Working Group: Transit Issues and SPAR

[zoo]

A trolley up Main would be truly cool.  I do, however, agree that seeing it anytime soon is somewhat impractical.

Lol. Strider, I get a kick out of how, even when you agree with me, you hold fast to finding ways to disagree with me  . Until FDOT rejected JTA's operational grant recently, JTA's planned timing for implementing trolley on Main was less than 18 months out (Fall of 2009).

Want the trolley?  Now is certainly the time to start working towards it.

This is my disagreement with lake's premise, as well. I believe if Springfield agrees to increased bus traffic on Main (and probably on 8th, as well, as one of the key stops for this system is the medical complex area at Shands), JTA will have an excuse to not see a transit need for ANYTHING OTHER THAN BUS through Springfield ("We're serving that area with our new, increased bus service, so why do we need to keep exploring trolley or streetcar?")

Agreeing to increased bus service on Main will effectively be working AGAINST other transit options (maybe even S-line?), and in imo, doesn't optimally meet the needs of the major employer and compromises any progress being made to commercial improvement on Main.

[thelakelander]

I hate that it seems we are settling as BRT as a forgone conclusion.

Crap.

Perhaps it would be better if we and JTA refer to this current North Corridor as "Rapid or Express" bus instead of BRT?  This is a completely different animal from the thing JTA originally came in the door with that included elevated dedicated busways paralleling rail, bus only transit malls through downtown and a lie that it could be a substitute for rail. 

The maps and presentations at the last JTA meeting I attended (I think only 7 residents came out during the two hour public dog and pony show session) show this is a different animal with a different price tag.

This thread shows that we were pretty effective poisoning the term "BRT" locally (I'm definately not complaining about this accomplishment).  However, for any rail plan to work, you need a decent bus system to go along with it.  With that said, since JTA is now proposing to use existing roads for this north corridor, I do wonder what's stoping them from simply redirecting routes to run some form of this service down these streets now.  Imo, this would be a pretty cheap way to evaluate it's success before sinking millions into signal and infrastructure upgrades.

[zoo]

I believe if Springfield agrees to increased bus traffic on Main (and probably on 8th, as well, as one of the key stops for this system is the medical complex area at Shands), JTA will have an excuse to not see a transit need for ANYTHING OTHER THAN BUS through Springfield ("We're serving that area with our new, increased bus service, so why do we need to keep exploring trolley or streetcar?")

Agreeing to increased bus service on Main will effectively be working AGAINST other transit options (maybe even S-line?)

Lake, did you have a professional opinion re: these observations?

[downtownparks]

I dont understand why this is even an issue then. It sounds like they are basically retreading the bus, and calling it something new.

We have buses in the neighborhood. In fact, back when Main St was being torn up from 1st to 4th, the buses temporarily moved on to Laura. They sucked. The entire house shook when they went by at 35 mph.

I don't have a good feeling about any of this. Put express buses on main commercial corridors, not on residential streets, and for the love of god stop calling it something new and different when it is really just a different shade of the same color.

[thelakelander]

Springfield isn't turning away money. It's just not foolishly banking on it from local govt or related authorities in this fiscal climate. If COJ/JTA want to fund projects in the community, fine. However, I don't think the community should just sit back and accept what those entities propose just because they will buy us off with beautification, when that is often the smallest piece of the cost pie.

That's definately not what I'm advocating and I'm not endorsing any specific route as being better than the other.  My point is JTA has goals and federal funding to improve something that could benefit Springfield and the neighborhoods it provides access to.  Its to Springfield's benefit to become an active player in the planning process to make sure that the money invested in the area benefits the long term vision of the community.  With this in mind, if you have the opportunity to get some things done by working with JTA, take advantage of it. 

Also, when I say active I mean "poison the groundwater" active.  This means you have strong representation at ALL project meetings and planning sessions (even those outside of your neighborhood) pushing your agenda. 

Are there improvements out there that we would like to see in the community that we have a problem finding funding for?

