Skyway Could Be Torn Down.....In 2036!

[Gen7]

5 suggestions to increase skyway ridership

1.  Encourage downtown workers to park and ride from Kings Rd, Prime Osborne or First Baptist (with a catwalk from garage to Rosa Parks).  Garage card doubles as skyway card.  Free for the first year then included in garage parking thereafter (JTA can collect from the garage).

2.  Giveaways for loyal riders - gift cards for: a month's free parking, gas, downtown and southbank merchants, and sporting venues.  (look what Team Teal did for the Jaguars)

3.  FSCJ students - especially if downtown lofts were made available as student housing.  This would also provide residents and parttime workers for downtown. 

4.  Promote it, Don't slam it.  When directing visitors to City Hall or the Courthouse through printed material or online have the directions be: From Southside park at the Kings Rd garage and ride the Skyway to Government Station (Hemming Plaza).  From Westside or Northside park at the Prime Osborne lot... from Arlington park at the FBC garage on Laura and Beaver...

City Council Members -- this means you and your constituents should ride the Skyway for City Council meetings. 

4.  Art Walk - have art displays at each station along with live music and food/drink vendors.  The ride can be free on these nights - a double bonus for regular riders. 

5.  Jaguar games - ride the Skyway to Bay and Hogan and then proceed down "Jaguar Bay" or "The Teal Bank" (Bay St) stopping at various fixed entertainment spots enhanced by temporary vendors - the party walk to the game.  This was a Team Teal suggestion that was done very successfully by COJ once.  Perhaps JTA, the Jaguars and the Entertainment District merchants could coordinate its revival.

[thelakelander]

I've emailed.  I've sent diagrams.  I've been to several open-house meetings.  I've talked to drivers.  I've talked to riders.  There are no plans to do anything to the skyway.

My main argument is Why don't you terminate the bus routes at Rosa Park, Jefferson St and the PO only - eliminate the DT Loop - use a dedicated trolley through the middle of town to pick up the people east of hogan or have the bay ST & Beaver St trolley do it for you.  All of southside busses - Jefferson St Station - you just eliminated 15-20 minutes, EACH WAY, on their headtimes.  All Westside busses -PO - you just eliminated 15-20 minutes, EACH WAY, on their headtimes.  All northside & Beaches - Rosa Park - you really don't save anytime because they don't loop downtown.  Oh yeah, they're already the most convenient bus lines of the system.

[I notice a pattern here, but JTA doesn't acknowledge it]  The responses that I get are that I'm creating an extra transfer (no shit, it's also called extra revenue), there are no restrooms (have you seen the facilities at Rosa Park?), we don't have a ticket station (30k will get you two ticket counters w/ AC if you go the contruction trailer model)

I am offering solutions to the problem that 1.)Don't cost anything, 2.)Enhance the service, 3.)Generate more $$, but ......  No buts....... What's the fucking problem?

Btw, this how I had to get around in LA and San Diego last week.  Transferring was typically no problem because transfers were coordinated.  For example, in San Diego, to get downtown from the suburbs on the Green Line LRT, you have to transfer to the Blue Line LRT at Old Town.  Both trains pull up on opposite sides of the same platform at the same time (at worst, there was a five minute wait), riders transferring switched trains and then they both went back in the directions they came from.   

[dougskiles]

I think we need to give the newly elected crop of council members a chance.  They are all completely up to their eyeballs with the budget right now.  Let's also give the Mobility Plan a chance to work.

Just a few months ago we were listening to Mullaney and Hogan talk about mothballing the skyway (immediately).  Now it is being given another 25 years.  I honestly laughed when I saw that, because no matter how successful we make it in 5 years, 20 years later it will have reached the end of its structural life and would be time for a re-evaluation.  It will have lasted longer than the original Fuller Warren bridge (1948 to 2002).

Great suggestions Gen7.

[thelakelander]

I know I've said it plenty of times, but I have to say it again. If streetcars go down Bay St. to the stadium, then the Skyway will be dead. An extension to San Marco is obvious but an extension to the stadium is just as obvious, if not more. Those two extensions would raise ridership by at least double. But if we get streetcar going down Bay St, where can the skyway go?

