Metro Jacksonville

For whatever reasons, our council finally did something right.

Tonight they unanimously passed Bill Killingsworth's sprawl killing Mobility Plan.

This is one huge step to putting the city on a sustainable basis.

Wow, that is exciting.

This is one heck of an achievement for our City Planning Department. Kudos to Bill Killingsworth, a brilliant man.

The 2030 Mobility Plan?

amazing news!

Excellent!  ;D

Quote from: iMarvin on May 24, 2011, 07:43:05 PM
The 2030 Mobility Plan?

Here it is.
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2010-apr-jacksonvilles-2030-mobility-plan (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2010-apr-jacksonvilles-2030-mobility-plan)

Quote from: JeffreyS on May 24, 2011, 07:58:52 PM

Quote from: iMarvin on May 24, 2011, 07:43:05 PM
The 2030 Mobility Plan?

Here it is.
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2010-apr-jacksonvilles-2030-mobility-plan (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2010-apr-jacksonvilles-2030-mobility-plan)

I thought so.

This is great!!  ;D

Quote from: JeffreyS on May 24, 2011, 07:58:52 PM

Quote from: iMarvin on May 24, 2011, 07:43:05 PM
The 2030 Mobility Plan?

Here it is.
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2010-apr-jacksonvilles-2030-mobility-plan (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2010-apr-jacksonvilles-2030-mobility-plan)

So according to the previous metjax article, there's to be a streetcar starter line operational within the next 5 years??

QuoteFigure E-5 highlights the projects that will receive funding during the mobility fee's first five years of implementation.  To give Jacksonville a realistic chance at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle miles traveled, as well as encouraging transit friendly development, a viable mass transit system becomes a high priority.  With this in mind, commuter rail and streetcar starter lines have been included within the Five Year CIE.

Good news.

That also means a commuter rail line down to the Avenues, right?

All of this exciting Jacksonville news would be happening when the world is about to end...

We need development to occur to actually fund these projects!

We can not do enough to promote and help fund these projects.  This is perfect timing with a new Mayor who has time to realize this as one of his legacy projects.

Quote from: comncense on May 24, 2011, 08:52:22 PM
All of this exciting Jacksonville news would be happening when the world is about to end...

No, we've got until 21 October (or whenever Camping decides he's made another "error". I guess he didn't get a Math degree!)

Quick question: How will they get the money?

^Wow that is incredible. Just amazing.

This is great news!

It really is because, to think how much that will change the landscape of the city and the metro area. It shows how much we are progressing. It's really, really great.

Now if we just keep them from enacting a "moratorium" on mobility fees to "encourage jobs".

So right Charles and we need to start letting the council and Mayor know we expect this to be lived up to.

This is great news.  Kudos to Bill and the council for recognizing the value.

From what I hear, the bill for moratorium on concurrency will most likely die.  The sponsor, Jack Webb, was just voted out of office.  But it certainly doesn't hurt to let your councilman know that you don't like it.

If there is going to be a streetcar and communter rail in 5 years someone better get cracking  ;D

Quote from: acme54321 on May 25, 2011, 07:13:40 AM
If there is going to be a streetcar and communter rail in 5 years someone better get cracking  ;D

If one is funding through the Federal Government you'd not only be right, but it would probably take another 5 years. Self funded streetcar lines can be built almost as fast as bus routes can be changed. A look at the historic TU papers in the library system demonstrates this...April "announcement of new subdivision"  November "line to subdivision opens".

OCKLAWAHA

Regarding the mass transit component of the plan, from what I understand, the skyway extension to Atlantic Blvd in San Marco was removed because of fear that the bad air around the system could potentially take down the entire mobility plan.  Thus, that $21 million the plan dedicated to it, has been shifted to help speed up the contruction of the streetcar line between downtown and Springfield (Shands).

