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

[thelakelander]

Again:

Most of the skyway costs do not vary with the number of vehicles or miles operated.  The marginal O&M costs for the skyway are therefore much lower than the average costs, whereas for a streetcar the marginal and average costs would be nearly the same. 

The "out the door" O&M cost for a modern streetcar is about the same, except a modern streetcar has higher capacity.  The "out the door" O&M cost for a heritage streetcar is slightly lower, although in the grand scheme of things, the O&M costs aren't significantly different with any of these modes.  The significant difference is capital costs and ability to integrate seamlessly within an urbanized landscape at street level.

In short, other then extending the Skyway to San Marco (which is completely logical fiscally because of the Acosta Bridge, FEC tracks and the Skyway already at Kings Avenue), you're not saving any money extending it to Riverside or the Stadium over a streetcar option.  The O&M differences (no matter which way you look at them) don't make up for the excessive capital costs. 

[Dashing Dan]

But based on what I can recall about the cost to extend the skyway to Kings Avenue, I think your skyway capital cost estimates are way too high.

I'm not sure if it's for the same reason, but I do agree with you that a skyway extension to San Marco makes much more sense than an extension to Riverside. 

With the San Marco extension you're extending an existing leg of the system, whereas with the Riverside extension you are essentially adding a new leg, and that would be significantly more costly.

[thelakelander]

Skyway extension estimates to San Marco (at least in terms of the mobility plan which were around $21 million or so) were lower because they included dropping the Skyway down to grade (pedestrians or cars still won't be allowed to cross for obvious reasons) after crossing the FEC. 

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

I think all three options are leg extensions.

The main difference that I see between the three, and this could be the crux of the extension argument, is that 2/3 are to origination points while 1 is to a destination - in the grand scheme of things.

[north miami]

Years ago, when the $100 million in BJP funds for transit was still around, I advised Mike Blaylock and JTA that they would be wise to get at least one starter transit line up and running ASAP before the gas tax expired.  Without making drastic changes that have to result in better reliable service with what they can utilize now, that gas tax isn't going to get extended.  Now, at least three years have passed, the BJP transit money is gone (in the courthouse most likely) and they are no closer to doing something today than they were then.  2016 will be here before we know it.

I don't want to see JTA crumble and be abolished but if they don't start proving themselves, they're going to have major issues. They won't be able to do anything.

[thelakelander]

I think all three options are leg extensions.

The main difference that I see between the three, and this could be the crux of the extension argument, is that 2/3 are to origination points while 1 is to a destination - in the grand scheme of things.

Riverside (Five Points, Memorial Park, St. Vincents, etc.) and San Marco (San Marco Square) are just as much destinations as they are origins.  I agree that all are extensions, however the difference I see is the capital cost and environment impacted verses the cost for alternative options.  When those things come into play, two of the three extensions discussed  are highly questionable. 

However, one that is interesting and rarely mentioned is extending the Skyway north to Shands along the original alignment.  Dougskiles mentioned it pages ago but there is some validity to an inner city concept with the Skyway serving as a north/south line (Shands/Springfield to San Marco) and a streetcar as an east/west line (Riverside to Stadium District) with commuter rail and BRT complementing the two.

[tufsu1]

You wrote that in both big and small cities, 2/3 of transit users are captive riders. 
If you want to change my mind you'll need to cite some sources for that.

I'll post some stats tomorrow

and here you go...

"Relying on the previously described populations, captive versus choice riders, the
former usually exceeds the latter in terms of overall magnitude. For example, the
Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) reports that more than two-thirds of its riders were
choice (Chicago Transit Authority, 2001); this number hovers around three-quarters as
reported by the transit agency (Tri-County Metropolitan District of Oregon, TriMet) in
Portland."

taken from the report you can find here (download pdf)

http://www.its.umn.edu/Publications/ResearchReports/reportdetail.html?id=1118

and this conclusion from a master's thesis supports what I said earlier about parking costs....

"In the absence of destination parking costs, there is little incentive for a choice rider to
use public transit, even light rail."

report found here...

http://www.spa.ucla.edu/UP/webfiles/Stephen%20Crosley%20UCLA.pdf

[Dashing Dan]

I think all three options are leg extensions.

You must be thinking that the line to the O&M facility could be extended out to Riverside. This line is not designed or equipped to handle skyway vehicles that would run on close intervals with people on them.  The concrete is in place for a stub that could bypass the O&M facility and run out to Riverside, but that would add a new leg to the system.  You would still have to add a turnout switch to the guideway itself.

[Dashing Dan]

You wrote that in both big and small cities, 2/3 of transit users are captive riders. 
If you want to change my mind you'll need to cite some sources for that.

I'll post some stats tomorrow

and here you go...

