RAP-->Costs? Benefits?

[tufsu1]

this has been a very interesting and enlightening thread.  Thank you Dr. Wood for clarifying the various roles that members of the Stockton family played in the development of streetcars and neighborhoods in Jacksonville!

[BridgeTroll]

I agree tufsu1!  The last few pages have been a great read.  I enthusiastically welcome Dr Wood to the forums and hope he gives us all the opportunity to hear more!

Fascinating!

[thelakelander]

+1000.

[fsujax]

Can't believe I missed all this great discussion over the weekend. Guess I should look at metrojacksonville over the weekends. It is great to have Dr Wood providing his insight on the site. The history of our historic neighborhoods and streetcars is indeed an interesting one. I think to me it is apparent that streetcars played at least some role in the development of these neighborhoods. Probably more so in Springfield that anywhere. Lake is absolutely right, these neighborhoods are original TOD's, now if we could just get good transit up and running again, the circle will be complete. Folks from Springfield could hop on a streetcar and go to Riverside, without having to take their cars, thus reducing automobile trips and reducing the demand for parking. It would work both ways.

[strider]

Both Lake and Dr. Woods have put forth good discussions here, each promoting his view of whether Avondale, for instance, was built as a street car or car based community.  It seems they are both right in the end.   It seems like Avondale was a transitional community, one that was developed at a time when cars were really just  beginning to assert their influence.  However, how long was it that even well off families only had one car?  How many years would it be from the time Avondale was developed to when families had two or more cars? If you were developing a community with cars in mind turn of the century, how many cars would you expect a family to have?

In 1910, would anyone think a family needed more than one?  Or would you think cars would be used by one and the rest of the family still use that streetcar? In how many families did the car mostly sit during the week and the public transportation was used for going to that job?  The end result, I think, is that when developments like Avondale were laid out, no one imagined that a family of four would ever have four cars.  That street cars would always be a part of the urban communities.  Cars were certainly a large part of the equation, but so were the already in place streetcars.

Well, that's what this layman has gotten from the discussion.

I do have a question about commercial development.  If these communities were laid out with commercial areas in mind, why is it that invariably when you look at the history of say the corner of Pearl and 7th in Springfield, you find that houses built in about 1905 were torn down in about 1920 to build that much needed and wanted commercial? Didn't Dr. Woods say the same was true for Avondale?  That houses were torn down to provide that needed commercial development? Or was Avondale laid out with an area set aside for that commercial development?

And what of the future?  What new plans are being created to allow a community developed in 1912 to be truly utilized in 2012?  When the typical family living in Avondale has multiple cars and most wanting to visit not only the commercial areas but even family and friends will drive there.  Even if there is a workable public transportation system in Avondale, what about those coming from areas not served by public transportation? Do you expect them to go out of their way to use that streetcar or to just keep driving to their destination? What incentives do you propose to entice people to stop driving to Kickbacks or Mellow Mushroom?  Do you really think just building a streetcar system is enough?

In the meantime, it does seem like stopping development like Mellow Mushroom will ultimately stop development like Streetcars.  Eventually, the commercial developers learn to go elsewhere and there will be no need for streetcars.

[thelakelander]

Both Lake and Dr. Woods have put forth good discussions here, each promoting his view of whether Avondale, for instance, was built as a street car or car based community.  It seems they are both right in the end.   It seems like Avondale was a transitional community, one that was developed at a time when cars were really just  beginning to assert their influence.  However, how long was it that even well off families only had one car?  How many years would it be from the time Avondale was developed to when families had two or more cars? If you were developing a community with cars in mind turn of the century, how many cars would you expect a family to have?

In 1910, would anyone think a family needed more than one?  Or would you think cars would be used by one and the rest of the family still use that streetcar? In how many families did the car mostly sit during the week and the public transportation was used for going to that job?  The end result, I think, is that when developments like Avondale were laid out, no one imagined that a family of four would ever have four cars.  That street cars would always be a part of the urban communities.  Cars were certainly a large part of the equation, but so were the already in place streetcars.

Well, that's what this layman has gotten from the discussion.

Bingo!  When the discussion went back and forth with Dashing Dan a week ago about this, this is the point I was trying to make.  While the development did accommodate the automobile (in addition to every single lot being within walking distance of the two existing streetcar lines), there was no way to come to the conclusion in 1920 that the majority of families would have multiple automobiles in 2012.  In addition, there was no way to predict that walkable commercial districts developed to provide the basic necessities for nearby residents would transition into regional boutique shopping, entertainment, and dining districts.  In 1920, it also would have been difficult to believe that the streetcar system would disappear from the network of mobility options.  Today, that would be similar to making an argument that cars will no longer exist 20 years from now. 

