Seattle Light Rail Opens. 92,000 Celebrate

[Keith-N-Jax]

Shows what a city with vision can accomplish...  get it together Jacksonville.
[/quote]

really?

There are those that have argued that Seattle should have had light rail 10+ years ago....remember, its a much bigger and denser metroplitan area than Jacksonville.
[/quote]

There is nothing wrong with this statement ,Jacksonville does need to pull it together, doesnt matter that Seatlle is bigger, many other cities our size and smaller have acomplished alot more than we have. People need to stop running to the defense of Jax and its poor vision. This person is only stating the obvious.

[tufsu1]

and the flip side is also true Keith....people continue to bash Jackconville from the inside while looking at other cities from the outside....

Perhaps if you all did some research, you would find that the people of Seattle debated rail transit for over two decades...and that's in an urban area that is pretty progressive and environmentally progressive.

So how does that fit with the view that Seattle has vision and we don't?

[thelakelander]

Hopefully, we can learn from Seattle's +two decade debate. 

We've been toying around off & on with the idea of rail transit since the early 1970s.  If we're lucky, the national political environment will finally be enough to motivate our city to turn debate and ideas into reality.

[Keith-N-Jax]

I dont think people really bash Jax. Most are just wanting and expecting more. When the city continues to make mistakes and I we all do, but its time for them to get it together. I am sure all cities have their issues, homeless, money issues, taxes, etc. I see nothing wrong with applauding another city efforts and fact that they did pulled it together shows their resolve in getting it done despite some conflicts. I dont know if Bash is the right word I think people from other cities tend to bash us if anything. I do believe most on here just want us to be headed in the right direction. Tufsu1, there are people who dont care about DT or their own nieghborhood, so I am glad to see positive and negatives views.

[stjr]

Marinating this creates an idea to increase the proposed Skyway extension to go all the way to the Publix in Riverside, build a station on top of the Publix building etc. That will make grocery shopping so much easier for a lot of people in Springfield, Downtown and San Marco. It will also increase shopper traffic between the Riverside Arts Market and Five Points.

Yep, extending the $ky-high-way would probably cure cancer based on the enthusiasm of its proponents.

How many people do you think would carry arm loads of heavy grocery bags to an elevated platform, cram into a "bus" ride for 15 to 25 minutes (with stops) across town with the bags smooshed in their lap, elbow their way out of the "bus", ride the escalator down, and walk several blocks or more to their homes?  And, by now, their ice cream is melted, the frozen food is half thawed, the condensation in the heat has soaked through the paper bags, and the rider is exhausted.

RAM is open on Saturdays for about 6 or 7 hours.  Despite its success to date and its connection to the riverwalk, so few people care to ride the $ky-high-way to access the riverwalk a block or two from some of its stations, that JTA just eliminated Saturday service.  Not a good sign that RAM will make a difference.

Please jump over to our thread on a "Riverside Extension" where you can enjoy, once again, a rehash of the debate over the $ky-high-way rather than compel us to start again here  ! 

See: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,5549.0.html 

[tufsu1]

huh...please explain how the current skyway gpes anywhere near the RAM?

[thelakelander]

I'm still trying to figure that one out.  RAM should have zero impact on skyway operations.

[stjr]

huh...please explain how the current skyway gpes anywhere near the RAM?

It doesn't.  If you read my post again, you will see I said the RIVERWALK (that connects to RAM) is a block or two from some stations.  Details, details.

I'm still trying to figure that one out.  RAM should have zero impact on skyway operations.

My point exactly.  It doesn't and it probably never will .

[heights unknown]

(Sigh)...if only this were Jacksonville celebrating the opening of light rail.  From looking at the map, we could do the same...that is, from the Southern portion of Duval County (or even a metro light rail starting in St. Johns County) and ending either at the Airport or Fernandina in Nassau County.  Maybe one day.

Heights Unknown

[thelakelander]

The numbers prove my original point.  Seattle is a much larger and denser urban area.  

