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

[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.

I'm not saying go straight from St. Vincents to Shands. The streetcar is going to on streets that have commercial and it's going to go downtown (that's as commercial as it gets). I've seen the plans for the streetcar and I know the route. The part of the streetcar that I don't like is that they want it to go to the sports complex. It doesn't make any sense. Why not just let the streetcar continue north to Shands and let the skyway continue east to the sports complex?

Why can't the streetcar do both? The sports complex is an obvious destination, intentionally ignoring it because the skyway already serves it makes for unnecessary transfers and two incomplete systems. Let's at least have one complete system, what happens to the skyway happens to it, but I suspect the streetcar will be around a lot longer than the skyway moving forward, so we really ought to make it go where people go. It couod then head North up Florida Avenue to serve the Eastside.

Because it doesn't need to. You are correct, the sports complex is an obvious destination. The skyway is already on Bay St, just extend and it serves the entertainment district, the shipyards, randolph blvd, and then the stadium. Those 4 stops could really help the skyway. The streetcar is going to go plenty of places, it will be fine without a sports complex line.

I guess we can agree to disagree, then. I don't feel the goal of the streetcar is, or ever should be, to help the skyway by avoiding competition with it to riders' inconvenience. You're disadvantaging one to help the other. And that's not its purpose.

[ChriswUfGator]

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.

That's not really the point, Lake. You've got people arguing that the streetcar shouldn't go downtown, or to the sports district, Bay Street, etc., in order to force people to use the skyway. That logic will result in two failed systems instead of one. A transfer should be required only when absolutely necessary, you have to maximize the convenience factor and connect residential with commercial, etc., or else this is going to be one more thing everybody will ride once or twice as a novelty and then forget about because it takes three times as long to use it as it does to not use it. This is really basic 21st century transportation planning here. This isn't a toy or a novelty, you actually want people to use this thing for transportation.

You can't be talking about me. I never said that. ONE transfer is NOT a big deal. People hop on a stop in Riverside, ride it to Newnan, get off, and hop on the skyway to the sports complex. That may sound like a lot of steps, but that isn't a hassle for anyone.

I'm responding to several different people in this thread, not just you. There are multiple opinions stated above, that it shouldn't go to Bay Street, shouldn't go to the sports complex, shouldn't cross the river, etc., primarily because the skyway is there. I think this needlessly hamstrings the streetcar system, if we're already pre-determining where it won't go just because the skyway is there. And nobidy is talking about 1 connection, that is fine. The skyway requires multiple connections just on its lines to get anywhere, plus however many the streetcar system woukd require, you're talking about way more than 1 connection.

The skyway only requires 1 transfer, but that's only if you're coming/going from/to Jefferson or Convention Center. If not, it requires none.

No, it requires 4 total, 2 each leg, 1 from the streetcar to the skyway, then a skyway to skyway transfer, then the same on the return leg. Add that to whatever transfers you have in the streetcar network, and you're easily talking about 4-6 transfers to go a couple of miles. Which isn't going to entice any ridership. You really think people are going to do that, plus climb up/down the skyway platforms multiple times, instead of spending 5 minutes in the car. Seriously?

[iMarvin]

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.

Exactly. A transfer is not a problem. No one will get upset because they have to get off and walk up some stairs (or take the elevator).

How many times?

How many additional transfers do you think we're really talking about here? Have you ridden the skyway? How many transfers, as an example, does it take to get from the convention center to the prudential building and back? Or Rosa Parks? You're adding like 3 additional transfers each leg, plus waiting on trains, etc., plus however many transfers you made before you got to the skyway, plus the transfer from the streetcar to the skyway and from the skyway back to the streetcar. When we're talking about a relatively small system that goes a relatively short distance, you quickly reach the point where it takes long enough that people just drive.

It would take 2 transfers to get from the convention to the prudential building and back. But that's only 1 per way. But, if we're coming from a streetcar, then it would be 3 transfers. If we're coming from the suburbs, then it could possibly be more, but a simple changing of the routes and scheduling could make it very simple.

[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.

Exactly. A transfer is not a problem. No one will get upset because they have to get off and walk up some stairs (or take the elevator).

How many times?

How many additional transfers do you think we're really talking about here? Have you ridden the skyway? How many transfers, as an example, does it take to get from the convention center to the prudential building and back? Or Rosa Parks? You're adding like 3 additional transfers each leg, plus waiting on trains, etc., plus however many transfers you made before you got to the skyway, plus the transfer from the streetcar to the skyway and from the skyway back to the streetcar. When we're talking about a relatively small system that goes a relatively short distance, you quickly reach the point where it takes long enough that people just drive.