Quote from: thelakelander on May 25, 2011, 08:43:53 AM
Regarding the mass transit component of the plan, from what I understand, the skyway extension to Atlantic Blvd in San Marco was removed because of fear that the bad air around the system could potentially take down the entire mobility plan.  Thus, that $21 million the plan dedicated to it, has been shifted to help speed up the contruction of the streetcar line between downtown and Springfield (Shands).

I think a streetcar line to Shands would be great.

While I think this is great that it passed, we will not get funds without construction.  Considering the dismal state of the construction and development industry, we could be waiting a while.  It is a hell of a lot better than the current system though.

I think it would have been better to have higher trip lengths for the rural and suburban development areas so they would be paying a higher fee.  I think the model underestimates trip lengths for those areas.

Quoteink this is great that it passed, we will not get funds without construction.  Considering the dismal state of the construction and development industry, we could be waiting a while.  It is a hell of a lot better than the current system though.

I agree.

What is the basis for the fee amount??  Is it a percentage of project cost? A per square foot fee?  Would retail have a higher fee than residential due to the higher number of people coming and going??

I of course realize the underlying basis for the fee has to do with density and the zones, but I was just curious about the particulars of how individual fees are calculated.

The way I see it, we take one step at a time.  Go ahead and get the policy adopted and implemented (happening now) and then continue to work to modify codes, regulations and concepts to help stimulate additional private sector development.  As the economy improves funds will grow.  So at the end of the day, I'll think we'll be fine.

Regarding the mass transit projects, there's no reason we can't implement some of them for a much cheaper cost than what has been set aside for them in the mobility plan.  Perhaps our focus should be on doing more with less, in regards to funding, construction strategies and opportunities to pool mobility money with other funding mechanisms.  Also, when a little money comes in, i think it should be released to go ahead and get the necessary engineering and design process for these corridors completed, ASAP.  At least this way, we'll have "shovel ready" projects available to go if unexpected funding opportunities comes along.

Quote from: Captain Zissou on May 25, 2011, 10:27:23 AM

Quoteink this is great that it passed, we will not get funds without construction.  Considering the dismal state of the construction and development industry, we could be waiting a while.  It is a hell of a lot better than the current system though.

I agree.

What is the basis for the fee amount??  Is it a percentage of project cost? A per square foot fee?  Would retail have a higher fee than residential due to the higher number of people coming and going??

I of course realize the underlying basis for the fee has to do with density and the zones, but I was just curious about the particulars of how individual fees are calculated.

It is the total cost of the transportation plan divided by the increase in vehicle miles traveled from 2008 to 2030 (the planning horizon).  It comes out to be about $50 per VMT. 

QuoteThe way I see it, we take one step at a time.  Go ahead and get the policy adopted and implemented (happening now) and then continue to work to modify codes, regulations and concepts to help stimulate additional private sector development.  As the economy improves funds will grow.  So at the end of the day, I'll think we'll be fine.

Regarding the mass transit projects, there's no reason we can't implement some of them for a much cheaper cost than what has been set aside for them in the mobility plan.  Perhaps our focus should be on doing more with less, in regards to funding, construction strategies and opportunities to pool mobility money with other funding mechanisms.  Also, when a little money comes in, i think it should be released to go ahead and get the necessary engineering and design process for these corridors completed, ASAP.  At least this way, we'll have "shovel ready" projects available to go if unexpected funding opportunities comes along.

I agree with this.  It would have been awesome to have this in prior to the building boom.  We could have had some great stuff going.

So the Streetcar line we are looking at will eventually be from King street (St. Vincents) to Shands via the Landing. Great

Check that.  I said the fee was $50 per VMT but I believe it is actually $25.  It was $50 in the initially draft of the plan but was then lowered.  Perhaps someone here could confirm that.  

Quote from: JeffreyS on May 25, 2011, 11:35:34 AM
So the Streetcar line we are looking at will eventually be from King street (St. Vincents) to Shands via the Landing. Great

^Along with an extension to the Stadium District.  Basically, the routes indicated in the North Florida TPO's 2035 LRTP.