Yes, but this because we have advocated and waited for municipal or authority funding (and are still waiting for the Greenway to happen, the new infrastructure beneath Silver St, the trolley, additional paving/underground utilities in residential areas, park revitalization, Park View Inn demolition, etc.) Springfield has new funding mechanisms in place that could make a big difference in a lot of projects, including beautification on Main - it is important that Springfield use these to their fullest as urgently as possible.

I think we're on the same page.  All I'm saying is don't favor one option over another, which has been done in the past as described in your response.  In this case, its okay to bring sand to the beach.

Do we have the possibility to get something funded by working with JTA?

As I've said, I question this. Springfield worked with JTA on the trolley, and the operational service grant got denied in favor of 5 or so others JTA also submitted. JTA (acting as contractor?) completed 8th Street. But funding for that was through BJP, correct? New historically-themed bus stops were put in - if JTA found funding for this, I'll give them credit for this success. I just don't want Springfield to count on, or trade increased bus traffic on our soon-pedestrian-friendly corridor for, some unassured expectation of funding for smaller-cost beautification projects.

BRT on Jefferson is still my vote.

Not having curb cuts on multiple blocks, bicycle lanes, a bad median landscape plan and no pedestrian warning signage are things that hurt the walkability of Main.  FDOT has been allowed to convert the street into a hybrid freeway.  Decent bus service on Main Street (a bus every 10 minutes) won't take away from the goal of making Main pedestrian friendly.  Unlike the Adams Street plan (buses every 90 seconds in a narrow corridor), regular big city bus service will most likely enhance commercial opportunities for a corridor like Main by bringing additional potential customers into the strip.

When I mention working with JTA to get additional things funded, I mean items that may not typically be associated with transit.  Think park improvements, streetscape enhancements, utility work, pedestrian signage, lighting, etc.  Working to get a fake trolley will birth only a fake trolley until funding runs out.  However, making JTA tie in their plans with things such as additional themed lighting, new sidewalks, utility lines or perhaps a joint station/Shands/park improvement development will have a lasting impact on the community.

Btw, the faux trolley are essentially the same idea as the concept of BRT.  Its trying to reduce the national stigma associated with buses by providing a more attractive, reliable service.  The major negative of both is when we use them in ways they were not intended to be used, such as a replacement for rail, which has been done in the past.  These things should be used to complement rail (ex. like the new Rapid/Express Bus Plan).

[thelakelander]

I believe if Springfield agrees to increased bus traffic on Main (and probably on 8th, as well, as one of the key stops for this system is the medical complex area at Shands), JTA will have an excuse to not see a transit need for ANYTHING OTHER THAN BUS through Springfield ("We're serving that area with our new, increased bus service, so why do we need to keep exploring trolley or streetcar?")

Agreeing to increased bus service on Main will effectively be working AGAINST other transit options (maybe even S-line?)

Lake, did you have a professional opinion re: these observations?

My professional opinion says those who believe FDOT will allow streetcars on Main are wasting their time and valuable resources.  FDOT is in the business of moving cars as efficiently as they can.  This is why they have put medians in the middle of Main and a host of other streets throughout the State.  Imo, if you want to effectively make change, you simplify the issues.  Convincing FDOT to rip up the investment they are currently making to introduce something they will view as not improving vehicular flow falls in the category of complicating the issue.

In regards to the S-Line, I mentioned it before in an earlier post, that its best to view things from a bird's eye view.  The S-Line would become a part of a regional rail line connecting Jax with St. Augustine, Clay County and Fernandina Beach.  In terms of the S-Line's viability, what happens in Springfield at street level is insignificant.  It could tie directly into Shands, not stop in Springfield and still be a viable transit option for residents on their way to Imeson Industrial Park, the port, Airport and Shand's proposed North Campus.  In the S-line's case, its Springfield that should be lobbying to make sure they get a station since its been proven that rail brings billions in economic infill and development.

So to sum it up, for any mass transit system to work, it needs the other to complement it.  You can't have successful rail without decent bus service and you can't have buses set up to do what rail does.  In their current configuration, they complement each other.  Neither of these systems need Springfield to succeed.  Springfield needs to tap into them to benefit.   