It would take 2 transfers to get from the convention to the prudential building and back. But that's only 1 per way. But, if we're coming from a streetcar, then it would be 3 transfers. If we're coming from the suburbs, then it could possibly be more, but a simple changing of the routes and scheduling could make it very simple.

So again, you really think that people are going to do 6 transfers and climb up/down the skyway platforms just to go a couple miles vs. 5 minutes in the car?

[ChriswUfGator]

actually the skyway has escalators.  and elevators.

Which, whenever I've used the skyway, granted not that often, always seem to be broken. Along with the change machines and everything else, and sometimes even the actual skyway car I'm traveling in. But I guess I digress. We're still back to my suspicion that designing a system that requires a half dozen transfers to go a few miles is not exactly going to be the epitome of convenience, nor do much to attract ridership.

[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.

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.

I'm not saying go straight from St. Vincents to Shands. The streetcar is going to on streets that have commercial and it's going to go downtown (that's as commercial as it gets). I've seen the plans for the streetcar and I know the route. The part of the streetcar that I don't like is that they want it to go to the sports complex. It doesn't make any sense. Why not just let the streetcar continue north to Shands and let the skyway continue east to the sports complex?

Why can't the streetcar do both? The sports complex is an obvious destination, intentionally ignoring it because the skyway already serves it makes for unnecessary transfers and two incomplete systems. Let's at least have one complete system, what happens to the skyway happens to it, but I suspect the streetcar will be around a lot longer than the skyway moving forward, so we really ought to make it go where people go. It couod then head North up Florida Avenue to serve the Eastside.

Because it doesn't need to. You are correct, the sports complex is an obvious destination. The skyway is already on Bay St, just extend and it serves the entertainment district, the shipyards, randolph blvd, and then the stadium. Those 4 stops could really help the skyway. The streetcar is going to go plenty of places, it will be fine without a sports complex line.

I guess we can agree to disagree, then. I don't feel the goal of the streetcar is, or ever should be, to help the skyway by avoiding competition with it to riders' inconvenience. You're disadvantaging one to help the other. And that's not its purpose.

I honestly don't see how it would be an inconvenience. People make transfers all the time to different routes. I mean 5 minutes(with rescheduling) in total waiting time for transfers isn't that bad, IMO.

[ChriswUfGator]

Since when are 4-6 transfers going to take a total of 5 minutes? On the skyway, it's more like 5 minutes apiece, longer if you have to climb stairs or use an elevator or get change, assuming arguendo any of those items was actually functioning when you try to use them. This is not a long-haul system. How many people do you think are going to go through that to go a couple miles vs. just driving straight to where you're going in a couple minutes in the car?

[iMarvin]

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.

That's not really the point, Lake. You've got people arguing that the streetcar shouldn't go downtown, or to the sports district, Bay Street, etc., in order to force people to use the skyway. That logic will result in two failed systems instead of one. A transfer should be required only when absolutely necessary, you have to maximize the convenience factor and connect residential with commercial, etc., or else this is going to be one more thing everybody will ride once or twice as a novelty and then forget about because it takes three times as long to use it as it does to not use it. This is really basic 21st century transportation planning here. This isn't a toy or a novelty, you actually want people to use this thing for transportation.

You can't be talking about me. I never said that. ONE transfer is NOT a big deal. People hop on a stop in Riverside, ride it to Newnan, get off, and hop on the skyway to the sports complex. That may sound like a lot of steps, but that isn't a hassle for anyone.

I'm responding to several different people in this thread, not just you. There are multiple opinions stated above, that it shouldn't go to Bay Street, shouldn't go to the sports complex, shouldn't cross the river, etc., primarily because the skyway is there. I think this needlessly hamstrings the streetcar system, if we're already pre-determining where it won't go just because the skyway is there. And nobidy is talking about 1 connection, that is fine. The skyway requires multiple connections just on its lines to get anywhere, plus however many the streetcar system woukd require, you're talking about way more than 1 connection.

The skyway only requires 1 transfer, but that's only if you're coming/going from/to Jefferson or Convention Center. If not, it requires none.

No, it requires 4 total, 2 each leg, 1 from the streetcar to the skyway, then a skyway to skyway transfer, then the same on the return leg. Add that to whatever transfers you have in the streetcar network, and you're easily talking about 4-6 transfers to go a couple of miles. Which isn't going to entice any ridership. You really think people are going to do that, plus climb up/down the skyway platforms multiple times, instead of spending 5 minutes in the car. Seriously?

OK, I see. 6 transfers won't entice ridership, but if the transfers are quick, what's the problem? Also, you're talking about in total, that would 2-3 each way and that really isn't bad. Once you get to your destination, you forget about transfers. If JTA does some rescheduling once the streetcar gets built, then it would be fine.

