Riverside Avondale Is a Streetcar Suburb: Debunking Car Centricism

[Dashing Dan]

However, that's not what I said in the statement that he was attempting to twist. 

I'm not twisting anything. 

Avondale was designed for cars.  That's an obvious historical fact that we - lakelander and I - both agree upon. 

Whether it was designed exclusively for cars, predominantly for cars, or predominantly for some other mode, none of that changes whether or not Avondale was designed for cars.  All of this part of the thread is what I meant by splitting hairs.

But I'm not going to engage in a dialogue when my own posts are labeled as specious nonsense.

[Dashing Dan]

However, that's not what I said in the statement that he was attempting to twist. 

I'm not twisting anything. 

Avondale was designed for cars.  That's an obvious historical fact that we - lakelander and I - both agree upon. 

Whether it was designed exclusively for cars, predominantly for cars, or predominantly for some other mode, none of that changes whether or not Avondale was designed for cars.  All of this part of the thread is what I meant by splitting hairs.

But I'm not going to engage in a dialogue when my own posts are labeled as specious nonsense.

Well if you wouldn't engage in specious nonsense, then it wouldn't get labelled thusly.

It seems fairly clear that you were implying that the neighborhood was designed for cars only.

Which qualifies perfectly.

If you didn't intend to imply this, then why argue Lakelander's point?

'bye

[Ocklawaha]

And taxis are not the answer?  I know the stupid residents in Ortega wouldn'd dare "stoop so low" from their supposed high and mighty positions of influence and wealth to take a cab to the Shops,

Yeah, take that Oteegans! That'll teach you to uh... live over there.

Wait sorry what I meant to say was, SIIIIIIIIIIIIIMMMS! (Shakes fist)

Ouch! My, my this is absolutely Apocalyptic. In vino veritas, Eh? It appears my hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Um? As one who grew up in Ortega, I beg to differ. That Riverside Streetcar line ultimately belonging to the Jacksonville Traction Company ended at Aberdeen Street. It was the Ortega Company, that incorporated the Ortega Traction Company to tie the community (from Ortega Village) to Jacksonville. Through service into downtown was operated by both companies and the Ortega Traction Company and it's rolling stock were absorbed via a buyout by the larger Jacksonville Electric Company RY. Jacksonville Electric RY. was then conveyed to the Jacksonville Traction Company, which would ultimately extend the line to Black Point (Yukon-Camp Johnston). Bottom line, without Ortega, there would have been no Riverside Streetcar Line through Avondale, Fairfax, Ortega, and ultimately Camp Johnston (NAS JAX).

What those rich people DID was to revisit their little streetcar line when Jacksonville Traction heir to the former Jacksonville Electric RY. raised the fares in violation of a 'guaranteed fare' deal between the Jacksonville Electric Company RY and the Ortega Traction Company. They took it all the way to the Supreme Court which sided with Jacksonville Traction though they left room for the Ortega Company to collect damages the higher fare might have caused. To wit:

U.S. Supreme Court
ORTEGA CO. v. TRIAY, 260 U.S. 103 (1922)
260 U.S. 103

ORTEGA CO.
v.
TRIAY.
No. 75.

Argued Oct. 18, 19, 1922.
Decided Nov. 13, 1922.

Messrs. Herman Ulmer and W. T. Stockton, both of Jacksonville, Fla., for appellant. [260 U.S. 103, 104]   Messrs. Peter O. Knight, of Tampa, Fla., and J. L. Doggett, of Jacksonville, Fla., for appellee.

Mr. Justice McKENNA delivered the opinion of the Court.

The case is in narrow compass. Its purpose is to enjoin the appellee, as receiver of the Jacksonville Traction Company, grantee of the Jacksonville Electric Company as hereinafter stated and a corporation of Massachusetts, from collecting more than a particular fare, 5 cents, and compelling the specific performance of an alleged contract providing for such fare.

The grounds of the suit are set forth with great detail but may be epitomized narratively as follows: The Ortega Company was in 1910 and prior thereto the owner, and operated a line of electric railroad from the city of Jacksonville to a point in a place designated as Ortega in Duval county, Fla. The Ortega Company sold the railroad to R. J. Richardson, February 12, 1910, in pursuance of a contract, and March 6, 1911, Richardson and his wife conveyed the railroad to the Jacksonville Traction Company. Richardson was at all the times agent of the Jacksonville Electric Company.

