Skyway to Greenway?

[ProjectMaximus]

Pretty much any city that adds public transportation to it's list of amenities does it because it's citizens need trains and buses to get around due to a lack of parking space or because there's a historical precedent for train infrastructure in residential areas.

Wouldn't this be Jax?

[Tacachale]

Pretty much any city that adds public transportation to it's list of amenities does it because it's citizens need trains and buses to get around due to a lack of parking space or because there's a historical precedent for train infrastructure in residential areas.

Wouldn't this be Jax?

Yes...

[downtownbrown]

Pretty much any city that adds public transportation to it's list of amenities does it because it's citizens need trains and buses to get around due to a lack of parking space or because there's a historical precedent for train infrastructure in residential areas.  Take Chicago for example, it's not feasible for everyone who works in the Loop district to drive because there's not enough parking.  Same goes for New York and Manhattan.  Downtown Jax has a long way to go before it has tens of thousands of workers piling into downtown skyscrapers to work a 9 to 5 job.  That's why spending money on light rail is a total waste and possibly even a corrupt boondoggle.

As an alternative, creating dedicated transportation/recreational paths not only increases tourism, it's a cheaper way to increase mobility for year around citizens.  Imagine a recreational path that spanned both the south bank and north bank?  That would be an amazing amenity that pretty much any tourist would want to enjoy.  Cafes, clubs, shops would be lining the path and create an experience. 

The good news is the waterfront of Jax is almost a clean slate.  The potential is amazing.  Think about riding a bike from Avondale/Riverside/Downtown to San Marco, having dinner on the square, and then enjoying the sunset while crossing back over a dedicated bridge with no cars?  Or the other way around?  Or walk/bike from the south to a Jags game?  That would be epic and unique. 

Uniqueness is what drives people to want to live in a particular city.  Our competition is Tampa and Orlando.  Tampa has Bayshore Boulevard but it's mostly through a residential neighborhood and used almost strictly for exercise.  Orlando is almost landlocked so they have to develop areas like Winter Park for uniqueness.  Jacksonville has the ability to create something unique that would attract folks and would be impossible to replicate in Tampa or Orlando.

From a strictly selfish standpoint all of the stakeholders in the city will want to see this happen.  Property owners will see their property values increase as Jax becomes more of a destination city.  The government will get more money in property taxes.  Citizens will see their job prospects increase.  Tourists will pump money into the local economy because they stayed an extra day and enjoyed the area.  It's not a stretch to see folks from Ocala/Gainesville/Starke/Villages going back home and telling their friends how great the Jax Bridge was to walk across after the Jags game.  Then they would show off something they bought, chocolate purchased at Peterbrooke, beer bought at Aardwolf, etc.  As they are flipping through pictures on their phone there would a selfie shot of the sunset on the bridge.  Then their kids will see Jax as a destination city and lay the groundwork for the next generation of visitors.  Think landmark, think unique.

How is that different from the Riverwalk?  I already ride my bike between the core, the games, Riverside, and the Southbank.  Wider would be better, and more destinations preferable, but the path is there.

[UNFurbanist]

^Ya I was thinking the same thing. Also there is a pedestrian section of the Main St. bridge isnt there? Making it more accessible from the riverwalks would be nice, sure, but it exists. I think FDOT has plans for a bike/ pedestrian path to connect Riverside to San Marco so that part is on the way too.

[Tacachale]

^Ya I was thinking the same thing. Also there is a pedestrian section of the Main St. bridge isnt there? Making it more accessible from the riverwalks would be nice, sure, but it exists. I think FDOT has plans for a bike/ pedestrian path to connect Riverside to San Marco so that part is on the way too.

There are two pedestrian lanes on the Main Street Bridge. It's been disrupted quite a bit by the constant construction and closures. The two sides aren't all that well connected to the Riverwalk, and the Soutbank Riverwalk isn't well connected to the surrounding neighborhood.

And yes, the latest plans for the Fuller Warren expansion include a separated bike/ped element. FDOT was brought kicking and screaming by our Council reps and advocacy groups.

[downtownbrown]

I think bike accessibility and the short distances between downtown neighborhoods is completely NOT understood by the suburban folks.  That's why I'm hopeful that all of those Brooklyn people will be all over the Core.  It's just a short mosey away.

[For_F-L-O-R-I-D-A]

^Ya I was thinking the same thing. Also there is a pedestrian section of the Main St. bridge isnt there? Making it more accessible from the riverwalks would be nice, sure, but it exists. I think FDOT has plans for a bike/ pedestrian path to connect Riverside to San Marco so that part is on the way too.

There are two pedestrian lanes on the Main Street Bridge. It's been disrupted quite a bit by the constant construction and closures. The two sides aren't all that well connected to the Riverwalk, and the Soutbank Riverwalk isn't well connected to the surrounding neighborhood.

And yes, the latest plans for the Fuller Warren expansion include a separated bike/ped element. FDOT was brought kicking and screaming by our Council reps and advocacy groups.

There is also a ped path on the Acosta Bridge already which is nice and I feel far safer running across than even the Main Street Bridge. Anyway, you can go from Riverside/Brooklyn all the way to the Landing without much interruption on the Northbank Riverwalk which is usually dead until the Landing. We have bigger problems and opportunities to spend money on.

