Southbank property owners mulling role in Downtown Jacksonville revitalization

[thelakelander]

Downtown Jacksonville’s Southbank is a paradox of an urban neighborhood: It has a high concentration of residents and its office buildings are well occupied, but much of it is distinctly suburban and discourages pedestrian activity.

full article: http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/blog/morning-edition/2013/01/southbank-property-owners-mulling.html

[Jason]

Glad to see some organized concerns regarding BRT on the Southbank.  I still can't figure out why they chose Riverplace instead of San Marco....

[tufsu1]

^ perhaps because the BRT stops at the Kings Avenue Station....and this way, they avoid the RR tracks.

[thelakelander]

My guess is the primary reason is the RR tracks.  With that said, even in the current configuration, it doesn't need it's own dedicated lanes at the expense of wider sidewalks and bike lanes.  Traffic counts really don't warrant it.  It also doesn't have to make any Southbank stops other than the Skyway's Kings Avenue Station.  That way, you won't have two systems cannibalizing riders from each other.

[Jdog]

As a non-planner / transportation expert, it seems like I've hoped for the "opposite" whenever I've been in that area.  A thinner street with slower traffic; lighting, crosswalks, etc., built from the pedestrian perspective.   That was a lot of money spent down there...I don't even like walking down there...ie., it's not "comfortable." 

Is there anyway to implement the BRT route without it being detrimental to pedestrian / urban environment???

[Wacca Pilatka]

Pedestrian access to the Riverwalk could stand a lot of improvement, too.

If you're trying to get there from a non-waterfront hotel like the Hampton Inn or the ESA on Prudential Dr., or back to your hotel from there, it can be a struggle.

[dougskiles]

As a non-planner / transportation expert, it seems like I've hoped for the "opposite" whenever I've been in that area.  A thinner street with slower traffic; lighting, crosswalks, etc., built from the pedestrian perspective.   That was a lot of money spent down there...I don't even like walking down there...ie., it's not "comfortable." 

Is there anyway to implement the BRT route without it being detrimental to pedestrian / urban environment???

Exactly!  It doesn't have to be an expressway design for a road.  I don't think many people have an issue with a bus traveling on the street.  It's the overkill of pavement that has made the pedestrian experience dangerous.

What I've heard from JTA is that they need the dedicated lanes on Riverplace otherwise they won't make the federal funding requirements (they acknowledge that there isn't a technical warrant for the dedicated lanes).

They also felt like they have involved all of the "stakeholders" in the design of this road.  When the crowd at the meeting last night was asked how many had received a notice from JTA about this project, not a single hand went up.

[fieldafm]

I wholeheartedly agree with all of the statements so far.

Unfortunately, JTA is in a position where they are just following the money on plans that quite frankly don't benefit Jacksonville.  It's high time that they reverse this trend.

[tufsu1]

as Doug has noted above, Federal requirements for BRT require a certain percentage of dedicated lanes....I'm sure the downtown segment would be fine without dedicated lanes on Riverplace, but that section may also be counted as part of the plans for the north and/or southeast lines.

and while I'm not a huge fan of some of the details, providing better transportation access to jobs (northside residential to southside employment) is a good thing for Jacksonville.

[Steve_Lovett]

As a non-planner / transportation expert, it seems like I've hoped for the "opposite" whenever I've been in that area.  A thinner street with slower traffic; lighting, crosswalks, etc., built from the pedestrian perspective.   That was a lot of money spent down there...I don't even like walking down there...ie., it's not "comfortable." 

Is there anyway to implement the BRT route without it being detrimental to pedestrian / urban environment???

Exactly!  It doesn't have to be an expressway design for a road.  I don't think many people have an issue with a bus traveling on the street.  It's the overkill of pavement that has made the pedestrian experience dangerous.

What I've heard from JTA is that they need the dedicated lanes on Riverplace otherwise they won't make the federal funding requirements (they acknowledge that there isn't a technical warrant for the dedicated lanes).

They also felt like they have involved all of the "stakeholders" in the design of this road.  When the crowd at the meeting last night was asked how many had received a notice from JTA about this project, not a single hand went up.

Worth noting, not a single hand ----- out of 100-125 in the room.

[thelakelander]

To JTA's credit, there have been countless numbers of public hearings on this BRT project over the last decade.  I suspect that notices may have gone out to property owners and media sites moreso than individual building tenants.

What I've heard from JTA is that they need the dedicated lanes on Riverplace otherwise they won't make the federal funding requirements (they acknowledge that there isn't a technical warrant for the dedicated lanes).

This is the problem with over relying on federal dollars.  You tend to place less value on what your local environment actually needs.  I stand by my position that BRT should be done locally without federal assistance.  Instead of worrying about getting bigger buses, queue jumps, etc., we should look to modify a few existing bus routes instead.  The Charlotte Sprinter is a great example to follow.

Is there anyway to implement the BRT route without it being detrimental to pedestrian / urban environment???

Yes.  However, it would require dramatically altering the work that JTA has done to date and would cost a lot more.  See Cleveland's Health Line below for a BRT project done in a context sensitive street manner:

[thelakelander]

as Doug has noted above, Federal requirements for BRT require a certain percentage of dedicated lanes....I'm sure the downtown segment would be fine without dedicated lanes on Riverplace, but that section may also be counted as part of the plans for the north and/or southeast lines.

Meaning the Southbank situation is only a microcosm of what's to come.  Looking at both, the North and South corridors, it's clear that dedicated lanes are being added where the roads happen to be wide enough and not where they may actually be warranted.  If the goal is to simple get federal money, I guess that works.  However, it will come at the expense  of other modes of mobility that typically feed riders into BRT. The prefect example is the omission of bike infrastructure on Jefferson and Broad, which is just as horrible to the Northbank as dedicated BRT lanes on the Riverplace is to the Southbank.

[Ocklawaha]

Where do the BRT buses go?  1.)  Are the Lem Turner buses going to terminate at The Avenues?  2.) Do both lines turn back at Rosa Parks?   3.) Will both lines eventually turn back at the JRTC?

If it's option 1.) then why not run these buses NON-STOP between Rosa Parks and Kings Avenue?  This allows the Skyway to serve as a feeder for the BRT trunk line. It also allows passengers going from end to end a much faster trip.

Option 2.) If it's option two, the same solution should apply, what can the bus bring us that the Skyway can't between Rosa Parks and Kings Avenue.

3.) If and when this becomes the goal, consider our investment in Rosa Parks, Kings Avenue, JRTC and The Skyway and simply do the right thing, terminate the north route at the JRTC or Rosa Parks, and terminate the Philips route at Kings Avenue. Funnel this traffic onto our elevated system.

[tufsu1]

3.) If and when this becomes the goal, consider our investment in Rosa Parks, Kings Avenue, JRTC and The Skyway and simply do the right thing, terminate the north route at the JRTC or Rosa Parks, and terminate the Philips route at Kings Avenue. Funnel this traffic onto our elevated system.

so you want to make a 3-seat ride out of a trip from the northside to the southside?  Most transit folks realize that anything more than a 2-seat ride is a deterrent to system use.

I believe the intent is that the system will run from north to south (i.e., not turning back)

[thelakelander]

Make it a one seat ride with the downtown stops only occurring at Rosa Parks & Kings Avenue.  That's the easiest way to do it operationally but that doesn't deal with the design issue that has the Southbank worried.