The conveyance from the Ortega Company contained, among other provisions, the following covenant:

'The Jacksonville Electric Company further covenants and agrees that said street railroad shall be operated in such manner that passengers for a single fare of 5 cents may travel from any point reached by street cars in the city of Jacksonville to the terminus in Ortega and vice versa, over the lines of the Jacksonville Electric Company, and the line conveyed by the Ortega Company.'
And it was covenanted that--

'Said single fare of 5 cents shall be sufficient compensation for a continuous journey either way, with such transfers as may be necessary.' [260 U.S. 103, 105]   The Jacksonville Electric Company went into the possession of the railroad and operated it as agreed upon the basis of a 5-cent fare.
At the time of the conveyance, the railroad and its appurtenances were reasonably of the value of $33,157.37, and the conveyance was made in consideration of the covenant and a cash consideration of $10,000, less certain deductions. The cash consideration was of minor import; the principal consideration was the covenant.

At the time of making the contract with the Electric Company, the Ortega Company was engaged in the development of a large tract of land lying in Duval county at the terminus of the Ortega line, and the company sold the railroad for approximately $26,000 less than its reasonable value upon the express covenant of the Electric Company to operate the line upon a 5-cent basis. The continued violation of the covenant will deprive the Ortega Company of property worth many thousand dollars, and will result in irreparable injury to the company, 'the nature and character of which injury redress at law would be uncertain and inadequate and the damages resulting therefrom impossible of ascertainment.'

April 18, 1911, the Jacksonville Electric Company conveyed the railroad to the Jacksonville Traction Company and that company went into possession of the road and operated it in accordance with the covenant.

On October 30, 1919, appellee Triay was appointed receiver of the Traction Company and ever since has been, and still is, acting as receiver, managing and operating the railways and properties of the Traction Company, including the Ortega line.

From the time of the conveyance to the Jacksonville Electric Company until December 15, 1920, that company and the Traction Company and appellee, as receiver, successively operated the road on a 5-cent basis.

On the ---- day of January, 1920, appellee filed with the Railroad Commission of Florida a petition asking that [260 U.S. 103, 106]   the Commission assume jurisdiction of the rates and fares of the Traction Company and authorize an increase in them. The request was granted December 2, 1920, and a fare of 7 cents was authorized and has since been charged.

The Railroad Commission was created by the Legislature of the state in 1897 (Laws 1897, c. 4549) and was required (by the same law passed) in the same year, to 'make reasonable and just rates of freight and passenger tariffs to be observed by all railroad companies and all others engaged as common carriers doing business in this state.' Acts 1897, c. 4549. The requirement was repeated by an act passed in 1913 (Acts 1913, c. 6527), and by the latter act it was made the duty of the Commission to make reasonable and just rules and regulations to enforce the observance by the carriers of their tariffs.

The only provision of the Constitution of the state dealing with the powers of the Legislature is section 30 of article 16 which provides as follows:

'The Legislature is invested with full power to pass laws for the correction of abuses and to prevent unjust discrimination and excessive charges by persons and corporations engaged as common carriers in transporting persons and property, or performing other services of a pubic nature, and shall provide for enforcing such laws by adequate penalties or forfeitures.'
By reason of the constitutional provision and limitation, so much, the petition proceeds, of the legislative provisions above stated, as attempts to confer upon the Commission the power to increase the rates and charges of appellee, is unconstitutional and void and the order of the Commission is void and of no effect, and impairs the obligation of the contract between the Ortega Company and the Electric Company and constitutes a taking of the property of the Ortega Company without due process of law contrary to the Constitution of the United States. [260 U.S. 103, 107]   An injunction was prayed pending the suit and that appellee be compelled to operate the Ortega line at a 5-cent fare as covenanted and that the Ortega Company be granted such further relief as proper and agreeable to equity.