What you have during the 1920s is a neighborhood designed to accommodate and benefit from multiple modes of mobility.  The mode choice was dependent on the type of trip one decided to make.  Over the last 50 years, we (as a society) have addressed mobility, primarily from an autocentric viewpoint.  However, in this particular neighborhood, it's historic context, layout and building density, isn't conducive to automobile-based dominant transportation planning.  We're going to have to seriously consider making alternative modes of transportation a higher priority from a transportation planning standpoint to effectively deal with the pressure of redevelopment.

I do have a question about commercial development.  If these communities were laid out with commercial areas in mind, why is it that invariably when you look at the history of say the corner of Pearl and 7th in Springfield, you find that houses built in about 1905 were torn down in about 1920 to build that much needed and wanted commercial? Didn't Dr. Woods say the same was true for Avondale?  That houses were torn down to provide that needed commercial development? Or was Avondale laid out with an area set aside for that commercial development?

Avondale was roughly bounded by the river, Seminole, Demere (Roosevelt) and Talbot.  This neighborhood, designed as a part of the City Beautiful Movement, was a deed restricted community where apartments, commercial, offices, etc. were not allowed.  The Shops of Avondale fall on the other side of Talbot, just like Murray Hill's first block on Edgewood falls on the other side of Roosevelt.  Just because you restrict a use within a certain boundary does not mean the use isn't needed or that the market won't respond to that policy.  In Avondale's case, the market responded by local residents and businesses building commercial uses just outside of that deed restricted community.  This original deed restricted section of Avondale still does not really have commercial intrusion to this day.  Also, the area was sparsely populated in the early 20th century.  With the influx of growth after the Great Fire, while there were instances of houses being torn down for commercial (and newer houses), there were undeveloped properties that commercial uses were built on as well.

And what of the future?  What new plans are being created to allow a community developed in 1912 to be truly utilized in 2012?  When the typical family living in Avondale has multiple cars and most wanting to visit not only the commercial areas but even family and friends will drive there.  Even if there is a workable public transportation system in Avondale, what about those coming from areas not served by public transportation? Do you expect them to go out of their way to use that streetcar or to just keep driving to their destination? What incentives do you propose to entice people to stop driving to Kickbacks or Mellow Mushroom?  Do you really think just building a streetcar system is enough?

When we helped COJ develop the Mobility Plan, the solution for the city in general was multimodal based.  A streetcar in the area would only be a part of a network that would include better sidewalks, context sensitive streets, commuter rail, BRT, and bike facilities working in a manner where all modes complemented each other and the skyway and local bus system.  This was coupled with land use changes that would allow many trips made by car today to be made by alternative modes of transportation.  When effectively developed, depending on the location within the city, one's primary choice of mobility would be by foot (hard to believe for many who have grown up with the automobile as the primary choice of transportation).

In the meantime, it does seem like stopping development like Mellow Mushroom will ultimately stop development like Streetcars.  Eventually, the commercial developers learn to go elsewhere and there will be no need for streetcars.

Actually, a streetcar route between Riverside and Downtown would be an effective commercial reliever for Riverside.  Based on what has taken place in peer communities like Charlotte and Salt Lake City, Brooklyn would become the choice destination for retail and entertainment.  A combination of streetcar connectivity, a centralized location, and cheap developable land and buildings available, is a strong catalyst for market rate investment.

[cline]

While the development did accommodate the automobile (in addition to every single lot being within walking distance of the two existing streetcar lines), there was no way to come to the conclusion in 1920 that the majority of families would have multiple automobiles in 2012.

This is only partially related to this point but I found it interesting.  At the meeting a couple weeks ago at Grace Church someone pointed out the fact that the majority of the homes in Avondale have only single-car driveways.  Because of this, some of these residents that have more than one car (probably the majority) park one car on the street- presumably because they do not want to take the time and/or effort to shuffle cars.  It would be an interesting study to see how many of the cars parked on the streets belong to residents as opposed to patrons of the Shoppes.

[thelakelander]

This whole nonsensical claim that Riverside/Avondal was 'developed for the automobile' is based solely on the presence of a  small number of garages attached to the houses, with a slightly deeper concentration in the four block wide subdivision of avondale.

