburbs and cities in the same metropolitan area connected to the core city (ex. by sprawl, developed area, commute percentages, media markets, etc.)
QuoteSeattle, unlike Jacksonville doesnt have the largest park system in America, nor does it have the wetlands and lake areas that Jacksonville has.
767 miles of land area vs 142 miles of land area, when comparing municipal numbers (consolidated vs non-consolidated = apples vs oranges). How does Seattle's urban area numbers compare to Jacksonville's (apples to apples)?
QuoteHaving actually lived there, Seattle itself is not significantly different from Jacksonvilles populated developed areas.
They are just denser overall. No matter how the numbers are displayed, its a more urban community. Nevertheless, regardless of what Seattle may be, we do ourselves an injustice by making excuses to why we can't do better. This, I think we both can agree on.
Definitely denser and more urban
(http://i520.photobucket.com/albums/w324/Bevo71/Seattle_aerial.jpg)
Quote from: stephendare on July 28, 2009, 09:56:13 AM
As you point out in your post, the actual urban density numbers are just slightly higher than Jacksonville's, which is what I pointed out originally.
Ennis pointed out Seattle at 2800+ persons per sq. mile and Jax at 2100+....that's 33% more....not what I call a slight difference....you said it yourself...."Seattle is way less spread out than Jacksonville."
As for the tall buildings, there is no way that comes close...even when including Southbank and Riverside/Brooklyn buildings.
The biggest difference in Seattle vs Jacksonville, is the gnomes. Gnomes are Seattle's secret weapon. Every night about 4:00 am they invade the urban center and polish the sidewalks completely spotless.
OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: stephendare on July 28, 2009, 11:18:04 AM
The original statement that you made, that I responded to was this:
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 27, 2009, 01:26:42 PM
Quote from: ralpho37 on July 27, 2009, 12:09:43 PM
Shows what a city with vision can accomplish... get it together Jacksonville.
really?
There are those that have argued that Seattle should have had light rail 10+ years ago....remember, its a much bigger and denser metroplitan area than Jacksonville.
and this:
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 27, 2009, 04:06:52 PM
The Seattle metro. poulation is 3.3 million people....compared to our 1.3 million....and clearly their downtown areas is far more dense.
I think we've established that the city of Seattle isnt three times larger than jacksonville, nor is it really a much bigger or denser place. Jacksonville would be 75% of the density of Seattle, but it has 200,000 more voters that make decisions.
I disagree with idea that Seattle isn't larger than Jacksonville. The only way this would be true is if you're talking strictly land area (both developed and undeveloped in city limits only) instead of true urban area development. However, if this is you're argument, San Francisco, Tampa, Miami, Atlanta, Washington DC and St. Louis are all smaller than Jacksonville. Seattle is significantly larger all around.
As for the neighborhoods, even your images indicate a city with more dense low rise development in its urban core. No one is saying we don't have urban neighborhoods of similar character and feel (nearly every city does to some degree). Urban Seattle just has more of them.
QuoteThe pictures pretty much tell the story of what its like on the street anyways.
You are correct in that the Downtown itself is much denser and better than Jax, but we never really disagreed on that, nor are we really disagreeing now.
Seattle is a larger version of what Jacksonville could have become if we never abandoned the city beginning in the 1950s. During our urban heyday, we had nearly identical density numbers. Seattle was just larger in overall scale.
1910national rank - city - population - city land area - city density21 Seattle city, WA......... 237,194 55.9 4,243
95 Jacksonville city, FL.... 57,699 9.3 6,204
192020 Seattle city, WA......... 315,312 58.6 5,381
79 Jacksonville city, FL.... 91,558 15.4 5,945
193020 Seattle city, WA......... 365,583 68.5 5,337
63 Jacksonville city, FL.... 129,549 26.4 4,907
194022 Seattle city, WA......... 368,302 68.5 5,377
47 Jacksonville city, FL.... 173,065 30.2 5,731
195019 Seattle city, WA......... 467,591 70.8 6,604
49 Jacksonville city, FL.... 204,517 30.2 6,772
196019 Seattle city, WA......... 557,087 88.5 6,295
61 Jacksonville city, FL.... 201,030 30.2 6,657
197022 Seattle city, WA......... 530,831 83.6 6,350
23 Jacksonville city, FL *.. 528,865 766.0 690
198022 Jacksonville city, FL *.. 540,920 759.7 712
23 Seattle city, WA......... 493,846 83.6 5,907
199015 Jacksonville city, FL *.. 635,230 758.7 837
21 Seattle city, WA......... 516,259 83.9 6,153
http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0027/twps0027.html
2009 Estimate13 Jacksonville city, FL *.. 807,815 758.7 1,065
25 Seattle city, WA......... 598,541 83.9 7,134
* - consolidated cityIn 1950, Seattle was twice the size of Jacksonville, yet we shared a similar population density. Since then, Seattle has increased their density, without expanding their municipal borders. On the other hand, Jacksonville consolidated with Duval County, abandoned large parts of the original city and embraced demolition. Thus, today, Seattle is a significantly larger urban community.