Quote from: cline on May 25, 2011, 11:48:01 AM
Check that.  I said the fee was $50 per VMT but I believe it is actually $25.  It was $50 in the initially draft of the plan but was then lowered.  Perhaps someone here could confirm that.  

I beliebve you are correct....assume that a single family home generates 10 trips per day...if a new home was built in the urban core and urban priority areas, the mobility fee for a developer would be around $2250 (10 X 9 mile avg. trip length X $25)....in the most rural areas of the county, it would be closer to $3500 (10 x 14 mile avg. trip length x $25).

Quote from: tufsu1 on May 25, 2011, 01:28:31 PM

Quote from: cline on May 25, 2011, 11:48:01 AM
Check that.  I said the fee was $50 per VMT but I believe it is actually $25.  It was $50 in the initially draft of the plan but was then lowered.  Perhaps someone here could confirm that.  

I beliebve you are correct....assume that a single family home generates 10 trips per day...if a new home was built in the urban core and urban priority areas, the mobility fee for a developer would be around $2250 (10 X 9 mile avg. trip length X $25)....in the most rural areas of the county, it would be closer to $3500 (10 x 14 mile avg. trip length x $25).

That's the reason I think the numbers are too low.  A developer should be penalized much more (only $1250 difference in your example) for choosing to build in the rural area as opposed to the urban areas.  There is not enough disparity in the average trip lengths.  I also think we would be better served at the $50 fee per VMT as opposed to the $25 fee but at least that number can be increased over time.

QuoteThat's the reason I think the numbers are too low.  A developer should be penalized much more (only $1250 difference in your example) for choosing to build in the rural area as opposed to the urban areas.  There is not enough disparity in the average trip lengths.  I also think we would be better served at the $50 fee per VMT as opposed to the $25 fee but at least that number can be increased over time.

The mobility fee structure was one of the most contentious parts of the plan.  I'm fine with the current structure, provided the ability to re-evaluate the structure can be examined again in 5 years.  I think overall the plan that was passed last night was a HUGE win for the city.  There is going to be a bit of compromise in every negotiation and I think the deal overal is very fair. 

Of course I would have liked the San Marco skyway extension to have stayed in the plan, but the reality is that portion of the plan was a huge political hot potato and I can understand why it was replaced.

This is one of the most fair deals the city has seen in quite some time.  It's a day to be very proud to call Jacksonville your home.  I would encourage you to write a note of thanks to the planners office and your council representatives. 

QuoteThe mobility fee structure was one of the most contentious parts of the plan.

Uh, obviously.  The fee is the basis of the whole thing.

Is the skyway in the mobility plan at all? What will the San Marco extension be replaced with?

QuoteUh, obviously.  The fee is the basis of the whole thing.

Well, the alternative was stripping out the fee altogether(discussed heavily and legislation is still out there that proposes this) rendering the complete plan worthless.

I don't believe these types of things should be an all or nothing proposition.   

QuoteIs the skyway in the mobility plan at all? What will the San Marco extension be replaced with?

Shands streetcar line.  If you look at the plan available online, you can see the proposed line drawn out on the map.  The one thing that is dissapointing is that the San Marco skyway proposal had some specific TOD opportunities that were much closer to being shovel ready.  That being said, a streetcar line connecting what could be a burgeoning urban medical cluster isn't bad in the least bit.  There is so much opportunity to bring back high density infill along the 8th, Jefferson, Davis and Main Street.

If we get this broken ground in Riverside then San Marco will demand they get some too.

I think you could see some wonderful urban renewal if you extended the skyway from the Jacksonville Terminal (A.K.A Prime Osborn) up Myrtle to Durkeeville then kings to Edward Waters. Less than 2 miles.

I think if the Skyway goes anywhere it should be to the stadium first.  Then to San Marco.

Quote from: acme54321 on May 25, 2011, 02:59:00 PM
I think if the Skyway goes anywhere it should be to the stadium first.  Then to San Marco.