Seattle is a larger and denser urban community all the way around.  However, this should not be used as an excuse to why they can pull something rail-based off and we can't.  For every dense community (Seattle, Los Angeles, NYC, Boston, New Orleans, Philly, etc.) that has invested in rail, you'll find another that is suburban (Phoenix, Charlotte, Tacoma, Little Rock, Nashville, Kenosha, etc.) and invested also.  

Jacksonville
 - City    794,555 (13th)
 - Density    1,061.6/sq mi (409.89/km2)
 - Urban    913,125
 - Metro    1,313,228

Seattle
 - City    602,000 (US: 25th)
 - Density    7,179.4/sq mi (2,772/km2)
 - Urban    2,712,205
 - Metro    3,344,813 (US: 15th)

here are the actual numbers.  The main difference between the two areas is that there are no vast tracts of land that are completely undeveloped in seattle the way there is in jacksonville.

Here are two more important numbers:

Seattle urban area density: 2,844.1
Jacksonville urban area density: 2,149.2

The main difference is that Jax is consolidated with Duval County and Seattle is not, with King County.  Nevertheless, the numbers above still demonstrate that Seattle is a larger and denser urban area.  Imaginary municipal limit boundaries don't amount to much in this case because Jax is consolidated with a significant portion of its suburbs (Mandarin, Argyle, Oceanway, etc.) and Seattle is not.

The actual population of Seattle is significantly less than Jacksonville's.

We all know true development is rarely contained to imaginary municipal boundaries, thus urban area statistics are more accurate to compare because the data used to compile them is the same for each city.

City limit wise, Jax has the benefit of being consolidated with Duval, thus covering over 767 miles of land area, with a population of 807,815.  On the other hand, Seattle manages to pack in 602,000 people in 142 miles of land area.  King County has nearly 2 million residents.  If Seattle's unconsolidated municipal borders were extended to cover the same land area as Jax's consolidated, it would be much larger and denser.  When you look at urban area numbers (apples to apples), it is.

Also their 'metropolitan area' includes the entire cities of Tacoma and Bellevue.  This would be like claiming Orlando and Daytona as part of the Jacksonville Metropolitan area.   While the cities are closer together, trust me they are quite separate.

Seattle to Bellevue = 13 miles
Seattle to Tacoma = 37 miles

Jacksonville to Orange Park = 15 miles
Jacksonville to Fernandina Beach = 34 miles
Jacksonville to St. Augustine = 40 miles

Tacoma & Bellevue are to Seattle what Orange Park, Fernandina Beach and St. Augustine are to Jacksonville.  Suburbs and cities in the same metropolitan area connected to the core city (ex.  by sprawl, developed area, commute percentages, media markets, etc.)

Seattle, unlike Jacksonville doesnt have the largest park system in America, nor does it have the wetlands and lake areas that Jacksonville has.

767 miles of land area vs 142 miles of land area, when comparing municipal numbers (consolidated vs non-consolidated = apples vs oranges).  How does Seattle's urban area numbers compare to Jacksonville's (apples to apples)?

Having actually lived there, Seattle itself is not significantly different from Jacksonvilles populated developed areas.

They are just denser overall.  No matter how the numbers are displayed, its a more urban community.  Nevertheless, regardless of what Seattle may be, we do ourselves an injustice by making excuses to why we can't do better.  This, I think we both can agree on.

Definitely denser and more urban

[tufsu1]

As you point out in your post, the actual urban density numbers are just slightly higher than Jacksonville's, which is what I pointed out originally.

Ennis pointed out Seattle at 2800+ persons per sq. mile and Jax at 2100+....that's 33% more....not what I call a slight difference....you said it yourself...."Seattle is way less spread out than Jacksonville."

As for the tall buildings, there is no way that comes close...even when including Southbank and Riverside/Brooklyn buildings.