QuoteMy point in posting is that it really is just a difference of vision. Seattle has one. We don't. I think Ralph has it right.
Seattle has always been a larger urban community than Jacksonville. However, I agree with the end of your overall point. Jacksonville still needs to determine what it wants to be. Judging from Seattle's mass transit plans, residents there have at least determined that they want efficient and effective mass transit options. When it comes to determining a vision of what you want to be locally, population density numbers and urban area sizes of other cities should not matter.
You hit the nail right on the head Lake. Seattle has "got it together" in that, for the most part, the city is all pursuing the same goal. They want their city to be connected; they want unity.
Jacksonville is still at war over what it wants to be. While groups like us are pushing for commuter rail and other forms of efficient, connective transportation, other groups such as the City Council are more interested in pocket parks, children's reading programs, and industrial development.
Neither one is inherently better or worse than the other, it's just proof that Seattle is pursuing a single goal while here we have vision, just not a unified vision.
Quote from: stephendare on July 28, 2009, 12:59:25 PM
Lake your own numbers are refuting this idea. Jacksonville became significantly less dense after the fifties because the entire landmass of duval county was then considered as part of the density equation.
Do you seriously think that between the years 1960 and 1970 that Jacksonville radically demassified from 1960's 6,657 to 1970's figure of 690 per square mile? That would be ludicrous.
That would be ludicrous. However, we did do a story on the urban core's population a few years back.
Plight of the Urban Core: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2008-oct-the-plight-of-the-urban-core
QuoteJacksonville's current inner city census tracts are nearly identical to the pre-consolidated city boundaries from the 1940 census.
2000 Census City Population: 735,503
2000 Old City Census Tract Population: 112,753
1950 Old City Population: 204,517
Net Urban Core Loss (1950 - 2000): -91,764
2000 Census City Population Density: 735,503 / 758.7 square miles = 969
2000 Old City Census Tract Density: 112,753 / 30.2 square miles = 3,734
1950 Old City Population Density: 204,517 / 30.2 square miles = 6,772
Net Urban Core Loss (1950 - 2000): - 3,038 residents per mile
These numbers show that our urban core's population loss during the late 20th century was very similar to older industrial cities such as Detroit, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh and Birmingham. These numbers also show that the Urban Core has the infrastructure in place to support twice as many residents than live there today.
As Jacksonville continues to deal with sprawl, congestion, limited road expansion funds and higher gas and energy costs, our focus on growth needs to shift back to the area that is already laid out to support higher densities.
My belief that our urban area's population and density has shrunk since 1950, comes from the statistical data of census tracts that are based off the boundaries of pre consolidated Jacksonville.
QuoteAnyways, this is a silly diversion from the point, and I don't want to get in the typical TUFSU Lakelander Stephendare 15 page discussion straining at the eye of a gnat discussion about it. I lived there for two years and operated a business right in the thick of it.
Don't worry, I'm not. I think I've made my case.
QuoteSo, like TUFSU seemed to say in his post, you also think that Jacksonville needs to wait until it reaches seattle's density before we install rail?
Or do you think, as Ralpho and I do, that it really is just a question of vision?
See my last post:
Quote from: thelakelander on July 28, 2009, 12:51:16 PM
Seattle has always been a larger urban community than Jacksonville. However, I agree with the end of your overall point. Jacksonville still needs to determine what it wants to be. Judging from Seattle's mass transit plans, residents there have at least determined that they want efficient and effective mass transit options. When it comes to determining a vision of what you want to be locally, population density numbers and urban area sizes of other cities should not matter.
Or my post before that one.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 28, 2009, 12:34:18 AM
quote]They are just denser overall. No matter how the numbers are displayed, its a more urban community. Nevertheless, regardless of what Seattle may be, we do ourselves an injustice by making excuses to why we can't do better. This, I think we both can agree on.
Or the one before that one.
