Can a Streetcar cost less than a Faux Trolley?

[Dashing Dan]

Except for semantics I don't see much disagreement here.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

I'm starting this by making the assumption that most reading aren't frequent users of the system that's presented in JAX.  I will follow that sentiment with the face that I wasn't ever one of those who used the bus for anything except as my bitch when coming up to a stoplight (you know who you are and why.) 

After following this blog for a while, I decided to give it a shot and lo and behold, I found an alternative that not only helps me commute to and from work, but put me in a group that feels as though I can talk down to those who don't have the same luxury as myself.

I don't have the delay issues, the mean-spirited driver issues, the not-knowing-when-my-bus-will-arrive issues, I have the esteemed opportunity to be able to hop on a bus, when I expect it to be there, make a transfer withing 5-10 minutes and arrive where I expect to at the time I planned.  I'm somewhat of an oxymoron, minus the oxy, when transverxing the bus service, but I seem to always find a way, moron or not.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

I think that a fixed rail system from DT to 5-points is a fantastic idea.  Some of you are criticizing the TOD, but wouldn't you hop on a trolley from O'Brothers to TSI if you knew that it would be running every 10-15 minutes?  I would.  You enjoy the outdoor people watching from O'Brothers, but you really want to go to a club for a little while, but you don't want to get stranded.  A fixed rail/trolley system can give you that.  In giving you that it can also offer other developers a reason to open a bar/club/restaurant/gym/something that people want to visit because they are located on a stop on a route that people travel on that is always going to stop  somewhere near here ever so often.   Basically you have had an undivided market thrown your direction, what are you going to provide them?

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

I use the trolley when it's available, but the problem with JTA is that I don't have to wait on the trolley - with 35 min headtimes on offpeak hours.  I can catch the trolley, the R5, the WS12, the WS6 or the WS2 and get close to where I have to be.  The real unfortunate part of all of this, which a fixed rail service with short headtimes can fix, is that there are 3-4 lines travelling down a similar path.  Between the 4 you would expect no more than a 5 minute wait, but they have them back to back to back to back so it ends up being a 10 minute window with a 45 - 60 minute wait between windows - unneccesary duplication that could be fixed to provide an awesome service.

[thelakelander]

^Bingo.  We certainly don't need fixed transit spines all over town but there are areas/opportunities (especially in the urban core) where there is significant route duplication where we would be better served by having neighborhood routes feed into a central transit spine with frequent reliable service. 

For example, just imagine, if we were able to get rid of the downtown loop the majority of buses make?  Not only could we cut down on operations costs, service frequencies would be improved on all routes currently forced to take that serpentine path through the core.

On the Westside, if there were a streetcar paid for by the mobility plan, routes like the faux trolley, R5, WS12, WS6 and WS2 could be shortened and redeployed to provide better and more frequent service to in areas not adjacent to the fixed path, instead of all of them eventually making a similar path to get into DT.  At the same time, such an option would also put the type of transit system in place that connects riders with existing destinations (such as Five Points, St. Vincent's, DT, Riverside Avenue offices) while also stimulating TOD in underutilized areas along the way, like Brooklyn.  Long term, new TOD along that path could possibly help shorten existing individual transit trips through the introduction of land uses and job opportunities currently not in this specific area of town.

[dougskiles]

Luckily, we've answered these questions over and over again.  Now we just need our leaders to follow the adopted community visioning plans.

I don't believe that it will be our elected leaders who take us there.  The business community and neighborhood groups will need to take the lead.  We need to put the frustrated urban neighborhood groups together with the developers who are getting tired of sitting on the sidelines.  Together they will have to work to get the attention of JTA and City Hall.

[thelakelander]

With the work of the community so far, we've made pretty good progress over the last five years.  I heard the mobility plan has recieved a good review from DCA so far and could be adopted by the city this summer.  While it won't solve everything, in the upcoming years it will help to have that funding mechanism in line to help us get started on some multimodal projects (transit, bike, ped).

In addition, I was reading a topic on another forum about Jacksonville's 2010 census numbers.  Even though our city is +700 square miles, the urban area tracts that average above 3,000 residents/mile is only around 83 square miles.  Imo, this is the area where we should rally for better mass transit and sustainability.  I think we'll improve our chances by focusing on those who have chosen to live the urban lifestyle as opposed to rallying people 20 miles outside the core, who still fight not to have sidewalks installed in their communities.

[Dashing Dan]

I don't see the point in fighting against fake trolleys.  Fake trolleys = Buses, and

In a true integrated network that is designed for the end user, buses and rail actually end up supporting and complementing each other instead of being either/or options.

[Noone]

Luckily, we've answered these questions over and over again.  Now we just need our leaders to follow the adopted community visioning plans.