The presence of garages would be a good proof that some of the houses were designed for the owners of automobiles.  That is the architectural reality.

But house design is simply not the same thing as claiming that a streetcar suburb, developed by streetcar company officials, in the era of streetcar suburb construction across the united states, and populated by a bakers dozen of streetcar industry associated men was actually developed for cars.

I think a lot of this discussion about whether it is a streetcar suburb or designed for automobiles is pure semantics.  A streetcar suburb (however one wants to describe its characteristics) can certainly be designed, developed and marketed to attract owners of automobiles.  Based on my research, I truly do believe that Avondale is an example of this.  However, this part of the consersation isn't even worth spending the time to go back and forth on. 

The original plat, the time period it was constructed in, the architecture, and historic imagery clearly indicate a community designed with a number of mobility options being available as viable choices for its residents.  No matter what side of fence one falls on, everyone agrees with this because its a fact. 

IMO, as the commercial areas continue to transition and redevelop, this is where the focus should be in regards to transportation and land use planning in the area....creating an environment where people have viable multimodal transportation options at their disposal.  This is one of the most effective ways to relieve the pressure of trying to accommodate a number of automobiles into an area that wasn't designed for 2012 auto capacity.  This method is also one that is the most cost effective and enhances the area's quality of life.

[cline]

IMO, as the commercial areas continue to transition and redevelop, this is where the focus should be in regards to transportation and land use planning in the area....creating an environment where people have viable multimodal transportation options at their disposal.  This is one of the most effective ways to relieve the pressure of trying to accommodate a number of automobiles into an area that wasn't designed for 2012 auto capacity.  This method is also one that is the most cost effective and enhances the area's quality of life.

Yes. +1000

[grimss]

Personally, I'm not opposed to implementing some form of street trolley system through the historic district, but I do have a couple of questions about how it would work here. I hope those of you who are more fluent in "streetcar" can help answer them.

1) Along St. Johns Avenue, on the portion that runs through the shops, there's no room to run a trolley down a center landscaped median, as shown in some of Ock's pretty streetcar shots. I understand that autos and trolleys can and do share traffic lanes, and that trolleys would probably share bus stops, but in Portland, for example, most on-street parking was removed from the streets on which the trolleys run. Am I correct in assuming that parking on at least one side of St. Johns would have to be sacrificed for a trolley lane? If there's compensating off-street capacity somewhere, I guess this wouldn't cause too many problems, but it's certainly something to know upfront.

2) What's the impact of overhead wires? Would installation of the connectors impact the tree canopy in any way? Any impact on underground utilities?

3) What would be the projected cost of implementing a functional system that connects to downtown? A Dallas study projected capital costs for a modern streetcar system using overhead electric at $45m-$90m every 3 miles, (http://www.dallascityhall.com/forwardDallas/pdf/Streetcar.pdf), with an operating cost per hour of $122 (as compared to $167/hr for LRT and $80/90/hr for bus).  It's four miles from the Landing to the intersection of St. Johns and Dancy. Could the trolley operate in two directions on the same track, or would a "return" trolley lane need to be built nearby--maybe Park Street? If so, that's 8+ miles of track. How would it be financed? Given that the mobility fee got shot down, and pools of funding from federal and state entities is dwindling rapidly, what other funding mechanisms could we turn to? It doesn't seem like property tax increases would be enough.

4) Projected impact of construction related to the system's implementation? How much disruption would be required, and for how long?

I hope I don't sound cynical--that's not my intention. Everything I can find on-line suggests modern streetcar systems have helped spur commercial development and an increase in residential values. The Portland experience is particularly notable (http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?a=321180&c=35953). One can definitely apprecite how much this would help Brooklyn, as well. I'm just trying to wrap my head around what's really involved in implementing something like this here.  (If this has already been detailed in some other thread, just point me in the right direction. Thanks.)

[thelakelander]

grimms, I'm sure the rail guys like Ock will provide you with greater detail but here's my quick response:

Personally, I'm not opposed to implementing some form of street trolley system through the historic district, but I do have a couple of questions about how it would work here. I hope those of you who are more fluent in "streetcar" can help answer them.

1) Along St. Johns Avenue, on the portion that runs through the shops, there's no room to run a trolley down a center landscaped median, as shown in some of Ock's pretty streetcar shots. I understand that autos and trolleys can and do share traffic lanes, and that trolleys would probably share bus stops, but in Portland, for example, most on-street parking was removed from the streets on which the trolleys run. Am I correct in assuming that parking on at least one side of St. Johns would have to be sacrificed for a trolley lane? If there's compensating off-street capacity somehere, I guess this wouldn't cause too many problems, but it's certainly something to know upfront.