QuoteQuote from: thelakelander on Yesterday at 04:14:49 PM
Seattle is a larger and denser urban community all the way around. However, this should not be used as an excuse to why they can pull something rail-based off and we can't. For every dense community (Seattle, Los Angeles, NYC, Boston, New Orleans, Philly, etc.) that has invested in rail, you'll find another that is suburban (Phoenix, Charlotte, Tacoma, Little Rock, Nashville, Kenosha, etc.) and invested also.
Its pretty clear where I stand. I recognize and accept that Seattle is a larger community but I don't believe that should be used as an excuse to why we can't do better.
Quote from: stephendare on July 28, 2009, 01:22:01 PM
Just because there was a prior article doesnt make the information any more accurate. You mentioned that you had made a point, but Im not sure what it was.
My point was mentioned three times in the last post. Here is an example of that point.
QuoteSeattle is a larger and denser urban community all the way around. However, this should not be used as an excuse to why they can pull something rail-based off and we can't. For every dense community (Seattle, Los Angeles, NYC, Boston, New Orleans, Philly, etc.) that has invested in rail, you'll find another that is suburban (Phoenix, Charlotte, Tacoma, Little Rock, Nashville, Kenosha, etc.) and invested also.
If you want to check the accuracy of the prior article, here are links to compile the data:
1. US. Census Bureau - http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en
Use this to identify census tract populations and past annual census counts.
2. COJ GIS Mapping - http://maps.coj.net/jaxgis/
Use this to identify a local map of census tract locations.
3. Historical city limit maps of Jacksonville - Jacksonville Historic Commission - Joel McEachin has maps that should be in jpeg format. To prove they are accurate, one can also visit the Sanborn map section in the Main Public Library's Special Collections Department.
QuoteFrom the density numbers provided by TUFSU, I posted that the City of Jacksonville has 75% of the density of the City of Seattle, but it does have 200,000 more voters. Do you disagree with this assessment?
I only disagree with your point that Seattle's urban area is not significantly larger or denser than Jacksonville's. This belief is backed by official census numbers. Other than that, I agree that whatever Seattle may be, should have no bearing on Jacksonville moving forward to create and implement a vision.
ok...my final point on this issue...
Density is a relative term....many cities, such as Washington, Baltimore, San Francisco, Seattle, etc. have not expanded their boundaries in decades (mainly because they can't)...most of these cities have run out of undeveloped land....as such, they are forced to concentrate their growth on redevelopment and densification.
Jacksonville, on the other hand, has tons of available land still....consolidation has generally been a positive, but this may be one down side.
Or you could take the view that the suburban development would have happened anyway (which it has in every meto area) and through consolidation/annextaion, cities like Jacksonville are able to keep that growth and wealth inside their boundaries.
QuoteTaking ride on light rail still a kick a year later
Seattle Times, The (WA) - Sunday, July 18, 2010
Author: Mike Lindblom: Times transportation Reporter
Three children pressed their palms against the window during their first light-rail ride, heading south to the airport Wednesday night.
"Bacon Hill Station!" they yelled, after failing to notice the futuristic art of luminous playing cards inside the Beacon Hill Tunnel. Soon the train emerged from the tunnel to Mount Baker Station, where they somehow couldn't see the mountain. They giggled.
The novelty has yet to wear off aboard Seattle's Central Link line, which opened from downtown to Tukwila a year ago Monday. The SeaTac/Airport Station was finished in December, the end of a $2.6 billion, 16- mile line.
Sound Transit plans a low-key celebration Monday morning, distributing free breakfast bars, tickets and newspapers at several stations.
An estimated 6 million trips have been taken to date. Ridership has grown to an average 23,400 boardings per weekday in June, compared with 14,850 in September. Trains are noticeably more full.
At first it seemed Sound Transit would miss its 26,600 target by the end of this year, but that's now within reach.
Seattle transit analyst John Niles â€" who favors bus rapid transit over rail here â€" points to the bittersweet side of this story, that the regional rail system was conceived almost two decades ago, funded by voters in 1996, and has still reached only a startup phase.
Flawed estimating and enormous costs nearly killed the institution a decade ago, and it will take another dozen years, at an increased sales-tax rate, to finish three spoke lines into the suburbs.
Small niche
Because of its limited reach, Link serves a fairly small niche, relative to 3 million people and all modes of travel in the Puget Sound area. The costs of Link are far out of scale to its benefit, Niles said.
Yet it also provides an extra tool for occasional users â€" not just airport patrons but especially baseball and soccer fans, who add a couple thousand trips on game days, or pack the trains if a premier foreign team comes to Qwest Field.
