Do you wish Jacksonville had Commuter Rail?

[mtraininjax]

Rail dollars are falling from the sky or they grow on trees, perhaps, if you are in fantasyland. When the JTA cannot spend enough money for a flyover from 95 S to JTB E, it means trouble in the budget, so they will instead widen 95 and create turn-only lanes.

Not that the Southside area does not have plenty of vacant buildings, when the next growth spurt takes place, with nothing to satisfy the road nazis, will JTA have a plan that includes more buses up and down JTB?

[CS Foltz]

I agree.....more bus's are not the answer...better route planning might help, but rail would be a better choice for innercity travel. BRT just increases the asphalt area required and does nothing to alleviate congestion if the BRT is not filled to capacity!

[charlestondxman]

I really wish Jacksonville had commuter rail. It would be a money maker. Imagine a St. Augustine-Jacksonville commuter rail train. Vacationers could fly into the Jax airport, take the train to downtown, and then get on the skyway or commuter rail and get anywhere in town.

I'm in favor of it, as listening to WOKV every afternoon from Charleston, I can hear how bad traffic is in the morning and afternoon in Jacksonville. It is just as bad in Charleston every morning, with Interstate 26 being the big backup. They are planning a commuter rail to stop this backup, from Summerville to Charleston.

[aaapolito]

As a person who grew up with commuter rail in NJ/NY, I would love the option here in Jax.  I currently live off JTB and work downtown.  Even if the train ride took me 5-10 minutes more than driving without traffic, I would use rail.  However, everyone knows that traffic on JTB and 95 is inevitable, making a 30 minute train ride likely to be a shorter and less stressful ride than sitting in traffic.

[thelakelander]

I'd take it as well.  I commute from the Avenues to a downtown office building adjacent to the skyway daily. 

Traffic really sucks heading southbound on I-95 and Philips around 5pm.  I find myself staying at work later each day to let traffic die down.  It also backs up between Baymeadows and University northbound each morning.  Its only going to get worse once the Overland Bridge and JTB interchange projects kick into high gear.

Personally, a train would cut down the amount of money I spend in gas, insurance and auto maintenance.  I could also use that travel time to relax, read a book, paper or surf the web instead of being stuck behind the wheel.  Locally, its the more cost effective option to deal with current and future congestion.  It also gives Jacksonville the opportunity to revitalize the Philips corridor as a walkable transit oriented district instead of the blighted gateway into downtown it is today.  Extra money gained from higher property values along that stretch (and others like it) is the type of thing that will help the city with its annual budget issues.

When everything is laid out on the table, I see no reason to not do it ASAP.

[Ocklawaha]

I really wish Jacksonville had commuter rail. It would be a money maker. Imagine a St. Augustine-Jacksonville commuter rail train. Vacationers could fly into the Jax airport, take the train to downtown, and then get on the skyway or commuter rail and get anywhere in town.

I'm in favor of it, as listening to WOKV every afternoon from Charleston, I can hear how bad traffic is in the morning and afternoon in Jacksonville. It is just as bad in Charleston every morning, with Interstate 26 being the big backup. They are planning a commuter rail to stop this backup, from Summerville to Charleston.

Friend Charlestondxman, I gotta call you out on this one. Commuter Rail in Jacksonville, will become very popular as more people are introduced to it and as other transit links up. Rail in Jacksonville, will NOT BE A MONEY MAKER, not here, not ever. Not in New York, Not in Chicago, Not in Moscow, Not in London... Won't happen because the cost of equipment, labor, maintenance, track agreements, stations, etc... will continue to be in the Millions of dollars. Just do the quick math, even if we put 200 persons on each train - just on the St. Augustine line, what are they going to be willing to pay for a 5 day a week round trip? $5.00? (that's the cost in Dallas for the LRT-CR-Streetcar pass per day). How long will that train have to do this in order to bring in 1 Million dollars? Now take out for fuel, and all of the above costs and you'll quickly dig a hole in the ground.

The bright side of all of this that except for ZEPPELINS, there is no cheaper way to move large masses of people, so even with the costs figured in, it's still a great deal.

OCKLAWAHA

[stjr]

Ock, is it possible that rail and other mass transit are not profitable because their fares don't fully value their services due to competing with even more subsidized transit such as roads?