Currently, there is no plan to extend a fixed streetcar line into the Shops of Avondale.  However, the North Florida TPO, JTA and COJ Mobility Plan do have long range plans for a streetcar connecting Park & King and Five Points to Downtown.  Funding via the mobility fee could have such a project operational by the end of this decade.

Thinking in turns of designing an integrated multimodal transportation network, in the short term, other mobility options should be vetted for the Shops that provide direct connectivity with the fixed streetcar starter route.  Btw, the mobility plan also provides additional funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects in the area.

2) What's the impact of overhead wires? Would installation of the connectors impact the tree canopy in any way? Any impact on underground utilities?

Overhead wires should not have any impact on the tree canopy for the route between Park & King and Downtown.  There should be minimal impact to underground utilities as well but that's a question that would be vetted in detail once studies progress to the level of engineering.

3) What would be the projected cost of implementing a functional system that connects to downtown? A Dallas study projected capital costs for a modern streetcar system using overhead electric at $45m-$90m every 3 miles, (http://www.dallascityhall.com/forwardDallas/pdf/Streetcar.pdf), with an operating cost per hour of $122 (as compared to $167/hr for LRT and $80/90/hr for bus).

Streetcar system costs can range depending on the type of system.  The streetcar line proposed between Park & King and Downtown is estimated to cost in the range of $50 million.  That's roughly $14 million/mile for the 3.5 mile route, which would terminate at Bay & Newnan (Bay Street entertainment district/Florida Theater/Hyatt).  If you went with a heritage streetcar system (think New Orleans Canal Street), you could probably get the cost per mile below $10 million per mile.

It's four miles from the Landing to the intersection of St. Johns and Dancy. Could the trolley operate in two directions on the same track, or would a "return" trolley lane need to be built nearby--maybe Park Street? If so, that's 8+ miles of track.

A street car can travel on the same bidirectional track with occasional passing sidings.  An example of this is Tampa's TECO Streetcar.  To keep costs down initially, I'd suggest doing the same thing instead of one way loops.

How would it be financed? Given that the mobility fee got shot down, and pools of funding from federal and state entities is dwindling rapidly, what other funding mechanisms could we turn to? It doesn't seem like property tax increases would be enough.

The mobility fee moratorium is supposed to last only one year.  Unless council extends it for another year, it will sunset this fall and then projects like Kickbacks and Mellow Mushroom would pay into it for their negative transportation impacts.  This pot of money would eventually build up to fund the construction of the streetcar and commuter rail down the CSX A line.  I think the best short term thing any of us can do is advocate to our council representatives to let the moratorium expire this year.  IMO, this is our best bet to have a funding mechanism generate cash for needed transportation improvements (without raising taxes) anytime soon.

4) Projected impact of construction related to the system's implementation? How much disruption would be required, and for how long?

Ock can answer this better than me but construction impact would be pretty insignificant unless some entity attempted to combine its construction with a more expense complete streets makeover (ex. like rebuilding Park Street).

I hope I don't sound cynical--that's not my intention. Everything I can find on-line suggests modern streetcar systems have helped spur commercial development and an increase in residential values. The Portland experience is particularly notable (http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?a=321180&c=35953). One can definitely apprecite how much this would help Brooklyn, as well. I'm just trying to wrap my head around what's really involving in implementing something like this here.  (If this has already been detailed in some other thread, just point me in the right direction. Thanks.)

You don't sound cynical.  The more questions, dialogue and public vetting, the better.

[fsujax]

http://www.jtafla.com/JTAFuturePlans/Streetcars


This is a study that was conducted by JTA. There is also newer technology that will allow streetcars to operate with no overhead wires. However, it is pretty expensive. Think Disney technology.

[Dog Walker]

Old Riverside, that portion between Stockton St. and the River, certainly was not car centric.  Cars were rich mens toys until the Model-T came on the market around 1915.  Most of the houses in this part of Riverside were built before that and made NO provision for automobiles at all.  That's why we have to share driveways and park in the street.  Any garages around here were built much later and are frequently accessed from the alleys.  There isn't much room for driveways between the houses around here.

[grimss]

Thank you, Ock, Lake and fsujax. Info is much appreciated.