"Relying on the previously described populations, captive versus choice riders, the
former usually exceeds the latter in terms of overall magnitude. For example, the
Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) reports that more than two-thirds of its riders were
choice (Chicago Transit Authority, 2001); this number hovers around three-quarters as
reported by the transit agency (Tri-County Metropolitan District of Oregon, TriMet) in
Portland."

taken from the report you can find here (download pdf)

http://www.its.umn.edu/Publications/ResearchReports/reportdetail.html?id=1118

You wrote that 2/3 of all transit riders are captive riders. The part of this report that you quoted says that 2/3 of Chicago riders are choice riders, not captive riders, and that in Portland the ratio of choice riders to captive riders is even higher than that.

You have disproven yourself.

[tufsu1]

maybe not...it also says the former usually exceeds the latter...I belive maybe they accidentally switched captive and choice....here's the full paragraph

"Relying on the previously described populations, captive versus choice riders, the
former usually exceeds the latter in terms of overall magnitude. For example, the
Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) reports that more than two-thirds of its riders were
choice (Chicago Transit Authority, 2001); this number hovers around three-quarters as
reported by the transit agency (Tri-County Metropolitan District of Oregon, TriMet) in
Portland. Alternatively, Horowitz (1984) assumed the number of captive riders is much
higher compared to choice ones while conducting a demand model for a single transit
route. The literature often associates the population of transit captive riders with various
demographic characteristics, for example: low income, elderly, people with disabilities,
children, families whose travel needs cannot be met with only one car, and those who
chose not to own or use personal transportation (S. Polzin et al., 2000)."

The report goes on to note that when a new rail line opened in Chicago, 25% of its riders were new to transit..i.e, choice riders.

Apparently, the issue in Minneapolis (where the study was done) was extremely low choice ridership...which was improved dramatically when the Hiawatha LRT opened.

I also looked up some stats in Portland...they show that as much as 75% of riders on MAX LRT are choice....but about the same percentage were captive riders on the bus system (which draws far more passengers than the rail)

[Dashing Dan]

maybe not...it also says the former usually exceeds the latter...I belive maybe they accidentally switched captive and choice....here's the full paragraph

"Relying on the previously described populations, captive versus choice riders, the
former usually exceeds the latter in terms of overall magnitude. For example, the
Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) reports that more than two-thirds of its riders were
choice (Chicago Transit Authority, 2001); this number hovers around three-quarters as
reported by the transit agency (Tri-County Metropolitan District of Oregon, TriMet) in
Portland. Alternatively, Horowitz (1984) assumed the number of captive riders is much
higher compared to choice ones while conducting a demand model for a single transit
route. The literature often associates the population of transit captive riders with various
demographic characteristics, for example: low income, elderly, people with disabilities,
children, families whose travel needs cannot be met with only one car, and those who
chose not to own or use personal transportation (S. Polzin et al., 2000)."

The report goes on to note that when a new rail line opened in Chicago, 25% of its riders were new to transit..i.e, choice riders.

Apparently, the issue in Minneapolis (where the study was done) was extremely low choice ridership...which was improved dramatically when the Hiawatha LRT opened.

I also looked up some stats in Portland...they show that as much as 75% of riders on MAX LRT are choice....but about the same percentage were captive riders on the bus system (which draws far more passengers than the rail)

If you keep looking I am sure that you will be able to find facts that will support your argument. 

If not then just argue louder.

[tufsu1]

ok...please post stats showing that composition of transit system ridership...I'm sure you can find tons of systems that have over 40% choice riders

[Dashing Dan]

ok...please post stats showing that composition of transit system ridership...I'm sure you can find tons of systems that have over 40% choice riders

In your expanded quote your source indicated that some definitions of captive riders include people who choose not to own cars.  Presumably there are other definitions that do not include such people. 

If I had the time and the inclination to agree to your request for stats that dispute your argument, the first thing that I'd have to do would be to filter through the sources to come up with a consistent definition of what a captive rider is, and then adjust the estimates in each source to reflect a consistent definition.

In short I'd rather not put myself into a position on either side of this argument, because I believe that either position would be very hard to defend. 

Whether or not most riders are choice riders or captive riders doesn't make any difference anyway.  People deserve to have a decent transit system, whether they are stuck with it or not.

[dougskiles]

However, one that is interesting and rarely mentioned is extending the Skyway north to Shands along the original alignment.  Dougskiles mentioned it pages ago but there is some validity to an inner city concept with the Skyway serving as a north/south line (Shands/Springfield to San Marco) and a streetcar as an east/west line (Riverside to Stadium District) with commuter rail and BRT complementing the two.

What are the chances that this north-south idea could work its way into the plan?  It would seem an obvious choice to extend it north on Hogan St to Hogan Creek.  What route would you suggest to Shands through Springfield after that?

[thelakelander]

If you look at current proposals, this configuration is pretty already in place.  The major difference is instead of extending the Skyway north, there is a streetcar line going north down Main Street and turning west on 8th to access Shands.  However, given the Skyway's black eye, I don't see something like this happening unless the Riverside Streetcar opens and is highly successful.  I also think that Springfield residents wouldn't be to happy having to look at an elevated Skyway along Hogans Creek or having less access, redevelopment & urban infill potential than a streetcar route in the heart of the historic district's commercial corridors.   As for the path, I'd envision the same route as the original Skyway path north of downtown.