It would be far cheaper to extend towards San Marco rather than extending it the Stadium.  Streetcar might be a better option for the Stadium.

To me it doesn't make sense to not extend the skyway. A streetcar is great and all but with all the other options, no one will ride the skyway. I have always wanted the skyway to be extended down to San Marco Square, Five Points, the Stadium, and Shands. The skyway should be extened down Riverside Ave, Hendricks Ave,  Bay St, and whatever street you get to Shands with. That way the skyway is useful.

San Marco makes sense because the FEC RR track is a barrier to every mode of travel EXCEPT the skyway. 

The problem with the stadium extension is that the skyway cannot carry even a busload of people at a time.

Quote from: Dashing Dan on May 25, 2011, 03:39:10 PM
The problem with the stadium extension is that the skyway cannot carry even a busload of people at a time.

Question: Could they just add more cars to those trains if needed?

Quote from: danem on May 25, 2011, 03:40:15 PM

Quote from: Dashing Dan on May 25, 2011, 03:39:10 PM
The problem with the stadium extension is that the skyway cannot carry even a busload of people at a time.

Question: Could they just add more cars to those trains if needed?

Yes has been the answer Ock has always told us.

Quote from: JeffreyS on May 25, 2011, 03:41:48 PM

Quote from: danem on May 25, 2011, 03:40:15 PM

Quote from: Dashing Dan on May 25, 2011, 03:39:10 PM
The problem with the stadium extension is that the skyway cannot carry even a busload of people at a time.

Question: Could they just add more cars to those trains if needed?

Yes has been the answer Ock has always told us.

It would still be very expensive for the infrastucture.  That money would be better spent on a different mode.

Quote from: cline on May 25, 2011, 03:08:23 PM

Quote from: acme54321 on May 25, 2011, 02:59:00 PM
I think if the Skyway goes anywhere it should be to the stadium first.  Then to San Marco.

It would be far cheaper to extend towards San Marco rather than extending it the Stadium.  Streetcar might be a better option for the Stadium.

But I think IMO it would get more use going to the stadium. Aside from Jags games, people venture to our sports complex for a host of other events year round. I think an extension to the stadium first make the most sense in your comparison.

With regard to the Skyway extension into San Marco, just because it is not in the Mobility Plan, doesn't mean it can't happen.  It could happen faster than a Mobility Plan project if another source of funding comes along that is directed toward the San Marco Skyway expansion.  There are three potential TODs along an expansion to Atlantic Boulevard that could contribute to the cost.  There is nothing that would keep these potential developers from working out a deal with the city to move this project along faster.

In fact, JTA has the most to gain from a large TOD at Kings Avenue.

Ock and Lake are the technical experts on the subject and can answer in more detail.

But you could drop the skyway down to grade and eliminate the double track to save a good chunk of change.  This is what makes a San Marco extension far more feasible(and relevant b/c it will tie into a very vibrant urban neighborhood) than an extension to the Stadium District.  The skyway extension proposal in San Marco would have stopped at a potential commuter rail station/platform at the railroad track at Atlantic Blvd, which would have tied all of San Marco Square into the spine.  I believe Doug's plan would have also used PCT trolleys to feed into this spine from throughout the neighborhood.

I believe there is a lease-option coming due on JTA owned land near the TOD development at Kings Ave Station which could have helped fund part of this extension.  There is also two other potential TOD spots(one bordering the railroad track at Atlantic).  This could have also spurred development at the St Joe property on Hendricks.

To answer the question about cars... yes they can be extended, and the skyway used to have bigger cars when it first opened.

Quote from: duvaldude08 on May 25, 2011, 03:50:01 PM

Quote from: cline on May 25, 2011, 03:08:23 PM

Quote from: acme54321 on May 25, 2011, 02:59:00 PM
I think if the Skyway goes anywhere it should be to the stadium first.  Then to San Marco.

It would be far cheaper to extend towards San Marco rather than extending it the Stadium.  Streetcar might be a better option for the Stadium.