[thelakelander]

Commuter rail study map:



This gives one a bird's eye view of how the S-Line fits in with the commuter rail plan.  Springfield is represented with two dots (ex. Shands & Warehouse District).

[thelakelander]

I dont understand why this is even an issue then. It sounds like they are basically retreading the bus, and calling it something new.

We have buses in the neighborhood. In fact, back when Main St was being torn up from 1st to 4th, the buses temporarily moved on to Laura. They sucked. The entire house shook when they went by at 35 mph.

I don't have a good feeling about any of this. Put express buses on main commercial corridors, not on residential streets, and for the love of god stop calling it something new and different when it is really just a different shade of the same color.

This will be a bus that makes limited stops between I-295 & Lem Turner Road and Downtown.  The price has been reduced because the dedicated busway option has been eliminated (which is a great thing).  The new grey buses you see driving down the streets today will most likely end up as the buses using this route.  They also plan to spend a little money on signals, modern bus stations, landscaping.    In other words if a bus is considered a pig, they're visiting Mary Kay for a few boxes of lipstick in the hopes she gets laid by someone who has had a few too many shots of Crowne Royal.  That's all it is.  So we do have to ask ourselves if it is best to have express buses on commercial corridors or residential streets?

[thelakelander]

A trolley up Main would be truly cool.  I do, however, agree that seeing it anytime soon is somewhat impractical.

Lol. Strider, I get a kick out of how, even when you agree with me, you hold fast to finding ways to disagree with me  . Until FDOT rejected JTA's operational grant recently, JTA's planned timing for implementing trolley on Main was less than 18 months out (Fall of 2009).

Want the trolley?  Now is certainly the time to start working towards it.

This is my disagreement with lake's premise, as well. I believe if Springfield agrees to increased bus traffic on Main (and probably on 8th, as well, as one of the key stops for this system is the medical complex area at Shands), JTA will have an excuse to not see a transit need for ANYTHING OTHER THAN BUS through Springfield ("We're serving that area with our new, increased bus service, so why do we need to keep exploring trolley or streetcar?")

Agreeing to increased bus service on Main will effectively be working AGAINST other transit options (maybe even S-line?), and in imo, doesn't optimally meet the needs of the major employer and compromises any progress being made to commercial improvement on Main.

Considering the options on the table, why should pursuing a faux trolley down Main be viewed as a higher priority over commuter rail or rapid bus improvements?  The faux trolleys don't spur economic development, raise property values or enhance an area's image the way rail does.  They also don't provide better access throughout the region the way rapid bus improvements will?  As for real streetcars, its great if planned on local roads.  Why wait 15 - 30 years to deal with FDOT (they could still end up giving you the middle finger) if you could have a version on local roads/ROW up and running within five?

[zoo]

Not having curb cuts on multiple blocks, bicycle lanes, a bad median landscape plan and no pedestrian warning signage are things that hurt the walkability of Main.

Agreed. Why add (or in this case increase) one more thing that could make it unpleasant to walk there?

Btw, the faux trolley are essentially the same idea as the concept of BRT.  Its trying to reduce the national stigma associated with buses by providing a more attractive, reliable service.

We know they are dressed up buses. This, as a stigma-reduction tactic, is working in Riverside and at the Beaches, so I'm for it.

My professional opinion says those who believe FDOT will allow streetcars on Main are wasting their time and valuable resources.  FDOT is in the business of moving cars as efficiently as they can.  This is why they have put medians in the middle of Main and a host of other streets throughout the State.  Imo, if you want to effectively make change, you simplify the issues.  Convincing FDOT to rip up the investment they are currently making to introduce something they will view as not improving vehicular flow falls in the category of complicating the issue.

Any govt entity will move at a glacier's pace, and seek a reason to say no to most requests, regardless of how logical. It's how they work. I wouldn't have thought a band of creative-classers with a forum board and no inside-govt role in local or regional transit (even with transit experience or expertise), would have a shot at slowing NEFL's old-guard transportation approaches (MORE & BIGGER BUSES and HWGHYS you insolent citizenry!) - but metrojacksonville.com has. We need to convince JTA that it should be telling FDOT that a downtown/Springfield streetcar line will help Jax in terms of economic development under its medical tourism and CBD revitalization initiatives...