Safety has been a pleasant surprise.
Despite four miles at surface through Rainier Valley, crash rates lag far below the possible 28 per year predicted by an early environmental statement. There have been eight minor-injury tangles with cars, three minor-injury brushes with pedestrians, a collision with a dropped safe and one trackway suicide at Sodo.
Sound Transit designed a consistent layout for crosswalks and left-turn signals to avoid a debacle like Houston's, where there were more than 100 wrecks in the opening year.
"Any accident is one too many," spokesman Bruce Gray said. "We feel the public, for the most part, is doing a good job in obeying the rules of the road."
On the other hand, a nervous operator derailed a two-car train last fall, on overhead track near the Sodo maintenance base â€" where fortunately, no passengers were aboard.
Noise a problem
The stickiest problem to date has been noise, where measurements in north Tukwila have reached 83 decibels, akin to standing near a kitchen garbage disposal.
The agency recently reground the rails and is installing a mile of stiff rubber noise barriers along the elevated trackway, Gray said.
Wednesday, passengers raved about the clean trains and the mountain views.
"It's always on time," said carpenter Tony Futrell, of Beacon Hill, heading to a swing shift in Bremerton. "If they have a mess up or they're doing work, they let you know a couple weeks ahead of time, so you can change your schedule."
Late-night track work last winter caused trains to run less frequently, and rush-hour congestion from buses sometimes delays trains entering the shared transit tunnel downtown .
Except for scheduled maintenance, Gray said on-time performance is above 90 percent.
"It's great. Less crowded than a bus ," said Nora Darlow, a barista. Her only gripe is with ORCA fare-card readers that fail, so she winds up paying an extra 75 cents.
The next phase is a $1.9 billion tunnel to Capitol Hill and Husky Stadium by 2016, and possibly a new south park-and-ride station that year, a mile beyond the airport.
Mike Lindblom: 206-515-5631 or mlindblom@seattletimes.com
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012384312_soundtransit18m.html
"Jacksonville extends Riverside PCT, Mike Miller shows up!"
OCKLAWAHA
LOL @ Ock! I am not a fan of those potato chip truck-style 'trolleys', either. I guess that I could do something similar and refer to my local Denny's as Bistro Aix II. See, if we change the name, it will convince us that it really is a Bistro Aix! Just like the PCTs are really trolleys : )
I've said many times that I wouldn't mind see Jax with light rail. I'll definitely pick that option over streetcar. I don't agree with the saying "any transit is better than no transit at all" because IMO Jax's layout and large land size caters itself to light rail moreso than streetcar, which is too similar to the already existing buses (yeah, yeah I struck a nerve LOL). Seattle's narrow "isthmus like" layout definitely helps on it's light rail route, by comparasion Jax has a tall order with it's "small New England statelike" very spread out layout; There's no way of making what they have in Seattle without abandoning alot of areas in Jax. We might need two of Seattle's light rail lines (maybe a "+" style North-South East-West routes layout). Because of the very pricey cost, don't hold your breath on that completion.
Quote from: I-10east on July 24, 2010, 10:32:35 AM
I've said many times that I wouldn't mind see Jax with light rail. I'll definitely pick that option over streetcar. I don't agree with the saying "any transit is better than no transit at all" because IMO Jax's layout and large land size caters itself to light rail moreso than streetcar, which is too similar to the already existing buses (yeah, yeah I struck a nerve LOL). Seattle's narrow "isthmus like" layout definitely helps on it's light rail route, by comparasion Jax has a tall order with it's "small New England statelike" very spread out layout; There's no way of making what they have in Seattle without abandoning alot of areas in Jax. We might need two of Seattle's light rail lines (maybe a "+" style North-South East-West routes layout). Because of the very pricey cost, don't hold your breath on that completion.
I co-sign that. At roughly half the size of Rhode Island, Jacksonville has a lot of ground to cover when it comes to addressing the needs of urban, suburban and rural areas. I do not believe that Jacksonville has successfully crafted a policy that best serves all interests...
Rome wasn't built overnight. We should start biting what we can afford to chew instead of figuring out how to fund a gluttonous buffet overnight. In other words, Jax should initially stick to developing its urban core (the actual city) and connecting it with a couple of major suburban destinations through various modes of transit instead of worrying about the entire city/county.
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1206/1345069052_c9370fa6ab.jpg)
Imagine, Main Street could be this ugly again!