I don't believe that it will be our elected leaders who take us there.  The business community and neighborhood groups will need to take the lead.  We need to put the frustrated urban neighborhood groups together with the developers who are getting tired of sitting on the sidelines.  Together they will have to work to get the attention of JTA and City Hall.

I agree. And the same approach to take the lead not only applies on land but also the water (river).

[thelakelander]

I don't see the point in fighting against fake trolleys.  Fake trolleys = Buses, and

In a true integrated network that is designed for the end user, buses and rail actually end up supporting and complementing each other instead of being either/or options.

As long as we understand their true purpose and don't try and present them in a different light, then there is no fight.  We'll understand and work for fixed transit along the corridors where it makes sense and use rubber wheeled transit as circulators to tie in various neighborhoods with that high frequency fixed transit spine.  

[Dashing Dan]

I appreciate that.  In my view fake trolleys are precursors to larger buses.  Hopefully, as ridership grows, larger buses will take their place. 

As a newbie, how do I go about starting another thread?

[middleman]

Your whole premise is that the current bus/fake-trolley system doesn't move the same people today from downtown to Riverside and back that a projected streetcar system would be projected to move. This just doesn't make sense. Where are the new riders coming from? The only riders I know travel the DT to Riverside stretch on the existing Riverside trolley. Do you think more riders will all of a sudden appear if this route is converted to a streetcar? I would say maybe, but only if the DT area was renovated with more commercial and residential areas. And where are the plans on those? Mostly dropped altogether or stuck on hold.

I can personally tell you that the stinky non-trolley trolleys pick up passengers in the Fidelity/LPS area on Riverside to the 5 points area every day around lunch time and that route generally runs an near-full capacity. If there was a streetcar there instead with double the capacity, you WILL NOT SEE ANY DIFFERENCE in ridership. People in that area don't say "no, I don't think I'll go out to lunch today because I don't like riding in stinky camouflage buses". And when XX Millions of dollars later a streetcar is built, those same potential customers aren't going to say, "Yes, lets go down to Riverside or Avondale today because we can rid nice shiny expensive new heritage streetcars". Its not going to happen!

Somebody mentioned the Dames point bridge as an example of "If you build it, they will come!". This analogy isn't even close. A new St Johns river crossing was desperately needed, and once hooked up to the east loop around the city all of a sudden all that traffic east of the St Johns could head north to the shipyards, airport, Savannah, etc instead of having to drive through downtown. Same with the Buckman bridge. Sure those projects spurred growth! They were major new interstates with HUGE traffic counts almost instantly appearing after opening.

Our DT streetcar runs a few miles from Newnam/Bay, to the convention center, down industrialized Park Ave, over through Riverside and up to King. Most of that replaces an existing trolley route. Just what part of that route do you expect to wildly grow? Think developers will be scrambling to knock down Auto Parts places on Park to put up new Condos? There will be little new growth in the Riverside area, that's mostly a historic district and should be left alone.

So, what are we spending this money for again? I expect you will blow me off again as a pest, but I see this project ending up like the skyway. Lots of money down the shitter with no measurable results. If you want to invest money in rail, let's get a commuter rail to SA and GCS rolling.

[thelakelander]

No reason to blow you off. Instead, I'll attempt lead you to the light. That is, once I get in front of a computer later today.

[thelakelander]

Alright.  I'm back and nice and round after having lunch at Soul Food Bistro.  Now I'll try and address your comments, middleman.

Your whole premise is that the current bus/fake-trolley system doesn't move the same people today from downtown to Riverside and back that a projected streetcar system would be projected to move. This just doesn't make sense. Where are the new riders coming from? The only riders I know travel the DT to Riverside stretch on the existing Riverside trolley. Do you think more riders will all of a sudden appear if this route is converted to a streetcar? I would say maybe, but only if the DT area was renovated with more commercial and residential areas. And where are the plans on those? Mostly dropped altogether or stuck on hold.

I can personally tell you that the stinky non-trolley trolleys pick up passengers in the Fidelity/LPS area on Riverside to the 5 points area every day around lunch time and that route generally runs an near-full capacity. If there was a streetcar there instead with double the capacity, you WILL NOT SEE ANY DIFFERENCE in ridership. People in that area don't say "no, I don't think I'll go out to lunch today because I don't like riding in stinky camouflage buses". And when XX Millions of dollars later a streetcar is built, those same potential customers aren't going to say, "Yes, lets go down to Riverside or Avondale today because we can rid nice shiny expensive new heritage streetcars". Its not going to happen!