In the S-line's case, its Springfield that should be lobbying to make sure they get a station

Springfield needs to tap into them to benefit.

Agreed.

I have always supported having Springfield station(s) on any proposed S-line route through working with a representative at metrojacksonville.com and within JTA. I recall a representative of SPAR taking the same position in a meeting with Mike Miller (though I believe that was a personal position, rather than an official one as that would require board approval).

I don't think anyone in Springfield has said I only want trolley, or I only want streetcar (for sure I haven't). Busing that is currently here serving residents and businesses, fine (although I'd like to see the stop on E 7th b/w Main & Hubbard disappear, as there are 2 others within a block of it, and its existence seems unjustified).

Trolley to be replaced by streetcar someday, fine.

Having the S-line run through Springfield's warehouse district would be a great boon to downtown area development on the whole, as well as to Springfield - fine.

I agree complementing is the way to go, but I don't agree one transit type should be increased in the short-term, with unpromised funds as the justification, while risking the overall character of the Historic District and potentially the other complementing transit types that are a better fit.

BTW, even though current S-line proposal is focused on land already owned by COJ, from a budgeting and timing perspective, aren't we still much further away from getting that implemented than trolley, even IF trolley is delayed until next years' operational grant application cycle (Fall 2010)?

[zoo]

The faux trolleys don't spur economic development, raise property values or enhance an area's image the way rail does.

Agreed. Trolleys implementation time: 1 year. Streetcar implementation time on local roadways: 5 years. S-line implementation time on CROW:?

SPAR should take a stance on all of these. I never advocated only one form of transit in Springfield. I only advocated against increasing traditional/express/rapid bus on Main Street or Boulevard.

[thelakelander]

The faux trolley, commuter rail and amtrak improvements stand in completely different categories with me from an urban planning and priority standpoint.

Calling the faux trolley a success really depends on how success is defined.  Imo, transit should also help facilitate growth, connectivity and spur economic development.  Its just a minature green bus driving down existing streets.  It does not attract high ridership numbers (I believe its lower than the skyway's numbers annually), spur economic development, visual or infrastructure improvement along the corridors it serves.  Downtown's continued struggles are a clear example of this.  

Furthermore, there is no opportunity to create an income generator with the faux trolley.  Amtrak's studies already show they can break even running corridor service between Jax and Florida's other cities.  Like commuter rail and streetcars, it also spurs economic development in the form of TODs.

Laying track on the S-line also provides the city the opportunity to make money with freight and port operations.  These are funds that could be possibly used for annual O&M costs for a passenger service along the same line.

On the other hand the faux trolley does complement the activity taking place in Five Point and the Beaches.  The key difference is these places were already vibrant.  We will not get the same effect with Main, which is probably why funding was rejected when stacked side to side with the other proposals.  

Out of all modes discussed above, Amtrak will probably be the quickest to bring online, but that plan will not impact Springfield.

As for JTA running buses every ten minutes down a major spine through the Northside, I simply don't see this as a negative in any fashion from an urban planning standpoint.  All of the systems discussed are different modes of mass transit that are used for different reasons.  Enhancing a poor bus service does not take away from rail.  However, Peyton's plan to take more money from JTA for roads will reduce the viability of both.  In any event rail, streetcar or not, Jax can't consider itself a first class american city with third world bus service.  Increasing bus headways to make the system more reliable should have happened years ago.

[thelakelander]

The faux trolleys don't spur economic development, raise property values or enhance an area's image the way rail does.

Agreed. Trolleys implementation time: 1 year. Streetcar implementation time on local roadways: 5 years. S-line implementation time on CROW:?

SPAR should take a stance on all of these. I never advocated only one form of transit in Springfield. I only advocated against increasing traditional/express/rapid bus on Main Street or Boulevard.

It should be noted that we are coming at this from two different angles.  Springfield is your top priority, so your view is more centered around the community.  My view is more regional, long term and economically impacting.  The trolley is not on my list, but it would look something like this.