A motion to dismiss the bill for want of equity was made upon the ground that under the laws and Constitution of Florida the Railroad Commission had the power it exercised in authorizing the Traction Company to increase the fares and charges from 5 cents to 7 cents, and that such power since the adoption of the Constitution in 1885 could not be limited by private contract rights; such rights necessarily yielding to the public welfare as expressed in the laws and Constitution of the state.

The court took that view and, quoting section 30 of article 16 of the Constitution relied on by the Ortega Company, rejected that company's construction of it and decided that the Commission could raise as well as lower rates and that the Supreme Court of the state had so adjudged. The court, therefore, denied the motion of the Ortega Company for a temporary injunction and dismissed the bill...etc...

For the complete case summary see:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=260&invol=103

Now see! Doesn't that just warm the cockles of your heart when you think about all of us 'rich bastards?'

[Bewler]

Ouch! My, my this is absolutely Apocalyptic. In vino veritas, Eh? It appears my hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Um? As one who grew up in Ortega, I beg to differ.

I was just being facetious Ock, I'm on your side! Well not literally, but a good friend of mine lives in Ortega.

[thelakelander]

U.S. Supreme Court
ORTEGA CO. v. TRIAY, 260 U.S. 103 (1922)
260 U.S. 103

ORTEGA CO.
v.
TRIAY.
No. 75.

Argued Oct. 18, 19, 1922.
Decided Nov. 13, 1922.

Messrs. Herman Ulmer and W. T. Stockton, both of Jacksonville, Fla., for appellant.

Yes, Avondale's developer also owned many of the streetcar companies in Jacksonville.  There's no reason to be alarmed.  There were no SUVs driving around Jacksonville when streetcar suburbs like Avondale were designed and platted a century ago.  One could argue that the original streets were designed for bicycles and horse and carriages just as much as they were designed for automobiles.  Why aren't we searching for multimodal solutions again?

North Jacksonville Street Railway, Town & Improvement Co.

Plant and equipment - Miles of track (electric), 6.4; gauge 5 ft; 4 cars; power rented from city of Jacksonville.

Parks and Amusement Resorts - Roosevelt Park, at northern limits of city.

Officers - Pres. Telfair Stockton; Sec. Samuel P. Holmes; Treas. Ernest C. Budd; Gen. Man. L.A. Sohier; Supt. E.T. Smith.

Directors - Telfair Stockton, E.C. Budd, S.P. Holmes, H. Mason, F.C. Elwes.

General Office and Repair Shop at car barn, Roosevelt Park, Jacksonville, FL

Date of Information, March 1907.

http://books.google.com/books?id=BohkF-kBZHEC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=north+jacksonville+street+railway+company&source=bl&ots=YphVTxHBj-&sig=LfFxw3scrwysbiGgjIv9FhY6qXU&hl=en&ei=ncQnTMuvLoL-8AbfyJXwDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=north%20jacksonville%20street%20railway%20company&f=false

[Ocklawaha]

Ouch! My, my this is absolutely Apocalyptic. In vino veritas, Eh? It appears my hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Um? As one who grew up in Ortega, I beg to differ.

I was just being facetious Ock, I'm on your side! Well not literally, but a good friend of mine lives in Ortega.

Not to worry, I was just having a little fun at your expense...LOL

OCKLAWAHA

[WmNussbaum]

There's a lot of blather about the need for or desirability of better public transportation. I have a question: Who would pay for it? Ridership certainly won't if what goes on today is an indication. I hear that ridership is extremely low.

Jacksonville is a very large area, and I don't see too many folks giving up their cars as a means to get from one far-flung place in town to another one. How far is it from San Jose to Avondale and how many transfers from one route to another would be needed?

I have another question, this one about what someone called "that streamlined beauty." Is the attractiveness of any area enhanced by another set of overhead power lines? NOT! One nice feature of new communities is underground utilities. Overhead electric lines detract greatly from the appearance of neighborhoods. Say, do those electric streetcars still send down showers of sparks as they cross connecting points?

[simms3]

Ock...I believe Ortega needed the streetcar when it had one a lot more than it would need let alone want right now.  Also, I make fun of the neighborhood somewhat lightheartedly, and believe me I'm qualified to do so (actually anyone is).