[Ocklawaha]

The biggest difference in Seattle vs Jacksonville, is the gnomes. Gnomes are Seattle's secret weapon. Every night about 4:00 am they invade the urban center and polish the sidewalks completely spotless.

OCKLAWAHA

[thelakelander]

The original statement that you made, that I responded to was this:

Shows what a city with vision can accomplish...  get it together Jacksonville.

really?

There are those that have argued that Seattle should have had light rail 10+ years ago....remember, its a much bigger and denser metroplitan area than Jacksonville.

and this:

The Seattle metro. poulation is 3.3 million people....compared to our 1.3 million....and clearly their downtown areas is far more dense.

I think we've established that the city of Seattle isnt three times larger than jacksonville, nor is it really a much bigger or denser place.  Jacksonville would be 75% of the density of Seattle, but it has 200,000 more voters that make decisions.

I disagree with idea that Seattle isn't larger than Jacksonville.  The only way this would be true is if you're talking strictly land area (both developed and undeveloped in city limits only) instead of true urban area development.  However, if this is you're argument, San Francisco, Tampa, Miami, Atlanta, Washington DC and St. Louis are all smaller than Jacksonville.  Seattle is significantly larger all around.

As for the neighborhoods, even your images indicate a city with more dense low rise development in its urban core.  No one is saying we don't have urban neighborhoods of similar character and feel (nearly every city does to some degree).  Urban Seattle just has more of them.

The pictures pretty much tell the story of what its like on the street anyways.

You are correct in that the Downtown itself is much denser and better than Jax, but we never really disagreed on that, nor are we really disagreeing now.

Seattle is a larger version of what Jacksonville could have become if we never abandoned the city beginning in the 1950s.  During our urban heyday, we had nearly identical density numbers.  Seattle was just larger in overall scale.

1910

national rank - city - population - city land area - city density

21   Seattle city, WA.........   237,194    55.9     4,243
95   Jacksonville city, FL....    57,699     9.3     6,204


1920

20   Seattle city, WA.........    315,312    58.6     5,381
79   Jacksonville city, FL....     91,558    15.4     5,945


1930

20   Seattle city, WA.........    365,583    68.5     5,337
63   Jacksonville city, FL....    129,549    26.4     4,907


1940

22   Seattle city, WA.........    368,302    68.5     5,377
47   Jacksonville city, FL....    173,065    30.2     5,731


1950

19   Seattle city, WA.........    467,591    70.8     6,604
49   Jacksonville city, FL....    204,517    30.2     6,772


1960

19   Seattle city, WA.........    557,087    88.5     6,295
61   Jacksonville city, FL....    201,030    30.2     6,657


1970

22   Seattle city, WA.........    530,831    83.6     6,350
23   Jacksonville city, FL *..    528,865   766.0       690


1980

22   Jacksonville city, FL *..    540,920   759.7       712
23   Seattle city, WA.........    493,846    83.6     5,907


1990

15   Jacksonville city, FL *..    635,230   758.7       837
21   Seattle city, WA.........    516,259    83.9     6,153

http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0027/twps0027.html

2009 Estimate

13   Jacksonville city, FL *..    807,815   758.7    1,065
25   Seattle city, WA.........    598,541    83.9     7,134

* - consolidated city


In 1950, Seattle was twice the size of Jacksonville, yet we shared a similar population density.  Since then, Seattle has increased their density, without expanding their municipal borders.  On the other hand, Jacksonville consolidated with Duval County, abandoned large parts of the original city and embraced demolition.  Thus, today, Seattle is a significantly larger urban community.

My point in posting is that it really is just a difference of vision.  Seattle has one.  We don't.  I think Ralph has it right.

Seattle has always been a larger urban community than Jacksonville.  However, I agree with the end of your overall point.  Jacksonville still needs to determine what it wants to be.  Judging from Seattle's mass transit plans, residents there have at least determined that they want efficient and effective mass transit options.  When it comes to determining a vision of what you want to be locally, population density numbers and urban area sizes of other cities should not matter.