Imagine if the ONLY way to travel was to walk, bike, or take mass transit.  Mass transit could very likely demand a profit generating fare for distances beyond walking or biking.  But, add that one can drive a car for the same or less cost than mass transit due to the provision of totally free roads and the mass transit fares are now forced into a money losing fire sale.  This same model is mostly what keeps the airlines from remaining consistently profitable.  Without business fare premiums for the speed of flying it is unlikely air travel could economically survive either.  Witness the present where few business fares are being paid.

It's obvious to me that if the auto/road complex didn't exist, mass transit could very likely be instantly profitable.

[stephendare]

500 dollars a month car payment, 150 a month insurance
200 a month in fuel.

I don't see that the cars are less expensive that mass transit, even with the trillions we have to spend in subsidies.

[stjr]

500 dollars a month car payment, 150 a month insurance
200 a month in fuel.

I don't see that the cars are less expensive that mass transit, even with the trillions we have to spend in subsidies.

Stephen, I am not convinced.

What would be cheaper, if you only had one choice: To lay a rail and fuel, insure, and maintain a modern train while transporting millions of people over it or to buy land, clear it, and build an interstate and then buy millions of cars and fuel, insure, and maintain them?  I think the answer is obvious.  And, the proof exists in much of the world where, when only one system can be supported affordably, it's mass transit.

[stephendare]

I think we are agreein stjr.

Rail is much less expensive than cars and roads.

[stjr]

I think we are agreein stjr.

Rail is much less expensive than cars and roads.

On a re-read, I see your point.  My apologies. 

[CS Foltz]

Rail is the grail!

[tufsu1]

500 dollars a month car payment, 150 a month insurance
200 a month in fuel.

I don't see that the cars are less expensive that mass transit, even with the trillions we have to spend in subsidies.

The problem with that math is that most people will still want their cars....what we need to do is show that the overall costs for transit are less than roads (keeping cars out of the equation) and that there are other savings/benefits generated.

[Bewler]

500 dollars a month car payment, 150 a month insurance
200 a month in fuel.

Don’t forget repair and maintenance costs.

[Ocklawaha]

Hey y'all, try the calculator for your commuter costs:

http://www.apta.com/services/transit_calculator/.cfm

stjr, certainly if walking or bicycles were the only alternatives, we would see rail passenger services as profitable, at least in most areas.



Rail comes with certain attractors and economy's that (again) nothing but a Zeppelin could come close to matching. We constantly hear from some out in cyberland that make wild and thoughtless statements such as:

"Well when the train can take me to Miami in two hours, only then will I ride rather then drive." This kind of talk does nothing to improve our transit options, and shows COMPLETE IGNORANCE of the subject. If the FEC train will be reaching 90 MPH, and having ridden over that track, I don't see why it wouldn't work. When speeds are averaged, then the train will be AS FAST or FASTER then I-95, but not by much. We get the glorious fly boys of the 21St century with their equally thoughtless statements about non-stop "flyer trains."  Again this demonstrates a complete ignorance of the subject matter.



One of the best performing passenger trains in the entire nation is Amtrak's EMPIRE BUILDER. Named for James Hill, who constructed the GREAT NORTHERN RAILROAD, between (Chicago) The twin Cities and Seattle/Portland.
The train does a "Jacksonville" in Spokane, where it splits in two sections. One operates to Seattle while the other heads south to the Columbia River and rolls west into Portland. The EMPIRE BUILDER, is a high level (double decked) premo service. The reason it covers it's expenses and even makes a dime every now and then are for the exact reasons you describe stjr. Running just South of the Canadian border this deluxe train doesn't serve enough people between Minneapolis and Spokane, to fill a average Jacksonville grade school. Yet the train does the trick because much of the journey are to isolated small towns. These towns have horrible weather, which seldom stops a train, and they have little or no airline, or even freeway services. So this daily trek is their access to the outside world. Few on the passenger list are going to travel all the way from Chicago to Seattle/Portland, yet thousands of them use the train to reach the big cities both East and West of: North Dakota, Montana, Minnesota and Idaho.



We must retrain our thoughts, not to some vague Jacksonville to Miami speedway, but the quick and convenient way to to from St. Augustine, to Daytona; from Daytona to Titusville, etc... One long distance train serving 10+ mini-corridors.

OCKLAWAHA