That's not my premise.  I don't know how you came to that conclusion.  The streetcar project in the mobility plan will be put in place to facilitate traffic congestion that is projected to swamp our streets by 2030.  So we're planning for a 20-year period, not what currently exists today.  In addition, plans also take into account law, which requires municipalities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, incorporate alternative forms of mobility and the city's desire to redirect growth to areas where significant public infrastructure already exists.  As far as ridership goes, think of the streetcar line as a transit spine with frequent service.  Existing bus routes, like the faux trolley, would be modified to provide better service to areas not adjacent to the fixed transit spine.  Thus, some of your future ridership already exists via the multiple westside bus routes and faux trolley route that currently serves this particular corridor.

Somebody mentioned the Dames point bridge as an example of "If you build it, they will come!". This analogy isn't even close. A new St Johns river crossing was desperately needed, and once hooked up to the east loop around the city all of a sudden all that traffic east of the St Johns could head north to the shipyards, airport, Savannah, etc instead of having to drive through downtown. Same with the Buckman bridge. Sure those projects spurred growth! They were major new interstates with HUGE traffic counts almost instantly appearing after opening.

Sounds a lot like Charlotte, Phoenix, Denver, Dallas, Houston, Salt Lake City and St. Louis' experience with their new rail lines that have opened over the last decade and a half.  Infrastructure spurs development.  It always has.  However, roadway infrastructure tends to be autocentric, encouraging sprawl, while mass transit is pedestrian oriented, spurring denser walkable development instead.  Adopted neighborhood visioning plans call for the urban core to become the walkable community it originally was.  To achieve this goal, infrastructure that facilitates this type of lifestyle is a priority of infrastructure that rips neighborhoods apart.

Our DT streetcar runs a few miles from Newnam/Bay, to the convention center, down industrialized Park Ave, over through Riverside and up to King.

The riverside streetcar line is a part of a regional transportation network that will include local buses, faux trolleys, BRT, commuter rail, Amtrak corridor service and additional streetcar lines.  Placed in this perspective, there's no reason to have a discussion that presents it as an isolated transit investment.

Most of that replaces an existing trolley route. Just what part of that route do you expect to wildly grow? Think developers will be scrambling to knock down Auto Parts places on Park to put up new Condos? There will be little new growth in the Riverside area, that's mostly a historic district and should be left alone.

As a part of the mobility plan, allowable building density were dramatically increased as a part of the plan to integrate land use with mobility.  Looking at this 3 mile corridor, there are significant opportunities for infill development.  You may think Park is built out, but the majority of Brooklyn is vacant land and buildings.  There is room for massive redevelopment in this area between I-95 and downtown.  In addition, with viable mass transit in place, opportunities for infill development on existing service lots at office complexes like Fidelity and BCBS become feasible.  


This is Brooklyn.  Lots of room for infill development from looking at this pic.

In Riverside, has a major parking problem on its hands as it gains popularity as one of America's best neighborhoods.  The streetcar option (along with new bikeway infrastructure) puts mass transit in a position to help alleviate this problem, as opposed building large non-compatible parking garages, surface lots.  Congestion-wise, it also a context sensitive alternative over demolishing rows of historic structures along Riverside Avenue and Park Street for roadway widening.  Despite Park & King's success, there are several areas along King Street where infill mixed-use development would be considered a major positive to the quality of living in the area.  Last, but not least, Riverside has a huge medical center within its boundaries with limited room for expansion.  Better transit creates the opportunity to convert existing medical parking lots into medical facilities that can be designed to integrate seamlessly into the surrounding historic context.


The parking lots in this aerial of St. Vincents are suitable spaces for context sensitive infill development in Riverside.

So, what are we spending this money for again?

In this case, the transportation improvement cost taxpayers nothing.  Money for its construction would be generated by private development within that specific development area, over a 10-year period.  This is why I mentioned in the previous post that convincing you of the benefits won't be needed to move this project forward.

I expect you will blow me off again as a pest, but I see this project ending up like the skyway. Lots of money down the shitter with no measurable results.

The skyway struggles for multiple reasons.  However, the entire system and urban core does.  Thus, it makes no sense to isolate and condem it without properly evaluating the condition of the context it was meant to serve.  Nevertheless, put me in control of mass transit for a year and I promise you I'll turn dramatically increase the skyway's ridership and show you measurable results.  If you're willing to compromise you local signage and advertising moral values, I'll eliminate fares and still drop O&M costs as well.

If you want to invest money in rail, let's get a communter rail to SA and GCS rolling.

Those projects are in the works too.  However, they'll be a little more complicated to pull off because you'll be running passenger trains on someone else's property.  Hopefully, this helps answer the questions you raised.

[Dashing Dan]

Come on... why would replacing the existing diesel non-trolley trolley with a streetcar increase ridership?

I think middleman makes a good point here, and I'd love to see it refuted.

According to this chart, streetcars (about 8 down from the top) have about the same capacity as buses in mixed traffic (at the bottom).

So if this chart is correct and their capacities are roughly the same, how would streetcars outperform (fake) buses? 

On the land use side, increases in density could be allowed for either option.