Anyway, can we all establish that Jacksonville has officially joined the ranks of every other city in America by now having an established society of NIMBYs??  I know city leaders have been NIMBYs for decades, but I believe the people haven't really had too many opportunities to form their own NIMBYism.  I think that the fact we now have NIMBYs is evident of things happening, positive things.

[Ocklawaha]

First for Dashing Dan, in 1910 Jacksonville had 903 automobiles registered, the City of South Jacksonville increased it's speed limit from 10 to 15 miles per hour and the State still imposed a 4 mph speed at intersections, grades, bridges and fills. By 1910 the streetcar line was built all the way to Ortega, meaning at least a couple of years worth of planning, so we could back date this to say 1908. To further refute the idea that the neighborhood was built with the automobile in mind the city of Jacksonville didn't have it's first automobile until January 1900, by 1903 we still only counted 40. In 1904 the first traffic ticket was issued for 'endangering the public safety' at the break-neck speed of 6 mph, as you probably know most streetcars operate at average speeds of 12-23 mph, certainly an incentive for riding the cars. Jacksonville's population in 1900, (remember that's when the first car entered the city) was 39,733 but by 1910 we had 75,163. So the 903 automobiles registered in the city in 1910, using 'transportation guy' real numbers, represented only 1.20 percent of the total population of the city. Seems to me there was scarcely a demand for 'automobile space.' Bottom line, without all of the he said, she said, automobiles were a complete obscure 'novelty' in 1910. As for simple 'street space,' I'd agree with you, but the mode of choice was either via foot, bike, horse or streetcar. 

Now about Avondale specifically, that 'Grand Entry and Paseo' that came into the suburb from the Northwest, that divided garden bedecked street known as Ingleside, was built to rival The Grand Paseo de la Reforma, which once led to Chapultepec. Secondly Mr. Ingle was the president of the Jacksonville Traction Company. Nuff said?

Yeah Stephen, I can still lay it down....LOL

OCKLAWAHA

[Ocklawaha]

There's a lot of blather about the need for or desirability of better public transportation. I have a question: Who would pay for it? Ridership certainly won't if what goes on today is an indication. I hear that ridership is extremely low.

The streetcar system would be self financed by the City of Jacksonville, not JTA or the Federal Government, using funds currently on hold. See our articles on the Mobility Plan:

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2011-sep-2030-mobility-plan-the-cutting-edge-of-planning

Why would all of these cities join the streetcar club? BTW, this map is already outdated as many more have joined the chase.

Jacksonville is a very large area, and I don't see too many folks giving up their cars as a means to get from one far-flung place in town to another one. How far is it from San Jose to Avondale and how many transfers from one route to another would be needed?

The streetcar is an attractor in and of itself, national experience has shown ridership about 3x that of buses. This is not a new phenomena, in the 1930s the JTCO offered 'excursion fares' so people could board and tour the city for a single price.
Streetcars became some of the biggest babysitters in the city.

I have another question, this one about what someone called "that streamlined beauty." Is the attractiveness of any area enhanced by another set of overhead power lines? NOT! One nice feature of new communities is underground utilities. Overhead electric lines detract greatly from the appearance of neighborhoods. Say, do those electric streetcars still send down showers of sparks as they cross connecting points?

Actually our streetcar as proposed is a 'heritage system' wherein we would use reproduction and vintage equipment (you ridership just went up). I am an advocate of SIMPLE TROLLEY WIRE, not complex catenary. Why do I like a simple trolley wire? It's simple, it's cheap, and it doesn't need an overhead maze.

Modern instillation of simple trolley span wire in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Here is the complex catenary that we installed on the Metro de Medellin

Since you are apparently out-of-the-loop on modern streetcar systems (that includes new Heritage and Vintage systems) you should know that if push comes to shove and we want to spend some bucks, streetcars no longer need ANY overhead wires... but at the moment, this will cost you. Another reason why I like the KISS system.

Sparks? This city could use a little of St. Elmo's fire! The sparks are harmless and are confined to the area of the overhead wire, usually where it meets a 'trolley pan'. A trolley pan is similar to a piece of 'U' channel turned upside down. When entering a switch or crossing another route the trolley wheel or wiper is dragged from the wire, through the 'U' and then back onto the proper wire.