[ChriswUfGator]

actually the skyway has escalators.  and elevators.

Which, whenever I've used the skyway, granted not that often, always seem to be broken. Along with the change machines and everything else, and sometimes even the actual skyway car I'm traveling in. But I guess I digress. We're still back to my suspicion that designing a system that requires a half dozen transfers to go a few miles is not exactly going to be the epitome of convenience, nor do much to attract ridership.

The escalators have only been down for maintenance twice in three years.  so you must seriously use the skyway on extremely weird days.

I think it's that we use different stations because we live in different neighborhoods. The convention center has stairs and an elevator, both the elevator and the change machines are often broken. Who knew I'd ever be a turnstile-jumping criminal.

[ChriswUfGator]

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.

That's not really the point, Lake. You've got people arguing that the streetcar shouldn't go downtown, or to the sports district, Bay Street, etc., in order to force people to use the skyway. That logic will result in two failed systems instead of one. A transfer should be required only when absolutely necessary, you have to maximize the convenience factor and connect residential with commercial, etc., or else this is going to be one more thing everybody will ride once or twice as a novelty and then forget about because it takes three times as long to use it as it does to not use it. This is really basic 21st century transportation planning here. This isn't a toy or a novelty, you actually want people to use this thing for transportation.

You can't be talking about me. I never said that. ONE transfer is NOT a big deal. People hop on a stop in Riverside, ride it to Newnan, get off, and hop on the skyway to the sports complex. That may sound like a lot of steps, but that isn't a hassle for anyone.

I'm responding to several different people in this thread, not just you. There are multiple opinions stated above, that it shouldn't go to Bay Street, shouldn't go to the sports complex, shouldn't cross the river, etc., primarily because the skyway is there. I think this needlessly hamstrings the streetcar system, if we're already pre-determining where it won't go just because the skyway is there. And nobidy is talking about 1 connection, that is fine. The skyway requires multiple connections just on its lines to get anywhere, plus however many the streetcar system woukd require, you're talking about way more than 1 connection.

The skyway only requires 1 transfer, but that's only if you're coming/going from/to Jefferson or Convention Center. If not, it requires none.

No, it requires 4 total, 2 each leg, 1 from the streetcar to the skyway, then a skyway to skyway transfer, then the same on the return leg. Add that to whatever transfers you have in the streetcar network, and you're easily talking about 4-6 transfers to go a couple of miles. Which isn't going to entice any ridership. You really think people are going to do that, plus climb up/down the skyway platforms multiple times, instead of spending 5 minutes in the car. Seriously?

OK, I see. 6 transfers won't entice ridership, but if the transfers are quick, what's the problem? Also, you're talking about in total, that would 2-3 each way and that really isn't bad. Once you get to your destination, you forget about transfers. If JTA does some rescheduling once the streetcar gets built, then it would be fine.

If you are entrusting the viability of the system to JTA's scheduling abilities, well, Houston we have a problem...

Have you read Stephen's wonderful series of articles on JTA's abilities by chance? You really should, they're great.

[iMarvin]

Since when are 4-6 transfers going to take a total of 5 minutes? On the skyway, it's more like 5 minutes apiece, longer if you have to climb stairs or use an elevator or get change, assuming arguendo any of those items was actually functioning when you try to use them. This is not a long-haul system. How many people do you think are going to go through that to go a couple miles vs. just driving straight to where you're going in a couple minutes in the car?

If JTA does rescheduling to get everything right, 4-6 transfers could easily be done in 5 minutes, EASILY. Sadly, Stephen has pointed out something:

But the whole question of any thing working is rendered moot as long as the supremely incompetence management over at the JTA is calling the shots.

If JTA could just think and try to coordinate, transfers would painless, on buses, the skyway, and streetcars.

[iMarvin]

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.

That's not really the point, Lake. You've got people arguing that the streetcar shouldn't go downtown, or to the sports district, Bay Street, etc., in order to force people to use the skyway. That logic will result in two failed systems instead of one. A transfer should be required only when absolutely necessary, you have to maximize the convenience factor and connect residential with commercial, etc., or else this is going to be one more thing everybody will ride once or twice as a novelty and then forget about because it takes three times as long to use it as it does to not use it. This is really basic 21st century transportation planning here. This isn't a toy or a novelty, you actually want people to use this thing for transportation.

You can't be talking about me. I never said that. ONE transfer is NOT a big deal. People hop on a stop in Riverside, ride it to Newnan, get off, and hop on the skyway to the sports complex. That may sound like a lot of steps, but that isn't a hassle for anyone.