But I think IMO it would get more use going to the stadium. Aside from Jags games, people venture to our sports complex for a host of other events year round. I think an extension to the stadium first make the most sense in your comparison.

I'm not suggesting that the Stadium district shouldn't be served by transit, I just think that the Skyway would not be cost effective.  I think the stadium would be better served by streetcar.  At any rate though, I think the first focus for any mode should be getting streetcard from downtown to Riverside.

Quote from: cline on May 25, 2011, 03:49:04 PM

It would still be very expensive for the infrastucture.  That money would be better spent on a different mode.

I agree with cline.  A streetcar to the stadium is a much better solution than the skyway.  It will bring about more infill development along the route, too.

Quote from: duvaldude08 on May 25, 2011, 03:50:01 PM

Quote from: cline on May 25, 2011, 03:08:23 PM

Quote from: acme54321 on May 25, 2011, 02:59:00 PM
I think if the Skyway goes anywhere it should be to the stadium first.  Then to San Marco.

It would be far cheaper to extend towards San Marco rather than extending it the Stadium.  Streetcar might be a better option for the Stadium.

But I think IMO it would get more use going to the stadium. Aside from Jags games, people venture to our sports complex for a host of other events year round. I think an extension to the stadium first make the most sense in your comparison.

I agree. The skyway will get more use if it went to all the "hotspots" in the downtown area, but if there had to be only one extension, the stadium would make the most sense.

Quote from: cline on May 25, 2011, 01:34:25 PM

Quote from: tufsu1 on May 25, 2011, 01:28:31 PM

Quote from: cline on May 25, 2011, 11:48:01 AM
Check that.  I said the fee was $50 per VMT but I believe it is actually $25.  It was $50 in the initially draft of the plan but was then lowered.  Perhaps someone here could confirm that.  

I beliebve you are correct....assume that a single family home generates 10 trips per day...if a new home was built in the urban core and urban priority areas, the mobility fee for a developer would be around $2250 (10 X 9 mile avg. trip length X $25)....in the most rural areas of the county, it would be closer to $3500 (10 x 14 mile avg. trip length x $25).

That's the reason I think the numbers are too low.  A developer should be penalized much more (only $1250 difference in your example) for choosing to build in the rural area as opposed to the urban areas.  There is not enough disparity in the average trip lengths.  I also think we would be better served at the $50 fee per VMT as opposed to the $25 fee but at least that number can be increased over time.

A new infill or adaptive reuse property within Urban Priority (UPA) and Urban Area (UA) development areas would end up with a lower fee than suggested by tufsu1.  For example, it would recieve trip credits for the previous use on site (the urban core is already built out), if its within a 1/4 to 1/2 radius of a fixed transit corridor, if it is designed to promote walkability, its location having a much higher density, etc. and more).

Quote from: fieldafm on May 25, 2011, 03:54:10 PM
But you could drop the skyway down to grade and eliminate the double track to save a good chunk of change.  This is what makes a San Marco extension far more feasible(and relevant b/c it will tie into a very vibrant urban neighborhood) than an extension to the Stadium District.  The skyway extension proposal in San Marco would have stopped at a potential commuter rail station/platform at the railroad track at Atlantic Blvd, which would have tied all of San Marco Square into the spine.  I believe Doug's plan would have also used PCT trolleys to feed into this spine from throughout the neighborhood.

You were taking notes!  That is exactly how we discussed it several months ago.  And that is still the desire.  We talked about this again at our San Marco by Design workshop Saturday and received a very good response.

Aside from the usual Skyway bashers, I have yet to talk to someone in our area who would not want to see this happen.  The question will be how do we get it funded?  I believe that is where the TODs come into play.

Quote from: iMarvin on May 25, 2011, 02:23:26 PM
Is the skyway in the mobility plan at all? What will the San Marco extension be replaced with?

The skyway was removed from the mobility plan completely (political hot potato).  The $21 million in the plan that was set aside for the skyway extension was shifted to the $42 million streetcar corridor going into Springfield.  Neither of these projects are in the initial CIE plan (only the Riverside Streetcar and S-Line Commuter Rail Corridor are), so I'm sure they'll be reevaluated in five years.