Uh? WTF? Streetcar IS a type of LIGHT RAIL y'all. The same vehicles that run on streetcar track can and DO run on Light Rail Track. The modern division of the terms has come to mean a LRT line built for lower speeds, frequent stops, lighter track structure, and a top speed of 30-40 mph (regulated). LRT itself has become a modern term for the old Interurbans, which usually grew out of streetcar lines (so here we go again, Who's on First?).
(http://www.portlandground.com/northwest/2006-01-02portlandStreetcar.jpg)
ANY QUESTIONS?
It would work like this: Jacksonville builds Commuter Rail:
St. Augustine - Avenues - San Marco - Jacksonville Terminal
Green Cove Springs - Orange Park - Yukon - Jacksonville Terminal
Airport Road - Busch - 21 St - Shand's - Jacksonville Terminal
Streetcar:
Downtown - Jacksonville Terminal - Brooklyn - 5 Points - Riverside
Jacksonville Terminal - Downtown (circulation route) - Main Street - Shand's
Downtown - Stadium
Brooklyn - Durkeeville
Skyway:
San Marco (Commuter Rail Station) - Southbank - Central Station - East Bay - A. P. Randolph/Stadium area
Shand's - new VA facility - FSCJ - Hemming Plaza - Central Station - Jacksonville Terminal
Central Station - Brooklyn - Riverside (PS-4, Annie Lytle Transit Center)
Light Rail:
Jacksonville Beach - Arlington - Stadium Area (to Jacksonville Terminal via streetcar route)
Orange Park West - Argyle - Yukon - Ortega - Riverside - Jacksonville Terminal (via streetcar route)
DING! DING!
OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: stephendare on July 24, 2010, 10:42:34 AM
Quote from: Jaxson on July 24, 2010, 10:39:20 AM
Quote from: I-10east on July 24, 2010, 10:32:35 AM
I've said many times that I wouldn't mind see Jax with light rail. I'll definitely pick that option over streetcar. I don't agree with the saying "any transit is better than no transit at all" because IMO Jax's layout and large land size caters itself to light rail moreso than streetcar, which is too similar to the already existing buses (yeah, yeah I struck a nerve LOL). Seattle's narrow "isthmus like" layout definitely helps on it's light rail route, by comparasion Jax has a tall order with it's "small New England statelike" very spread out layout; There's no way of making what they have in Seattle without abandoning alot of areas in Jax. We might need two of Seattle's light rail lines (maybe a "+" style North-South East-West routes layout). Because of the very pricey cost, don't hold your breath on that completion.
I co-sign that. At roughly half the size of Rhode Island, Jacksonville has a lot of ground to cover when it comes to addressing the needs of urban, suburban and rural areas. I do not believe that Jacksonville has successfully crafted a policy that best serves all interests...
The alternative is to continue our present course, spend 50 times the amount of money on highway and maintenance, and still not solve any of the problems, Sorry boys, but hand wringing over the imaginary 'light rail v street car' issue doesnt get it.
I am one of the last people who would support building and/or expanding roads and highways in our city. My point is that our city is so spread out among various interests that it is currently a challenge to convice someone in Baldwin, Bayard or the Beaches that it would be in our mutual benefit to support mass transit in the core city.
I agree with stephendare that any progress with light rail will have to be done initially in increments. I also believe that now is the time to get started. Instead, our city's leaders are sitting on their hands.
Quote from: stephendare on July 24, 2010, 10:36:55 AM
Quote from: I-10east on July 24, 2010, 10:32:35 AM
I've said many times that I wouldn't mind see Jax with light rail. I'll definitely pick that option over streetcar. I don't agree with the saying "any transit is better than no transit at all" because IMO Jax's layout and large land size caters itself to light rail moreso than streetcar, which is too similar to the already existing buses (yeah, yeah I struck a nerve LOL). Seattle's narrow "isthmus like" layout definitely helps on it's light rail route, by comparasion Jax has a tall order with it's "small New England statelike" very spread out layout; There's no way of making what they have in Seattle without abandoning alot of areas in Jax. We might need two of Seattle's light rail lines (maybe a "+" style North-South East-West routes layout). Because of the very pricey cost, don't hold your breath on that completion.
huh?
you literally do not understand the issues on this, I 10
Quote from: thelakelander on July 24, 2010, 10:49:31 AM
Rome wasn't built overnight. We should start biting what we can afford to chew instead of figuring out how to fund a gluttonous buffet overnight. In other words, Jax should initially stick to developing its urban core (the actual city) and connecting it with a couple of major suburban destinations through various modes of transit instead of worrying about the entire city/county.