Rosa Parks/FCCJ, Hemming Plaza, the Southbank and San Marco.

[thelakelander]

Here are four more suggestions that help increase ridership, reduce operational costs and generate revenue.  Some of which may have already been mentioned:

1. Eliminate duplicate bus routes in downtown and run the skyway as a transit spine (same thing mentioned by NRW)

2. Lease out extra skyway station floor area to retail vendors (Kings Avenue, Rosa Parks, Hemming, Central would be great locations for merchants catering to transit users).

3. Allow private companies to buy wrap advertising on cars, station naming rights and advertise inside cars.

4. Integrate Skyway with DT Development Plans and TOD.  For example, San Diego's transit agency makes a ton of money by leasing land around station sites to developers to build TOD at their stations.  Doing this where applicable, each station not only generates revenue, it also becomes a destination that attracts built in ridership.

[iMarvin]

I know I've said it plenty of times, but I have to say it again. If streetcars go down Bay St. to the stadium, then the Skyway will be dead. An extension to San Marco is obvious but an extension to the stadium is just as obvious, if not more. Those two extensions would raise ridership by at least double. But if we get streetcar going down Bay St, where can the skyway go?

Rosa Parks/FCCJ, Hemming Plaza, the Southbank and San Marco.

A streetcar line to the stadium would take the ridership from the Skyway. The Skyway is already on Bay St, just do a simple extension to the stadium (sports complex)  and ridership AT LEAST doubles.

[thelakelander]

How would a streetcar to the stadium take ridership away from something that isn't there?  A streetcar only takes ridership away if there was a duplicate proposal to build a skyway line down the same corridor.

Btw, from my point of view, I'm not in favor of extending the skyway simply to add riders to that particular mode.  I'm gunning for whatever makes economic and fiscal sense from a holistic view point.  Given the costs, if the streetcar is already running down a corridor like Newnan, its not too far off base to run a line from that point to the stadium district.  However, there's no sense in battling the specifics of that corridor today.  We need to go ahead and get transit extended into some neighborhoods outside of DT first.  At least then, we'll have something that takes some people where they want to go along while feeding riders into the skyway and local bus network.

[iMarvin]

How would a streetcar to the stadium take ridership away from something that isn't there?  A streetcar only takes ridership away if there was a duplicate proposal to build a skyway line down the same corridor.

Btw, from my point of view, I'm not in favor of extending the skyway simply to add riders to that particular mode.  I'm gunning for whatever makes economic and fiscal sense from a holistic view point.  Given the costs, if the streetcar is already running down a corridor like Newnan, its not too far off base to run a line from that point to the stadium district.  However, there's no sense in battling the specifics of that corridor today.  We need to go ahead and get transit extended into some neighborhoods outside of DT first.  At least then, we'll have something that takes some people where they want to go along while feeding riders into the skyway and local bus network.

I agree with the bottom portion. The need for transit in surrounding neighborhoods is there. What I'm saying is that a streetcar going to Bay St, IMO, would not make much sense if we have the skyway right on Bay St. There's about 4 more potential stops on Bay St with the skyway. A streetcar is great for Riverside and Springfield, and when we're thinking about expanding the skyway, there's really only two places it can go: San Marco and the Sports Complex. The streetcar shouldn't do all the work.

[dougskiles]

Here is the clip from Channel 4:
http://www.news4jax.com/video/28994236/index.html

Also interesting are the comments from the news story on the webpage.  Much nicer than the typical FTU.

That he rode it from 5:30 to 6:30 on a Friday afternoon seemed like a setup to me.  Everyone knows that DT clears out fast on a Friday afternoon.  All other places in town do too.  Unless of course you are stuck in a car on JTB or the Buckman Bridge.  Had he been on it at noon, it would have been packed.

[Dashing Dan]

I can't find the comments on the Ch. 4 webpage.  How do I reach them?

By the way I thought the story was quite good.

There was nothing sinister about the reporter being out there late on a Friday.  The timing of the Ch. 4 story was set by the timing of the T-U story, which was set by a news event.

