STREETCAR NOW JACKSONVILLE!

[Noone]

I'd like to see a streetcar.

Ock, Lake, I was at Hogans Creek the other day behind the old St. Lukes hospital and a yard crew pulled up and I was talking with them and the part they were mowing belonged to CSX. Really! Showed me the old railroad ties. Also there is a pole and I'm wondering if its one of the old original streetcar poles with the cables. Have you guys documented any of the existing ones in other parts of the city? Just curious. Where in Jax would you see the closest thing to what this city once had as far as a streetcar track and pole?

[thelakelander]

If the skyway wasn't already on Riverside, I would agree with you. Putting it on Park would give it direct access to the JRTC and would be more centralized. In 5-10 years when they do the re-evaluation thing, they will add a skyway extension after they see the success of the streetcar going down Park. Riverside is a busy road and all, but with the skyway already there, there's no reason not to extend it down the street.

The skyway isn't available along the portion of Riverside I'm talking about.  The skyway's Riverside ROW ends at Forest.  The stretch I'm talking about is between Post and Forest.  You would only hit Riverside to pick up the major destinations in that short stretch.  After that, it would hit either Park or Myrtle to connect with the JRTC.

Btw, here is a map of the route within the TPO's 2035 LRTP:


The Riverside streetcar route shown appears to start at Park & King, down King to Oak to Post to Riverside Avenue to Forest to Park (to the JRTC) and down Water Street into downtown.

Here is a list of the transit projects included in the 2035 LRTP:

[iMarvin]

If the skyway wasn't already on Riverside, I would agree with you. Putting it on Park would give it direct access to the JRTC and would be more centralized. In 5-10 years when they do the re-evaluation thing, they will add a skyway extension after they see the success of the streetcar going down Park. Riverside is a busy road and all, but with the skyway already there, there's no reason not to extend it down the street.

The skyway isn't available along the portion of Riverside I'm talking about.  The skyway's Riverside ROW ends at Forest.  The stretch I'm talking about is between Post and Forest.

So no ROW could be purchased? No buildings would have to be destroyed for a skyway to be built above the sidewalk like on Hogan St.

[thelakelander]

^You could put a skyway extension into the median of Riverside south of Forest and a few elevated stations.  The question would then become if its worth paying the additional millions for it instead of coordinating both projects together to kill two birds with one stone.

[tufsu1]

and there's the pesky problem of how you stay above Riverside Avenue but under the I-95 bridge...it seems tall enough, but looks could be deceiving

[JeffreyS]

According to that Lake they want to build from downtown out.  I think that is a mistake Phase One should be in Riverside. IMO

I do like the Oak street past five points, Riverside in Brooklyn (connect with new skyway), Forest to park (connect JRTC) then water street into downtown.

[JeffreyS]

and there's the pesky problem of how you stay above Riverside Avenue but under the I-95 bridge...it seems tall enough, but looks could be deceiving

And you need to check with RAP first they are a strong association and may prefer historic streetcar.  Specifically it is truly historic for Riverside.

[iMarvin]

^You could put a skyway extension into the median of Riverside south of Forest and a few elevated stations.  The question would then become if its worth paying the additional millions for it instead of coordinating both projects together to kill two birds with one stone.

So the skyway can go farther than Forest. Good. And I think it would be worth paying millions. If the skyway and streetcar met up at Five Points and the JRTC, you have two different methods of transit going to completely different places. I like to keep things simple. Just run down one street. Park St hits the destinations. Riverside Ave hits some other destinations.

[thelakelander]

According to that Lake they want to build from downtown out.  I think that is a mistake Phase One should be in Riverside. IMO

I do like the Oak street past five points, Riverside in Brooklyn (connect with new skyway), Forest to park (connect JRTC) then water street into downtown.

The mobility plan combines both and provides a funding mechanism to build them as a single first phase (DT to Park & King in Riverside).

[iMarvin]

and there's the pesky problem of how you stay above Riverside Avenue but under the I-95 bridge...it seems tall enough, but looks could be deceiving

And you need to check with RAP first they are a strong association and may prefer historic streetcar.  Specifically it is truly historic for Riverside.

If the city wanted to do it right, they would ask the citizens of Riverside-Avondale which route they would like and choose the majority. Everyone in Riverside might not agree with what RAP wants.

[thelakelander]

Regarding the skyway, in the past there was been strong opposition to extending it inside Riverside.  Also, you couldn't extend it down Riverside Avenue into the historic district without dropping it to grade, closing off access to side streets and a few properties as well as ripping some 100-year old oaks down.  The simple option would be to get the skyway under I-95 on the west side of Park Street.  The bad thing is that this would close off access to Riverside Park on the east side.  In short, I'd think you'd trigger a ton of opposition extending the skyway south of I-95.

[Doctor_K]

Skyway extension to Forest.

Streetcar picks up from Forest, passes Everbank, BCBS, Fidelity, RAM, and the Cummer, swings past Memorial Park and rides all the way down to King, in front of St. Vincents.  

In phase 2, the line is extended up King to at least Post, where it turns east and runs all the way back to Riverside (can Post St. handle it?).  Or maybe even College St.?  Now you've got a loop/circulator.  

In phase 3, it extends down St. Johns Ave via the dogleg on King all the way to Herschel (thus serving the Shoppes of Avondale).

[Kay]

Riverside doesn't need to be six lanes.  They could put a street car in the middle of the road and landscape around it.  Why do we need a train in the air?

[iMarvin]

Regarding the skyway, in the past there was been strong opposition to extending it inside Riverside.  Also, you couldn't extend it down Riverside Avenue into the historic district without dropping it to grade, closing off access to side streets and a few properties as well as ripping some 100-year old oaks down.  In short, I'd think you'd trigger a ton of opposition extending the skyway south of I-95.

I don't see why it would have to be dropped to grade. Like other threads have said, the skyway would have to be extended other places before people start backing off, but in the next 15 years (assuming a skyway extension is built to the stadium or San Marco) people will not be so mean to the skyway. I think it would be a huge mistake to put the streetcar down Riverside.

[iMarvin]

Riverside doesn't need to be six lanes.  They could put a street car in the middle of the road and landscape around it.  Why do we need a train in the air?

We need a train in the air because we already have it.