ECONOMIC'S IS THE REALLY BIG DOG.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) research5 indicates that households located in transit- oriented communities (within a half-mile to a mile of a fixed guide-way station) save an average of approximately $250 per month or $3,000 per year per household in auto-related costs as compared to households in auto-oriented areas. These savings are associated chiefly with the ability to walk to a wider range of destinations and, to a lesser extent, to transit access itself.

• Portland, Oregon: A study undertaken by Al-Moisand and so on analyzed sales prices of homes in metropolitan Portland, Oregon. The study showed that a premium of 10.6% for homes within 1⁄4 mile of proximity to light rail station.

• Santa Clara: Cervero and Duckan (2002a) studied the benefits of proximity to rail in Santa Clara County, California All else being equal, large apartments within a quarter mile of a light-rail station commanded land-value premiums as high as 45 percent


• San Diego: Another research effort undertaken by Cervero and Duckan (2002b) found appreciable land-value premiums for different land uses in different rail-transit corridors in San Diego County. The most appreciable benefits were: 46% premiums for condominiums and 17% for single-family housing near Coaster commuter rail stations in the north county; 17% and 10% premiums, respectively, for multifamily hosing near East Line and South Line Trolley stations; and for commercial properties, 91% premiums for parcels near downtown Coaster stations and 72% for parcels near Trolley stations in the Mission Valley.

• Philadelphia: Voith (1993) found a premium for single family homes with access to rail stations of 7.5% to 8.0% over the average home values.

• Dallas: A study by Weinstein and Clower (2002) examined the 1997 to 2001 time period; the study revealed that proximity to a DART station exerts a positive influence on property valuations. Median values of residential properties increased 32.1 percent near the DART rail stations compared to 19.5 percent in the control group areas. For office buildings,
the increase was 24.7 percent for the DART properties versus 11.5 percent for the non-DART properties.

Similarly, because the price a commercial enterprise is willing to pay for a site is a function of its future expected return when operating at the site, and because the proximity of transit typically raises future expected return (through improved access to customers and workers), transit typically increases the value of nearby commercial units.

• Atlanta: In 1989, rents at a major development located near a transit station were $3 to $5 higher per square foot than those at other office of comparable quality a block away (Cervero et al., 1994).7

• Los Angeles: Commercial property values near planned transit corridors appreciated faster than similar properties away from the corridors during the 1980's, when the transit system was being planned and developed: property values near transit appreciated by more than 78 percent, properties away from transit gained only 38 percent (Fejarang, 1994).8

• New York City: On average, commercial property values increase by $2.7 per square foot, for every meter closer to a transit station (Anas, 1993).

• Washington DC Area: In the district, interviews with real estate brokers and appraisers revealed that commercial land prices near transit stations increased by around 100 percent several years after services began and by as much as 400 percent in some locales (Damm et al., 1980; Rice Center, 1987). At transit stations, in Bethesda and Ballston, projects immediately adjacent to station entrances commanded a $2 to $4 per square foot rent premium, relative to similar projects just a few blocks away.
SOURCE: http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/noncms/projects/streetcar/docs/EconomicAnalysis.pdf

The Value Proposition: The Cincinnati Streetcar will foster sustainable development by creating more walkable destinations which enable residents and businesses to spend their money locally.

The burden of having to spend up to $25,000 to build one (or more) parking spaces for each new downtown housing unit will be eased on account of the Cincinnati Streetcar. The streetcar will redirect funds now spent on cars and parking to more and better housing.

In the Downtown Loop alone, economists estimate that the Cincinnati Streetcar will be the catalyst for $1.5 billion in new economic development over the first fifteen years of the streetcar’s operation. Compare this to the cost of the Downtown Loop - $102 million.

Over the first thirty-four years of the streetcar’s life, there would be reductions in Downtown traffic congestion with a Present Value of $16 million and low-income mobility benefits with a Present Value of $35 million. The major benefits stem from property developments that otherwise wouldn’t have occurred, and these have a Present Value of $379 million.

Economists calculated a Benefit/Cost Ratio of 2.75 to 1.00 over the 35-year life of the Cincinnati Streetcar. This is an astonishing rate-of-return for any kind of capital project, public or private. It far exceeds the returns that are usually achieved by widening highways.