All that matters is that you got a good chance to pitch the San Marco extension, and that you made the most of it.

Thanks Doug!

[ChriswUfGator]

How would a streetcar to the stadium take ridership away from something that isn't there?  A streetcar only takes ridership away if there was a duplicate proposal to build a skyway line down the same corridor.

Btw, from my point of view, I'm not in favor of extending the skyway simply to add riders to that particular mode.  I'm gunning for whatever makes economic and fiscal sense from a holistic view point.  Given the costs, if the streetcar is already running down a corridor like Newnan, its not too far off base to run a line from that point to the stadium district.  However, there's no sense in battling the specifics of that corridor today.  We need to go ahead and get transit extended into some neighborhoods outside of DT first.  At least then, we'll have something that takes some people where they want to go along while feeding riders into the skyway and local bus network.

I agree with the bottom portion. The need for transit in surrounding neighborhoods is there. What I'm saying is that a streetcar going to Bay St, IMO, would not make much sense if we have the skyway right on Bay St. There's about 4 more potential stops on Bay St with the skyway. A streetcar is great for Riverside and Springfield, and when we're thinking about expanding the skyway, there's really only two places it can go: San Marco and the Sports Complex. The streetcar shouldn't do all the work.

You can't just intentionally force people to switch transit modes in order to support a system that otherwise doesn't work on its own, either. You're going to end up with two incomplete / half-functional systems, that create enough inconvenience to make them an unattractive proposition to users. Remember you are competing with the car. Forcing people to get off a streetcar, board the skyway, then get off to board another streetcar, just so that people will ride the skyway, is not going to have good results. We should have a complete and functional streetcar system, not just a feeder for the skyway  and for JTA buses. Your comment indicating it could ever be a meaningful feeder for JTA's buses is a little misplaced, you are talking about two different demographics. People will ride a streetcar, but most don't and won't ride JTA buses. The streetcar should be a self-sufficient system, if it happens to have some ancillary benefit to other modes nearby, great, but don't sacrifice the sound planning of the new system to force people to accomodate failed systems, it's not going to turn out well. The streetcar should go down Bay Street, regardless of whether the skyway is there or not, it should extend all the way to the stadium too.

The skyway is a red herring, leave it out of the streetcar planning. Make a complete streetcar system that's functional, instead of trying to use it to force people to ride the skyway. Introduce enough hassle into it and nobody will use either system.

[peestandingup]

How would a streetcar to the stadium take ridership away from something that isn't there?  A streetcar only takes ridership away if there was a duplicate proposal to build a skyway line down the same corridor.

Btw, from my point of view, I'm not in favor of extending the skyway simply to add riders to that particular mode.  I'm gunning for whatever makes economic and fiscal sense from a holistic view point.  Given the costs, if the streetcar is already running down a corridor like Newnan, its not too far off base to run a line from that point to the stadium district.  However, there's no sense in battling the specifics of that corridor today.  We need to go ahead and get transit extended into some neighborhoods outside of DT first.  At least then, we'll have something that takes some people where they want to go along while feeding riders into the skyway and local bus network.

I agree with the bottom portion. The need for transit in surrounding neighborhoods is there. What I'm saying is that a streetcar going to Bay St, IMO, would not make much sense if we have the skyway right on Bay St. There's about 4 more potential stops on Bay St with the skyway. A streetcar is great for Riverside and Springfield, and when we're thinking about expanding the skyway, there's really only two places it can go: San Marco and the Sports Complex. The streetcar shouldn't do all the work.

You can't just intentionally force people to switch transit modes in order to support a system that otherwise doesn't work on its own, either. You're going to end up with two incomplete / half-functional systems, that create enough inconvenience to make them an unattractive proposition to users. Remember you are competing with the car. Forcing people to get off a streetcar, board the skyway, then get off to board another streetcar, just so that people will ride the skyway, is not going to have good results. We should have a complete and functional streetcar system, not just a feeder for the skyway  and for JTA buses. Your comment indicating it could ever be a meaningful feeder for JTA's buses is a little misplaced, you are talking about two different demographics. People will ride a streetcar, but most don't and won't ride JTA buses. The streetcar should be a self-sufficient system, if it happens to have some ancillary benefit to other modes nearby, great, but don't sacrifice the sound planning of the new system to force people to accomodate failed systems, it's not going to turn out well. The streetcar should go down Bay Street, regardless of whether the skyway is there or not, it should extend all the way to the stadium too.