I'm responding to several different people in this thread, not just you. There are multiple opinions stated above, that it shouldn't go to Bay Street, shouldn't go to the sports complex, shouldn't cross the river, etc., primarily because the skyway is there. I think this needlessly hamstrings the streetcar system, if we're already pre-determining where it won't go just because the skyway is there. And nobidy is talking about 1 connection, that is fine. The skyway requires multiple connections just on its lines to get anywhere, plus however many the streetcar system woukd require, you're talking about way more than 1 connection.

The skyway only requires 1 transfer, but that's only if you're coming/going from/to Jefferson or Convention Center. If not, it requires none.

No, it requires 4 total, 2 each leg, 1 from the streetcar to the skyway, then a skyway to skyway transfer, then the same on the return leg. Add that to whatever transfers you have in the streetcar network, and you're easily talking about 4-6 transfers to go a couple of miles. Which isn't going to entice any ridership. You really think people are going to do that, plus climb up/down the skyway platforms multiple times, instead of spending 5 minutes in the car. Seriously?

OK, I see. 6 transfers won't entice ridership, but if the transfers are quick, what's the problem? Also, you're talking about in total, that would 2-3 each way and that really isn't bad. Once you get to your destination, you forget about transfers. If JTA does some rescheduling once the streetcar gets built, then it would be fine.

If you are entrusting the viability of the system to JTA's scheduling abilities, well, Houston we have a problem...

Have you read Stephen's wonderful series of articles on JTA's abilities by chance? You really should, they're great.

I know that's where I feel the problem would be. JTA doesn't exactly do things right. But I firmly believe that if they scheduled the streetcar and skyway to meet up at connection points and buses to meet up at skyway/streetcar conncetion points, then transfers wouldn't be a problem.

And I'm not sure if I read the articles. Do you have a link?

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Wow!  C'mon Chris, you've got to be kidding me.  As another on the forum that uses the JTA (not out of necessity I might add), I think you might try it sometime.  Transfers?  How many flights have you taken when you had 2 stops and 1 of those required you travelling the 3 miles from one end of ATL to the other?  Transfers are a norm when you use public transportation. 

The skyway runs on 6 minute intervals during normal hours and 4 minutes during rush hours.  The transfers at Central Station are seamless - both trains arrive going different directions with approx. 1 minute to get from one side to the other.  Not really difficult.  Where we agree is that it's a broken system - it's unfinished - and the only way to support more funding is to show improved ridership.  By terminating bus lines where I've said and how I've said, Assuming 10 people on each bus (very low estimate) * every bus terminating * hours of operation = a shitload of people using the skyway.  Divide that number by the estimated milage that they ride and you have some killer numbers regarding fares/mile - enough to secure more funding to expand I would imagine.

When your car is only running on 3 of it's 8 cylinders you get it fixed.  JTA has decided to throw their hands in the air and say it can't be fixed.

[ChriswUfGator]

Since when are 4-6 transfers going to take a total of 5 minutes? On the skyway, it's more like 5 minutes apiece, longer if you have to climb stairs or use an elevator or get change, assuming arguendo any of those items was actually functioning when you try to use them. This is not a long-haul system. How many people do you think are going to go through that to go a couple miles vs. just driving straight to where you're going in a couple minutes in the car?

If JTA does rescheduling to get everything right, 4-6 transfers could easily be done in 5 minutes, EASILY. Sadly, Stephen has pointed out something:

But the whole question of any thing working is rendered moot as long as the supremely incompetence management over at the JTA is calling the shots.

If JTA could just think and try to coordinate, transfers would painless, on buses, the skyway, and streetcars.

I think you have a lot of misplaced faith in JTA, and really ought to read some of the JTA articles before making your mind up.

The main thing this streetcar system has going for it is that it's possibly going to be a separate agency so JTA won't be able to screw it up. The last thing you want to do is remove that distinct advantage. Not to mention, as I think you are starting to understand now, a system that takes 6 transfers to go a few miles won't attract riders.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Which, whenever I've used the skyway, granted not that often, always seem to be broken. Along with the change machines and everything else, and sometimes even the actual skyway car I'm traveling in. But I guess I digress. We're still back to my suspicion that designing a system that requires a half dozen transfers to go a few miles is not exactly going to be the epitome of convenience, nor do much to attract ridership.

The only one without an escalator is Jefferson Station, but I wouldn't expect you to know that.  They do have a working elevator.  You know, ADA and all.
I think it's that we use different stations because we live in different neighborhoods. The convention center has stairs and an elevator, both the elevator and the change machines are often broken. Who knew I'd ever be a turnstile-jumping criminal.
[/quote]