Local and state governments and the Cincinnati Public Schools will gain earnings, property and sales taxes from the economic activity fostered by the Cincinnati Streetcar. Additional property tax collections on account of the streetcar are estimated to total $34 million over the first thirty years of its operation.

Economists estimate that the Cincinnati Streetcar will introduce $17 million in new consumer spending each year in downtown Cincinnati alone.

Using a conservative estimate of the total floor area now vacant in the project area, it appears that nearly 1,600 housing units could be created in the upper floors of buildings throughout Downtown and Over-the-Rhine. That’s a lot of new Downtown residents to shop in our stores, eat in our restaurants and provide more “eyes on the street.”
SOURCE: http://www.protransit.com/In-General/2008/10/cincinnati-streetcar-economics.asp

Overall the benefit of streetcar in Cincinnati is a projected ROI of $14 to $1

So even if the streetcar ran empty all day, every day, the development and real estate valuations alone would make it much more then any bus, car, or pair of tennis shoes.

[Dashing Dan]

One noted contrast to the grid plan common in the neighborhood was the distinctive plat of the original Avondale Subdivision developed in 1925.  Designed by noted Ohioan landscape architect, William Pitkin, Avondale reflected a more contemporary residential plan as evident by the use of curvilinear streets, pocket parks, and generous grassy right-of-ways defined by sidewalks and curbs.  Opening during the height of the Florida Land Boon, Avondale was designed to accommodate the growing popularity of the automobile.

-Joel McEachin, City Planner Manger, Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission (2010)

[thelakelander]

One noted contrast to the grid plan common in the neighborhood was the distinctive plat of the original Avondale Subdivision developed in 1925.  Designed by noted Ohioan landscape architect, William Pitkin, Avondale reflected a more contemporary residential plan as evident by the use of curvilinear streets, pocket parks, and generous grassy right-of-ways defined by sidewalks and curbs.  Opening during the height of the Florida Land Boon, Avondale was designed to accommodate the growing popularity of the automobile.

-Joel McEachin, City Planner Manger, Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission (2010)

Thanks for confirming what everybody stated yesterday.  Feel free to post material that it was designed for automobiles as the dominant mode of transportation when you come across it.

Initially considered part of Riverside, Avondale quickly developed its own identity. The original Avondale subdivision was long and narrow, only 4-1/2 blocks wide (Seminole Road to just beyond Talbot) and one mile long (from the river to Roosevelt Boulevard).

http://www.coj.net/departments/planning-and-development/community-planning-division/default/history-of-riverside-and-avondale.aspx

A couple of interesting things here though.  Avondale was originally designed as a 4.5 block wide, 1 mile long subdivision, stretching from the river to Roosevelt.  Within that one mile stretch, there were two streetcar routes (Herschel and Roosevelt) leading back into the city.  So every resident was within walking distance of a streetcar route.  A multimodal friendly community where residents have viable mobility choices and options. What a concept.

[Ocklawaha]

One noted contrast to the grid plan common in the neighborhood was the distinctive plat of the original Avondale Subdivision developed in 1925.  Designed by noted Ohioan landscape architect, William Pitkin, Avondale reflected a more contemporary residential plan as evident by the use of curvilinear streets, pocket parks, and generous grassy right-of-ways defined by sidewalks and curbs.  Opening during the height of the Florida Land Boon, Avondale was designed to accommodate the growing popularity of the automobile.

-Joel McEachin, City Planner Manger, Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission (2010)

Yes of course, Joel was there and spoke with the developers... The numbers speak for themselves.

If you want to say they installed roads that 'could' include automobiles, bikes, or pogo sticks, then yes so did ancient Rome, Sparta and Teothiwacan, but obviously they were not built 'for' automobiles.

OCKLAWAHA

[thelakelander]

The development Dashing Dan should be talking about is San Jose.  That one was actually designed to be one of the first automobile oriented suburbs in the city.  It was originally developed by Claude Nolan, the guy who owned one of the first automobile dealerships in Jacksonville.  It didn't have any streetcar lines.

[Dashing Dan]

     This thread is about Avondale.