[Ocklawaha]

Pretty much any city that adds public transportation to it's list of amenities does it because it's citizens need trains and buses to get around due to a lack of parking space or because there's a historical precedent for train infrastructure in residential areas. 

That's why spending money on light rail is a total waste and possibly even a corrupt boondoggle.

Jacksonville has the strongest 'historical precedent,' for streetcar and/or light-rail in the State of Florida. The city grew up along its neighborhood streetcar routes/roots. Everything from Ortega Village, Murray Hill and NAS JAX to Moncrief and Lackawanna; and from San Jose to Panama Park, Talleyrand and West Beaver Street all owes its development to the city creating aspect of rail. It only stands to reason that a city with so much steel just below its streets would benefit from returning to the vehicle that birthed it.

Add that to the extreme numbers that streetcar and light-rail have brought in the way of development and ROI virtually everywhere it has been built and it remains a boondoggle that we are not laying track.   

[The_Choose_1]

Pretty much any city that adds public transportation to it's list of amenities does it because it's citizens need trains and buses to get around due to a lack of parking space or because there's a historical precedent for train infrastructure in residential areas.  Take Chicago for example, it's not feasible for everyone who works in the Loop district to drive because there's not enough parking.  Same goes for New York and Manhattan.  Downtown Jax has a long way to go before it has tens of thousands of workers piling into downtown skyscrapers to work a 9 to 5 job.  That's why spending money on light rail is a total waste and possibly even a corrupt boondoggle.

As an alternative, creating dedicated transportation/recreational paths not only increases tourism, it's a cheaper way to increase mobility for year around citizens.  Imagine a recreational path that spanned both the south bank and north bank?  That would be an amazing amenity that pretty much any tourist would want to enjoy.  Cafes, clubs, shops would be lining the path and create an experience. 

The good news is the waterfront of Jax is almost a clean slate.  The potential is amazing.  Think about riding a bike from Avondale/Riverside/Downtown to San Marco, having dinner on the square, and then enjoying the sunset while crossing back over a dedicated bridge with no cars?  Or the other way around?  Or walk/bike from the south to a Jags game?  That would be epic and unique. 

Uniqueness is what drives people to want to live in a particular city.  Our competition is Tampa and Orlando.  Tampa has Bayshore Boulevard but it's mostly through a residential neighborhood and used almost strictly for exercise.  Orlando is almost landlocked so they have to develop areas like Winter Park for uniqueness.  Jacksonville has the ability to create something unique that would attract folks and would be impossible to replicate in Tampa or Orlando.

From a strictly selfish standpoint all of the stakeholders in the city will want to see this happen.  Property owners will see their property values increase as Jax becomes more of a destination city.  The government will get more money in property taxes.  Citizens will see their job prospects increase.  Tourists will pump money into the local economy because they stayed an extra day and enjoyed the area.  It's not a stretch to see folks from Ocala/Gainesville/Starke/Villages going back home and telling their friends how great the Jax Bridge was to walk across after the Jags game.  Then they would show off something they bought, chocolate purchased at Peterbrooke, beer bought at Aardwolf, etc.  As they are flipping through pictures on their phone there would a selfie shot of the sunset on the bridge.  Then their kids will see Jax as a destination city and lay the groundwork for the next generation of visitors.  Think landmark, think unique.

(That's why spending money on light rail is a total waste and possibly even a corrupt boondoggle.) God what a stupid statement! Yes I know it's your Opinion but it is still Stupid to me, which is my Opinion. 

[JaxNative68]

Jacksonville can't maintain the parks at ground level properly. What make people think they could maintain an elevated park? Just curious...

[The_Choose_1]

Jacksonville can't maintain the parks at ground level properly. What make people think they could maintain an elevated park? Just curious...

It depends on the park and which side of town it's on. Besides I have a better chance picking up pixie sticks with my Butt Cheeks before any elevated park comes to Jacksonville Florida.

[For_F-L-O-R-I-D-A]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APJAvHdSx8g

Anyone see this? They are seriously making fun of the streetcar project in Charlotte right now because of how slow the thing moves.

[Adam White]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APJAvHdSx8g

Anyone see this? They are seriously making fun of the streetcar project in Charlotte right now because of how slow the thing moves.

That's the solution! People just need to run everywhere.

[Ocklawaha]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APJAvHdSx8g

Anyone see this? They are seriously making fun of the streetcar project in Charlotte right now because of how slow the thing moves.

LRT=Light Rail Transit
BRT=Bus Rapid Transit


Are we dealing with children here? Really? This is getting pretty silly, transit or pedestrian greenway has never been a one or the other proposition. There is no reason why any city given our current infrastructure couldn't have both.

The idea that a greenway could be done on the elevated structure of the Skyway is pretty recidivous. It is simply too narrow to accommodate any other use then a fixed rail vehicle, not even JTA'S beloved buses could be made to ride above the streets like that and for bicycles and pedestrians the narrowness and elevation would present all sorts of dangers. I wouldn't say it can't be done, but I will say it won't be done...ever. The situation in New York/NJ is totally different. The old railroad being used in these applications were full sized double tracked and sometimes triple tracked deck bridges or trestles anywhere from 50 to 100' feet wide. The Skyway beams by comparison are measured in inches... 23" of them. Nobody in the general public would ever be invited to walk up there.