The skyway is a red herring, leave it out of the streetcar planning. Make a complete streetcar system that's functional, instead of trying to use it to force people to ride the skyway. Introduce enough hassle into it and nobody will use either system.

+1. This is what I've always said. You have to have one "main" system, and the Skyway will never be that. I don't like forcing it into the mix just because it's there. I think you'll end up with two half-assed systems instead of just one.

There's no reason why a streetcar can't go everywhere the Skyway can. Hell, you'd probably be getting off much cheaper developing the entire streetcar system than it would to extend the Skyway to just a couple more stops.

Plus, people here seem like they have a generally dislike with anything associated with the Skyway, so if it were me, I'd concentrate on just the streetcar. We can all beat around the bush, but its pretty clear the Skyway was a collisional f*ck up that should have never been built. Yes, I understand the argument of "well, its here now, so we gotta find a way to make it fit". But I personally don't see it that way & there's no sense forcing people to change systems just because of that.

[iMarvin]

How would a streetcar to the stadium take ridership away from something that isn't there?  A streetcar only takes ridership away if there was a duplicate proposal to build a skyway line down the same corridor.

Btw, from my point of view, I'm not in favor of extending the skyway simply to add riders to that particular mode.  I'm gunning for whatever makes economic and fiscal sense from a holistic view point.  Given the costs, if the streetcar is already running down a corridor like Newnan, its not too far off base to run a line from that point to the stadium district.  However, there's no sense in battling the specifics of that corridor today.  We need to go ahead and get transit extended into some neighborhoods outside of DT first.  At least then, we'll have something that takes some people where they want to go along while feeding riders into the skyway and local bus network.

I agree with the bottom portion. The need for transit in surrounding neighborhoods is there. What I'm saying is that a streetcar going to Bay St, IMO, would not make much sense if we have the skyway right on Bay St. There's about 4 more potential stops on Bay St with the skyway. A streetcar is great for Riverside and Springfield, and when we're thinking about expanding the skyway, there's really only two places it can go: San Marco and the Sports Complex. The streetcar shouldn't do all the work.

You can't just intentionally force people to switch transit modes in order to support a system that otherwise doesn't work on its own, either. You're going to end up with two incomplete / half-functional systems, that create enough inconvenience to make them an unattractive proposition to users. Remember you are competing with the car. Forcing people to get off a streetcar, board the skyway, then get off to board another streetcar, just so that people will ride the skyway, is not going to have good results. We should have a complete and functional streetcar system, not just a feeder for the skyway  and for JTA buses. Your comment indicating it could ever be a meaningful feeder for JTA's buses is a little misplaced, you are talking about two different demographics. People will ride a streetcar, but most don't and won't ride JTA buses. The streetcar should be a self-sufficient system, if it happens to have some ancillary benefit to other modes nearby, great, but don't sacrifice the sound planning of the new system to force people to accomodate failed systems, it's not going to turn out well. The streetcar should go down Bay Street, regardless of whether the skyway is there or not, it should extend all the way to the stadium too.

The skyway is a red herring, leave it out of the streetcar planning. Make a complete streetcar system that's functional, instead of trying to use it to force people to ride the skyway. Introduce enough hassle into it and nobody will use either system.

The skyway will still have the pitiful ridership it has now if we get the streetcar to go everywhere the skyway can go. One extension to San Marco would increase ridership, but the sports complex would be how we get a serious gain. A streetcar from to St. Vincents to Shands is a complete system, IMO. A later extension to Avondale would make much sense, and I think when you have all that, you have a pretty good base for ridership. In an city with real transit, you're going to have to make transfers. That's just how it is. If we build a streetcar line that goes all around the core, then we might as well start tearing down the skyway as soon as the streetcar is finished. No one will ride it if it stays the same.

