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

[thelakelander]

What's the point in paying hundreds of millions for a new or retrofitted bridge over the river, when the skyway already does it well? Besides, regardless of if it's a streetcar/skyway or streetcar/streetcar connection, a rider would still have to transfer, since the main streetcar line would connect Riverside to Springfield.

[ChriswUfGator]

Yes it's easily done but you'd have to get rid of the 'freeway' aspect of the Acosta, many times I've seen cars on the bridge going 60-65mph. Unless a 30-40 mph streetcar had an exclusive line using Jersey barriers it would be a no go. Don't forget some of the ramp areas are just two lanes.

OCKLAWAHA

Yeah you got a point, it was probably me you saw going over the bridge, lol. The speed limit isn't anywhere near that high, but everybody just goes that fast anyway because most of the time you have two or three lanes all to yourself and you're often the only car or two on the bridge. So may as well book it. If it weren't so underutilized and empty people wouldn't go so fast. So the concern would be somebody soeeding and smashing into the streetcar? What do you do about that? Flashing signs woukdn't cut it?

[Ocklawaha]

Have you guys ever been to a city and used transit. 

I believe I have.

OCKLAWAHA

[ChriswUfGator]

What's the point in paying hundreds of millions for a new or retrofitted bridge over the river, when the skyway already does it well? Besides, regardless of if it's a streetcar/skyway or streetcar/streetcar connection, a rider would still have to transfer, since the main streetcar line would connect Riverside to Springfield.

Did you look at the picture I posted? No new bridge is needed.

And you don't actually think it would cost hundreds of million dollars to lay two tracks into the surface of the Acosta do you?

So, you're prepared to argue that imbedding two simple tracks into the concrete will cost as mucb as the courthouse? Really?

[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.

Have you guys ever been to a city and used transit.  Transfers and multi model operations happen smoothly all the time.  You don't end lines to force people to ride the skyway you do it to take best advantage of the resources you have. You don't end an express bus line just to put people on the skyway just don't duplicate services.  That way your buses will do a better job covering the rest of the area.  You lower the costs of the transit system as a whole.

btw The skyway is already the busiest transit line in the area.

Yes, I have. That's how I know this streetcar/skyway merger talk is a dumb idea.

Also, when you talk about other cities, they have different mass transit cost/benefit ratios. The level of service and convenience required to make a system gain ridership here is significantly higher than in larger denser cities, because it doesn't cost $400/mo to rent a garage space for a car here like in NYC. We don't have Boston traffic, where going 10 miles on 93 takes 2 hours. Quit comparing the incomparable.

As to your comment about the skyway being the portion of the JTA system with the highest ridership, as you should recall, we are near dead-last in public transit ridership out of every major MSA in the nation. Nobody with a car, or even the possibility of of riding a herpetic donkey to work in the morning, will ride JTA buses for myriad reasons that have already been discussed elsewhere. Comparing such a broken system to itself is ridiculous, and presents a false conclusion. Do I get an award if I'm the skinniest kid at fat-camp?

[thelakelander]

Yes, I do believe you'll sink over $100 million into an Acosta Bridge retrofit easily. To accommodate two tracks on the Acosta, additional modifications would be needed to keep auto/transit separated (the Acosta is a freeway) and you still need to pay for a new structure over the FEC tracks. I'm not saying it can't be done. However, I am saying for the expense, it's not worth it and that there are better cost effective alternatives available.

[JeffreyS]

My point is ending bus lines at the skyway terminus is not just a trick to increase the skyway's numbers.  It could be useful to better leverage all of the JTA's assets.

btw the way the skinniest kid at fat camp may do the best with the girls there.

[ChriswUfGator]

Yes, I do believe you'll sink over $100 million into an Acosta Bridge retrofit easily. To accommodate two tracks on the Acosta, additional modifications would be needed to keep auto/transit separated (the Acosta is a freeway) and you still need to pay for a new structure over the FEC tracks. I'm not saying it can't be done. However, I am saying for the expense, it's not worth it and that there are better cost effective alternatives available.

The Acosta was supposed to be a freeway. What it wound up being is a mostly empty under-used bridge. Seems like the perfect asset for the streetcar, frankly. All the other bridges have enough traffic that running a streetcar woukd probably impede traffic flow, you don't have that problem on the Acosta because there is generally no traffic to speak of. Further, it already directly connects to Riverside Ave, the proposed route, and has entrance/exit ramps that are 3 lanes wide but only have a single lane painted onto them. Perfect. And the $100mm figure is grossly bloated, wouldn't cost anywhere near that. Portland Oregon laid those tracks I just showed you for less than 1/10th of that.

[ChriswUfGator]

btw the way the skinniest kid at fat camp may do the best with the girls there.

lmao!