[Ocklawaha]

3) What would be the projected cost of implementing a functional system that connects to downtown? A Dallas study projected capital costs for a modern streetcar system using overhead electric at $45m-$90m every 3 miles, (http://www.dallascityhall.com/forwardDallas/pdf/Streetcar.pdf), with an operating cost per hour of $122 (as compared to $167/hr for LRT and $80/90/hr for bus).  It's four miles from the Landing to the intersection of St. Johns and Dancy. Could the trolley operate in two directions on the same track, or would a "return" trolley lane need to be built nearby--maybe Park Street? If so, that's 8+ miles of track. How would it be financed? Given that the mobility fee got shot down, and pools of funding from federal and state entities is dwindling rapidly, what other funding mechanisms could we turn to? It doesn't seem like property tax increases would be enough.

First off, we are NOT talking about modern streetcar. The vehicles have two strikes against them for our desired application, 1. they look like something from outer space - hardly a fit in a historic district, 2. They cost 2 to 3 times what a heritage reproduction or a rebuilt vintage streetcar costs.

Most rail transit studies come in way high in cost because they include a complete makeover of the surrounding streets, from paint to parking bumpers, and from signals to trash cans. As we have been pointing out here at MJ for a number of years, we simply do not need all of those whistles and bells. Being a railroad consultant myself, I can tell you that the track can be laid for $4-5 million per mile, add another million per mile for overhead lines and poles, and maybe another for decorative 'heritage' style poles, and finally another million for stations/stops, etc... We could easily have a state of the art heritage system that rivaled New Orleans in every way EXCEPT for the age of our cars for around $8 - 12 million per mile.

The streetcar only needs a single track with passing sidings spaced to accommodate a fairly frequent schedule. Such side tracks use a 'spring switch' (just as the Disney horsecar uses on Main Street USA). The spring switch allows cars to enter into the switch and take the desired route, while a car running out of the switch simply glides over it, the rails pushed aside as the wheels click over it and always returning to the original position without the need for a crew member to get off the cars.

I find the Dallas O&M cost estimates interesting as it is pretty well documented that streetcars cost LESS then buses or light-rail. I'd like to know what they are including that wouldn't be found elsewhere? On a per passenger seat mile basis, streetcar is MUCH cheaper then bus, as 1. the streetcars are larger, typically holding around 100 passengers seated and standing and 2. Streetcars can run entrain meaning a single operator for two coupled cars, or three, or...

The Mobility Fee didn't get shot down, it was in fact passed by the City Council. What happened is that they put a moratorium on collecting the fee for one year because they mistakenly thought it would spur sudden growth from area builders. The Mobility Fee replaces the older system of building 'impact fee's' which were anything but fair.

Under the impact fee system a person wanting to build a new store on a 4 lane road might be told since the road has excess capacity they wouldn't need to pay for improvements. The next guy who came along, along with his estimated customer traffic might have to pay for 2 new highway lanes as his project might take the road over capacity. The third guy that comes along might get a free pass because the second guy had to enlarge the road! This was anything but equal. The mobility plan not only makes everyone and every project equal, it actually lowers the average cost for builders.

Lastly, streetcars typically create economic development which more then offset's their cost. Portland is now counting somewhere around $9 Billion in new construction along the streetcar and MAX light-rail lines. The national average is a ROI of $14 to $1, so technically one might say streetcar is good even if it never carried a passenger!

4) Projected impact of construction related to the system's implementation? How much disruption would be required, and for how long?

Streetcar is a shallow dig version of Light-Rail. This means while light-rail might dig up and reroute utilities, streetcar is unobtrusive with a street dig of no more then 12 inches +/-. So no major utility relocation's, no major street digs, and a construction time of about 1 city block per week, usually done in 2 to 4 block 'months.'

I hope I don't sound cynical--that's not my intention. Everything I can find on-line suggests modern streetcar systems have helped spur commercial development and an increase in residential values. The Portland experience is particularly notable (http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?a=321180&c=35953). One can definitely apprecite how much this would help Brooklyn, as well. I'm just trying to wrap my head around what's really involved in implementing something like this here.  (If this has already been detailed in some other thread, just point me in the right direction. Thanks.)

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2012-feb-mass-transit-deja-vu

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2007-jul-bring-back-jacksonville-traction

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2007-jul-bring-back-jacksonville-traction-the-plan

I found your questions to be sincere and not the least bit cynical, thank you for the opportunity to share with you why I think this is a WIN-WIN for our city, something we need to do ASAP.

OCKLAWAHA