[ralpho37]

You hit the nail right on the head Lake.  Seattle has "got it together" in that, for the most part, the city is all pursuing the same goal.  They want their city to be connected; they want unity.

Jacksonville is still at war over what it wants to be.  While groups like us are pushing for commuter rail and other forms of efficient, connective transportation, other groups such as the City Council are more interested in pocket parks, children's reading programs, and industrial development.

Neither one is inherently better or worse than the other, it's just proof that Seattle is pursuing a single goal while here we have vision, just not a unified vision.

[thelakelander]

Lake your own numbers are refuting this idea.  Jacksonville became significantly less dense after the fifties because the entire landmass of duval county was then considered as part of the density equation.

Do you seriously think that between the years 1960 and 1970 that Jacksonville radically demassified from 1960's 6,657 to 1970's figure of 690 per square mile?  That would be ludicrous.

That would be ludicrous.  However, we did do a story on the urban core's population a few years back.

Plight of the Urban Core: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2008-oct-the-plight-of-the-urban-core

Jacksonville's current inner city census tracts are nearly identical to the pre-consolidated city boundaries from the 1940 census. 

 

2000 Census City Population: 735,503

2000 Old City Census Tract Population: 112,753

1950 Old City Population: 204,517

Net Urban Core Loss (1950 - 2000): -91,764

2000 Census City Population Density: 735,503 / 758.7 square miles = 969

2000 Old City Census Tract Density: 112,753 / 30.2 square miles = 3,734

1950 Old City Population Density: 204,517 / 30.2 square miles = 6,772

Net Urban Core Loss (1950 - 2000): - 3,038 residents per mile

These numbers show that our urban core's population loss during the late 20th century was very similar to older industrial cities such as Detroit, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh and Birmingham.  These numbers also show that the Urban Core has the infrastructure in place to support twice as many residents than live there today.

As Jacksonville continues to deal with sprawl, congestion, limited road expansion funds and higher gas and energy costs, our focus on growth needs to shift back to the area that is already laid out to support higher densities.

My belief that our urban area's population and density has shrunk since 1950, comes from the statistical data of census tracts that are based off the boundaries of pre consolidated Jacksonville.

Anyways, this is a silly diversion from the point, and I don't want to get in the typical TUFSU Lakelander Stephendare 15 page discussion straining at the eye of a gnat discussion about it.  I lived there for two years and operated a business right in the thick of it.

Don't worry, I'm not.  I think I've made my case.  

So, like TUFSU seemed to say in his post, you also think that Jacksonville needs to wait until it reaches seattle's density before we install rail?

Or do you think, as Ralpho and I do, that it really is just a question of vision?

See my last post:

Seattle has always been a larger urban community than Jacksonville.  However, I agree with the end of your overall point.  Jacksonville still needs to determine what it wants to be.  Judging from Seattle's mass transit plans, residents there have at least determined that they want efficient and effective mass transit options.  When it comes to determining a vision of what you want to be locally, population density numbers and urban area sizes of other cities should not matter.

Or my post before that one.

quote]They are just denser overall.  No matter how the numbers are displayed, its a more urban community.  Nevertheless, regardless of what Seattle may be, we do ourselves an injustice by making excuses to why we can't do better.  This, I think we both can agree on.

Or the one before that one.

Quote from: thelakelander on Yesterday at 04:14:49 PM
Seattle is a larger and denser urban community all the way around.  However, this should not be used as an excuse to why they can pull something rail-based off and we can't.  For every dense community (Seattle, Los Angeles, NYC, Boston, New Orleans, Philly, etc.) that has invested in rail, you'll find another that is suburban (Phoenix, Charlotte, Tacoma, Little Rock, Nashville, Kenosha, etc.) and invested also.

Its pretty clear where I stand.  I recognize and accept that Seattle is a larger community but I don't believe that should be used as an excuse to why we can't do better.