1. Amtrak Florida Corridor Service

2. Commuter Rail

3. BRT

As for Springfield, here is how I would approach these issues from a planning perspective.

1. BRT (take official position on it and work it into the commerical revitalization plan and Shand's long term goals.  I think JTA wants this thing running by 2010 or 2011.)

2. Commuter Rail (with community support, this can easily happen within five years)

3. Streetcar (the study is delayed so priorities should be shifted to commuter rail)

BRT and commuter rail may be a few years from happening, but Springfield will be locked into whatever JTA is planning right now if the groundwater isn't poisoned.

[zoo]

On the other hand the faux trolley does complement the activity taking place in Five Point and the Beaches.  The key difference is these places were already vibrant.  We will not get the same effect with Main, which is probably why funding was rejected when stacked side to side with the other proposals. 

Springfield has a VERY vibrant residential fabric (maybe just as vibrant as these other areas' commercial districts ;-), just not much reason to bring it on to Main/8th at this time. This could change as early as April with the completion of the Cesery project and Uptown Market opening, provided there is some connectivity with other vibrant pods like the Pearl and Shanty/Zombie/Burro Bags areas.

Area residents have been asking for transit options into downtown, a mere mile away, for several years, as many work there and have professional commitments that don't jive with walking/biking (much of Jacksonville is just too stuffy to be ok with a professional person showing up for work in semi-casual biking gear - trust me, I've tried it).

In addition, Shands/UF complex has 5,000 employees who currently have to get in their cars to get to and from work, and to do basic convenience errands during work breaks. A trolley could get them directly to Carl's, Uptown Market, or into downtown to the Library or eateries.

As for Springfield, this would I think should be happening from a planning perspective.

1. BRT (take official position on it and work it into the commerical revitalization plan and Shand's long term goals.  I think JTA wants this thing running by 2010 or 2011.)

2. Commuter Rail (with community support, this can easily happen within five years)

3. Streetcar (the study is delayed so priorities should be shifted to commuter rail)

Totally agree with this, with the exception of absent, more short-term trolley solution. I put this at the front due to 1-2 year time frame, and connectivity that could be created between Springfield and Downtown.

BRT and commuter rail may be a few years from happening, but Springfield will be locked into whatever JTA is planning right now if the groundwater isn't poisoned.

I agree this should be up there, as well, and is why I am weighing in with my opinion. I in no way trust JTA to have Springfield's best interests at the top of their priority list. As you have indicated, metrojacksonville.com's focus is regional transit, rather than what will most benefit a particular community. I support metrojacksonville.com's regional transit focus and priorities. I am hopeful, in the coming SPAR board elections, someone with the expertise and training will be run and be elected, such that making SPAR's BRT stance official and liaising with JTA and metrojacksonville.com on larger transit issues will have a committed, and more available, representative.

Meanwhile, I will continue doing what I can do, as a representative of myself, to encourage the future success of the community.

[JaxByDefault]

BRT and commuter rail may be a few years from happening, but Springfield will be locked into whatever JTA is planning right now if the groundwater isn't poisoned.

Especially in terms of lobbying, funding procurement, and long-term development strategy, this is absolutely true.

Bus service improvements will bring most all of their dollars to the neighborhood during the project implementation. We need to make sure those infrastructure improvements happen where they are needed most.

Commuter rail will drive development for decades and Springfield needs to pounce on getting a piece of the pie -- not on the study map that the stop in the warehouse district is considered an "additional" or expansion stop. Along with the stop at Shands, we should push to have the warehouse district included in the original roll out.

I would love to see a street car or trolley service in the area, but I don't think a route that goes from Shands to First&Main is best route. It does little to promote downtown and inter-neighborhood connectivity. If you were talking real rail trolley, any line would also have to service downtown to be useful. If we're talking bus-trolley, those lines follow development, not spur development (example: Riverside and Beaches services).

I agree with Lakelander's ranking of priority transit issues. None of the urban core neighborhoods can afford myopic thinking on transit issues.