One more detail to go with the Mobility Plan, from what I understand.  Section 655 of the ordinance code regarding concurrency needs to be modified to remove the existing concurrency system and implement the Mobility Plan.  As of now, we are still operating under the old system and will continue to do so until this happens.  What passed last night changed the Comprehensive Plan.  Ordinance code is next.

Lakelander, do you know when this is scheduled to occur?

Quote from: thelakelander on May 25, 2011, 04:04:17 PM

Quote from: iMarvin on May 25, 2011, 02:23:26 PM
Is the skyway in the mobility plan at all? What will the San Marco extension be replaced with?

The skyway was removed from the mobility plan completely (political hot potato).  The $21 million in the plan that was set aside for the skyway extension was shifted to the $42 million streetcar corridor going into Springfield.  Neither of these projects are in the initial CIE plan (only the Riverside Streetcar and S-Line Commuter Rail Corridor are), so I'm sure they'll be reevaluated in five years.

Do you think it will be put back in the plan?

Quote from: dougskiles on May 25, 2011, 03:53:13 PM
With regard to the Skyway extension into San Marco, just because it is not in the Mobility Plan, doesn't mean it can't happen.  It could happen faster than a Mobility Plan project if another source of funding comes along that is directed toward the San Marco Skyway expansion.  There are three potential TODs along an expansion to Atlantic Boulevard that could contribute to the cost.  There is nothing that would keep these potential developers from working out a deal with the city to move this project along faster.

In fact, JTA has the most to gain from a large TOD at Kings Avenue.

Great point.  There are tons of funding mechanisms out there and the mobility plan is only one of them.

Quote from: iMarvin on May 25, 2011, 04:07:55 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on May 25, 2011, 04:04:17 PM

Quote from: iMarvin on May 25, 2011, 02:23:26 PM
Is the skyway in the mobility plan at all? What will the San Marco extension be replaced with?

The skyway was removed from the mobility plan completely (political hot potato).  The $21 million in the plan that was set aside for the skyway extension was shifted to the $42 million streetcar corridor going into Springfield.  Neither of these projects are in the initial CIE plan (only the Riverside Streetcar and S-Line Commuter Rail Corridor are), so I'm sure they'll be reevaluated in five years.

Do you think it will be put back in the plan?

I think it depends on the success of the initial projects.  However, yes it could possibly be put back on at some point in the future when the reevaluation process occurs.

Quote from: dougskiles on May 25, 2011, 04:06:23 PM
One more detail to go with the Mobility Plan, from what I understand.  Section 655 of the ordinance code regarding concurrency needs to be modified to remove the existing concurrency system and implement the Mobility Plan.  As of now, we are still operating under the old system and will continue to do so until this happens.  What passed last night changed the Comprehensive Plan.  Ordinance code is next.

Lakelander, do you know when this is scheduled to occur?

Should happen around the end of Summer.

Quote from: thelakelander on May 25, 2011, 04:09:39 PM

Quote from: iMarvin on May 25, 2011, 04:07:55 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on May 25, 2011, 04:04:17 PM

Quote from: iMarvin on May 25, 2011, 02:23:26 PM
Is the skyway in the mobility plan at all? What will the San Marco extension be replaced with?

The skyway was removed from the mobility plan completely (political hot potato).  The $21 million in the plan that was set aside for the skyway extension was shifted to the $42 million streetcar corridor going into Springfield.  Neither of these projects are in the initial CIE plan (only the Riverside Streetcar and S-Line Commuter Rail Corridor are), so I'm sure they'll be reevaluated in five years.

Do you think it will be put back in the plan?

I think it depends on the success of the initial projects.  However, yes it could possibly be put back on at some point in the future when the reevaluation process occurs.

I really hope it is because I really think the skyway should be expanded.