[ChriswUfGator]

This ain't that hard;



And I'm going somewhere with this. The streetcar is cheaply and easily expandable, the skyway is not. Whatever the cost of running a couple tracks over the bridge, it's a fraction of the cost of adding even a single additional station/extension onto the skyway, so once the tracks are in we'll have an expandable complete system, could run down san jose or wherever else you wanted it to go later. What's the cost of doing that with the skyway?

I get everybody want to use whatever natural synergy exists with the skyway. Unfortunately, in reality, and when you look at the larger picture, there really isn't any. You're limiting expandability by forcing the incorporation of the skyway.

[Dashing Dan]

Yes, I do believe you'll sink over $100 million into an Acosta Bridge retrofit easily. To accommodate two tracks on the Acosta, additional modifications would be needed to keep auto/transit separated (the Acosta is a freeway) and you still need to pay for a new structure over the FEC tracks. I'm not saying it can't be done. However, I am saying for the expense, it's not worth it and that there are better cost effective alternatives available.

A streetcar could not handle the grades on the Acosta Bridge.  For a bridge that would carry streetcars, the approaches would have to be much flatter.  You either have to go with a drawbridge, like the FEC bridge, or you'd have to have much much longer approaches to get high enough without them being too steep for a streetcar.

Even the Acosta Bridge does not meet the documented design specifications for the skyway.  They bent the rules for that part of the route.

It would work if you had a cable car instead of a streetcar. 

That's also how incline railways work.  If you're ever in Chattanooga or Pittsburgh, they are well worth checking out.

Roller coasters are also pulled by a cable.

[ChriswUfGator]

Yes, I do believe you'll sink over $100 million into an Acosta Bridge retrofit easily. To accommodate two tracks on the Acosta, additional modifications would be needed to keep auto/transit separated (the Acosta is a freeway) and you still need to pay for a new structure over the FEC tracks. I'm not saying it can't be done. However, I am saying for the expense, it's not worth it and that there are better cost effective alternatives available.

A streetcar could not handle the grades on the Acosta Bridge.  For a bridge that would carry streetcars, the approaches would have to be much flatter.  You either have to go with a drawbridge, like the FEC bridge, or you'd have to have much much longer approaches to get high enough without them being too steep for a streetcar.

Even the Acosta Bridge does not meet the documented design specifications for the skyway.  They bent the rules for that part of the route.

It would work if you had a cable car instead of a streetcar. 

That's also how incline railways work.  If you're ever in Chattanooga or Pittsburgh, they are well worth checking out.

Roller coasters are also pulled by a cable.

I know the difference between a cablecar and a streetcar. From my understanding, the Acosta bridge has a 6% grade, while most streetcars can handle 9% and stay well within their design specs. Not sure what the problem would be?

[Dashing Dan]

This ain't that hard;

No it wouldn't be hard - on the Acosta Bridge it would be impossible.

[peestandingup]

I think putting tracks down on the Acosta is the best way to go instead of making people jump off a streetcar onto a totally different system (that's not the same thing as just a line change). There's plenty of room to work with (certainly more than Main street bridge, that seems like a nightmare). The tracks could be laid on both sides of the bridge (the "exit lanes"). Cars can also use the same lane obviously if the streetcar isn't on it (or they could just go around it like they do any other car). Enforce the speed limit & put up some flashing lights to indicate whenever the streetcar is in route. Is it really that difficult (not being a smarty pants, I genuinely want to know)?

So I'm not sure how that costs $100 Million? What would be the extra costs?? Lights?? And anyways, if we're also talking about Skyway extensions to make those legs actually useful (you'd have to go deeper into San Marco with the Skyway), wouldn't that cost far outweigh what we're talking about with any streetcar tracks over a bridge & into a neighborhood??

[ChriswUfGator]

as one of the few actual transit users in this forum, I can tell you that I personally do not mind a transfer, and I do not know anyone who does.  If you need to get someplace, you will go the way that gets you there.  Switching from Trolley to skyway to bus is no big deal, and people do similar transfers every day in cities across the world.

But you won't drive a car, so the choice is a bit different for you than most, isn't it? Last I checked, you were being all eco-naz...err "green" to use the PC term, and had determined to eschew the use of such vile smoke-belching forms of transportation. Don't worry, as I always remind you, I've got you covered and churn out enough carbon for both of us. But the choice is really between walking or whatever level of convenience JTA provides, isn't it? That's not going to be the case with most folks, and it takes more than one rider, or even a whole marauding flock of greenpeacers, to make a successful transit system. Lol, you know I'm kidding, btw.

You could get away with one transfer or two maybe, beyond that it's a hassle and most people won't use it to go such short distances.