[thelakelander]

The skyway's benefit is that it crosses the river, connecting the Southbank and potentially San Marco. On the other hand, adding another river crossing and elevating a streetcar over the FEC to get to San Marco would be cost prohibitive.

[ChriswUfGator]

How would a streetcar to the stadium take ridership away from something that isn't there?  A streetcar only takes ridership away if there was a duplicate proposal to build a skyway line down the same corridor.

Btw, from my point of view, I'm not in favor of extending the skyway simply to add riders to that particular mode.  I'm gunning for whatever makes economic and fiscal sense from a holistic view point.  Given the costs, if the streetcar is already running down a corridor like Newnan, its not too far off base to run a line from that point to the stadium district.  However, there's no sense in battling the specifics of that corridor today.  We need to go ahead and get transit extended into some neighborhoods outside of DT first.  At least then, we'll have something that takes some people where they want to go along while feeding riders into the skyway and local bus network.

I agree with the bottom portion. The need for transit in surrounding neighborhoods is there. What I'm saying is that a streetcar going to Bay St, IMO, would not make much sense if we have the skyway right on Bay St. There's about 4 more potential stops on Bay St with the skyway. A streetcar is great for Riverside and Springfield, and when we're thinking about expanding the skyway, there's really only two places it can go: San Marco and the Sports Complex. The streetcar shouldn't do all the work.

You can't just intentionally force people to switch transit modes in order to support a system that otherwise doesn't work on its own, either. You're going to end up with two incomplete / half-functional systems, that create enough inconvenience to make them an unattractive proposition to users. Remember you are competing with the car. Forcing people to get off a streetcar, board the skyway, then get off to board another streetcar, just so that people will ride the skyway, is not going to have good results. We should have a complete and functional streetcar system, not just a feeder for the skyway  and for JTA buses. Your comment indicating it could ever be a meaningful feeder for JTA's buses is a little misplaced, you are talking about two different demographics. People will ride a streetcar, but most don't and won't ride JTA buses. The streetcar should be a self-sufficient system, if it happens to have some ancillary benefit to other modes nearby, great, but don't sacrifice the sound planning of the new system to force people to accomodate failed systems, it's not going to turn out well. The streetcar should go down Bay Street, regardless of whether the skyway is there or not, it should extend all the way to the stadium too.

The skyway is a red herring, leave it out of the streetcar planning. Make a complete streetcar system that's functional, instead of trying to use it to force people to ride the skyway. Introduce enough hassle into it and nobody will use either system.

The skyway will still have the pitiful ridership it has now if we get the streetcar to go everywhere the skyway can go. One extension to San Marco would increase ridership, but the sports complex would be how we get a serious gain. A streetcar from to St. Vincents to Shands is a complete system, IMO. A later extension to Avondale would make much sense, and I think when you have all that, you have a pretty good base for ridership. In an city with real transit, you're going to have to make transfers. That's just how it is. If we build a streetcar line that goes all around the core, then we might as well start tearing down the skyway as soon as the streetcar is finished. No one will ride it if it stays the same.

The problem is that this fails to acknowledge the obvious third possibility. Which is that designing the streetcar system to force people to use the skyway only results in the creation of two incomplete systems instead of one, with the very real risk that nobody will ride either one.  This isn't 1895 anymore, people have other options, so saying "people will have to get used to making a bunch of connections" is hogwash. That's exactly why most people don't ride JTA buses. If you want ridership, it has to 1:) Be convenient, timely, and reliable, and 2:) Connect residential areas with commercial areas with entertainment areas.

What you're talking about doing is limiting it to being a residential-to-residential link to avoid competing with the skyway. I'll say this one last time; you are only going to wind up with two failed incomplete systems instead of one, and that will blow our last chance at real mass transit in this city. The skyway is a red herring, do not sacrifice the sound planning of the streetcar system in order to artificially force people to use a separate failed and incomplete system. It's likely you'll screw both.