Down below the Skyway, there is certainly room to create landscaped urban trails, with lush foliage. Hogan Street would make for an amazing trellis of hanging vines and flowers, while other segments such as Bay offer a covered sidewalk or trail.

Laughing at the streetcar in Charlotte was just another of those lame cutie-pie funnies that appear in the daily Yahoo's around the world. The facts are quite different:

it's no secret that one of the primary justifications for installing light rail transit (LRT) is to improve the speed of transit service – to provide a faster ride for transit passengers and a transit alternative more competitive with the private automobile. How well do new LRT systems meet this goal?

Not well at all, if you would believe the claims of many light rail opponents, who concoct an image of slow-moving "trolley cars" dawdling along from transit stop to stop. in one of his familiar boilerplate tracts, the pre-eminent Road Warrior ideologue Wendell Cox explains "Why Light Rail Won't Work for San Antonio" (and both he and Randall O'Foole will show up the day Jacksonville announces its intention to return to the rails) The following is from Mr. Cox in his campaign against rail (Texas Public Policy Foundation, January 2000):

Slow speed: Even in the few corridors served by new light rail systems, it provides no speed advantage compared to highway alternatives .... New light rail systems average 17.2 miles per hour, and the fastest at-grade system operates at 18.2 miles per hour.

This same "slow speed" Old Wives' Tale is picked up and re-articulated in a variety of forms by anti-rail zealots across the country. During the fiercely fought light rail campaign in Austin, Texas in 2000, for example, the anti-transit highway-boosting group ROAD (Reclaim Our Allocated Dollars) asserted that "light rail trolley cars travel at an average speed less than 17 miles per hour ...." indeed, during the campaign, some ROAD zealots preached that LRT "trolleycars" would plod through Austin no faster than 9 mph! According to opponents' rhetoric, LRT just seems to be going slower ... and slower ... and ...

So what's the real lowdown on the LRT "slowdown"? Supporters of improved urban mobility can take heart in the fact that the reality is not at odds with what common sense tells them – LRT really is a relatively fast mode of urban transportation, especially for public transit.

City buses in NY and many other cities both large and small have generally fallen below 9 mph average speed in the last couple of years. Bus Rapid Transit has bumped that up in area's where it is implemented closer to the 15-20 mph mark.

Modern light rail systems have average speeds in the range of 20 mph or faster. This is faster than local transit bus speeds of 12-13 mph, and competitive with the average speeds of automobiles -- 23-25 mph in urban traffic conditions (a mix of freeways, arterials, and local streets). .

LIGHT-RAIL SYSTEM    &   AVERAGE MPH
Baltimore   24
Dallas (Red Line)   21
Dallas (Blue Line)   19
Denver (Alameda-Littleton)   38
Denver (Downtown-Littleton)   26
Los Angeles (Blue Line)   24
Los Angeles (Green Line)   38
Salt Lake City   24

It should be kept in mind that these are average schedule speeds including station stops to board and let off passengers. They may also reflect speed restrictions, such as in streets or arterials, and relatively slow progress through central areas with frequent stops.

The more sophisticated LRT opponents often base their low-balled "average speed" values on average operating speeds reported by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in its National Transportation Data Base (NTDB). The problem with the NTDB data, however, is that it includes vehicle (or train) layover time at the ends of routes – a delay not experienced by passengers. The data we have presented are calculated from actual schedule times and route lengths provided by the various transit agencies, and reflects the actual average travel speeds LRT passengers truly experience.

Also, the FTA "national average" data opponents typically quote includes the  slower speeds of  streetcar-type LRT operations in cities like Boston, San Francisco, and Philadelphia. This tends to skew the national average speed downward. Modern LRT and even well planned modern or heritage streetcar built in exclusive lanes or in medians or side-of-the-road would be much faster. Electric vehicles from the oldest streetcar to the newest Tesla can blow the socks off of any diesel or gas powered transit vehicle.

Opponents also frequently confuse their audience by playing "mix-and-match" games with average schedule speed and maximum speed, to concoct an image of "slow" LRT trains crawling at 17 or 20 mph, vs. speedy cars and buses on freeways blazing past at 55 mph. in reality, LRT maximum speeds in public thoroughfares are typically the same as the posted traffic speed (often ranging from 25 to 50 mph) and up to 50-55 mph on highspeed (usually exclusive) sections of alignment, like railroad corridors. This potential for highspeed operation is reflected in the amazingly high average speeds (nearly 40 mph, including station stops) achieved by Los Angeles's Green Line and a major segment of the newly completed Littleton LRT line in Denver.

Sources: Calculated from schedule and route
data from Baltimore MTA; DART; Denver RTD;
LACMTA; Salt Lake City UTA

[For_F-L-O-R-I-D-A]

Ock, would you turn the Skyway into a streetcar? The thing could move pretty fast on its elevated ROW.