I totally agree. I even said don't hold your breath on the final completion of that big light rail project that I've mentioned; I was looking at the "big picture" hopefully a coupla decades from now if we're lucky. I dunno what Stepen think that I don't understand; I have a feeling if I said "2+2=4" Stephen would think that a didn't understand that either. I'm sorry for having an opinion. I disagree with alot what you say Stephen, but I don't go on and ramble about how you're wrong, and you don't "understand" on every one of your posts.
I find it funny that Lake said 'gluttonous buffet"(no shot at Lake BTW, he's an awesome poster) To me a "gluttonous buffet" is having the existing buses, ASE with light rail, streetcar, high speed bullet trains, blimps, gondolas; Okay, I was being a lil' sarcastic on the last couple, but seriously IMO it's either light rail or streetcar atleast for the near future. Where is all of this money coming from to get both?
Quote from: I-10east on July 24, 2010, 01:12:58 PM
I find it funny that Lake said 'gluttonous buffet"(no shot at Lake BTW, he's an awesome poster) To me a "gluttonous buffet" is having the existing buses, ASE with light rail, streetcar, high speed bullet trains, blimps, gondolas; Okay, I was being a lil' sarcastic on the last couple, but seriously IMO it's either light rail or streetcar atleast for the near future. Where is all of this money coming from to get both?
YES, yes and yes... The fact is we'll need most all of it to create a system. For example you wouldn't want Amtrak running from Shand's to Bay and Newnan! The Skyway from Downtown to the Beach would also be insanely costly. Can't you just see the Skyway down the center of Riverside Avenue? Light Rail to West Orange Park/Argyle makes a hell of a lot more sense then another 12 lanes on Blanding, but a streetcar to St. Augustine would be a loser.
MIX!
Mix is the key word that Lake and I keep hammering on here. A good transit "system" includes various modes all connecting to form grids, each one doing what it does best and where it fits best.
Nobody ever said it would be done all at once, overnight, quick or any such thing, that just isn't reality. However to plan for only one system without consideration given to key interchange points, junctions, multi-modal mix and such is suicide.
The way to pull this off correctly without having to constantly go back in and rip out new infrastructure (see the Lee Street Viaduct) is to build mile by mile, mode by mode, already having your dots connected on the bigger picture map. OCKLAWAHA
BTW, my constant reference to LIGHTER THEN AIR aviation is due to my belief that it's BACK! Several major companies have built and launched new blimps or rigid airships, including Zeppelin Corp, Cargo Lifter, and Boeing.
More are on the drawing boards, but thus far, only the test fields in Germany and the California High Desert have seen any of the really big ships going through their paces. Zeppelin's NT ship's are already in commercial passenger service in California MOFFETT FIELD, and in Germany.
My vision is simply WATCH THIS TECHNOLOGY and be the first coastal port city to jump on the wagon when the high priority, higher speed 100+ mph airship service starts up. I wonder if we could capture some of that R&D at Cecil Field? Could we become the new "AKRON" of the airship world? GO FOR IT JAX! The worst that can happen is we have a nice facility for the port/airport authorities, and spend a few bucks on travel and wine!
Of course we could always sit on our hands while Orlando, Tampa, Miami and Brunswick score on these...
For Example:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/10611420
http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=hVNV-FFUOnc&feature=related
OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: I-10east on July 24, 2010, 01:12:58 PM
I find it funny that Lake said 'gluttonous buffet"(no shot at Lake BTW, he's an awesome poster) To me a "gluttonous buffet" is having the existing buses, ASE with light rail, streetcar, high speed bullet trains, blimps, gondolas; Okay, I was being a lil' sarcastic on the last couple, but seriously IMO it's either light rail or streetcar atleast for the near future. Where is all of this money coming from to get both?
We already have the ASE and bus so we're not starting from scratch. There are plans to enhance Amtrak's offerings throughout the state and the majority of those costs would be provided by the Feds. From what I understand, the Downtown BRT service is funded and construction will begin in 2011. If the 2030 Mobility Plan gets adopted by council later this year, it could help fund initial investments in streetcar and commuter rail lines within five years. Extensions of all these systems could come with the help of Federal and State grants, BIDs or through the passing of some sort of sales tax, etc. Currently, there's no plan for LRT that you're describing, thus such a service could be decades down the road after the modes mentioned above come online. So the answer to your question is that money will come from from a variety of sources and that these projects will grow incrementally.