I assume that the concurrency moratorium is basically dead?  I understand that it is sitting in the finance committee.  But with the sponsor having lost the election, who is going to push it through?  Why would anyone just elected and facing the difficult task of funding our city do something to take funds away?

QuoteThe question will be how do we get it funded?  I believe that is where the TODs come into play.

Realistically, I think for the San Marco Skyway extension to be implemented.. it's going to have to be funded by the developers.  There are A LOT of creative ways you could accomplish this.

QuoteShould happen around the end of Summer.

With the new Council in place.  This is where the real action begins.  A lot of the new council members have said that they favor a moratorium on the mobility fee.  In the same token, most of those incoming council members don't have a good enough understanding of the plan.  There is tremendous opportunity to educate and enlighten.

Quote from: iMarvin on May 25, 2011, 04:11:59 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on May 25, 2011, 04:09:39 PM

Quote from: iMarvin on May 25, 2011, 04:07:55 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on May 25, 2011, 04:04:17 PM

Quote from: iMarvin on May 25, 2011, 02:23:26 PM
Is the skyway in the mobility plan at all? What will the San Marco extension be replaced with?

The skyway was removed from the mobility plan completely (political hot potato).  The $21 million in the plan that was set aside for the skyway extension was shifted to the $42 million streetcar corridor going into Springfield.  Neither of these projects are in the initial CIE plan (only the Riverside Streetcar and S-Line Commuter Rail Corridor are), so I'm sure they'll be reevaluated in five years.

Do you think it will be put back in the plan?

I think it depends on the success of the initial projects.  However, yes it could possibly be put back on at some point in the future when the reevaluation process occurs.

I really hope it is because I really think the skyway should be expanded.

Once we start impletmenting these various multimodal projects and connecting different areas we will see an increase in Skyway ridership and success.  It fails now because it was basically left on the vine alone to die.  Once it becomes part of a multimodal system it can begin to thrive.  Once that happens there will be more agreement to expand it.  

Quote from: fieldafm on May 25, 2011, 03:54:10 PM
Ock and Lake are the technical experts on the subject and can answer in more detail.

But you could drop the skyway down to grade and eliminate the double track to save a good chunk of change.  

Because the skyway is remotely operated, you cannot drop it all the way down to grade.  

You would have to go above or below the skyway in order to cross it.

As long as we can avoid the monstrous elevated stations and go with a single track on grade, I believe the cost of the San Marco Skyway extension will be much less than $21 million.  Hopefully in the $10 million range.

The beauty is also that it can be extended TOD to TOD to TOD.  First to the other side of the Kings Avenue garage for a large TOD, then along the tracks down to grade at the end of Lasalle Street for another TOD and finally to Atlantic where it will meet the commuter rail station and provide service for the St Joe/Regency East San Marco project.

QuoteA lot of the new council members have said that they favor a moratorium on the mobility fee.

Which new members have said this?  

The extension would end at the railroad crossing at Atlantic. It would not pass over any tracks at grade.

Quote from: Dashing Dan on May 25, 2011, 04:16:22 PM

Quote from: fieldafm on May 25, 2011, 03:54:10 PM
Ock and Lake are the technical experts on the subject and can answer in more detail.

But you could drop the skyway down to grade and eliminate the double track to save a good chunk of change. 

Because the skyway is remotely operated, you cannot drop it all the way down to grade. 

You would have to go above or below the skyway in order to cross it.

If it were expanded to Atlantic Blvd in San Marco, you could drop it down to grade after it crossed the FEC tracks, near the tennis courts.  This would work there because you can't cross the FEC tracks at grade between Hendricks and Atlantic.

Quote from: thelakelander on May 25, 2011, 04:20:57 PM
If it were expanded to Atlantic Blvd in San Marco, you could drop it down to grade after it crossed the FEC tracks, near the tennis courts.  This would work there because you can't cross the FEC tracks at grade between Hendricks and Atlantic.

And it would be in restricted access right-of-way adjacent to the FEC tracks.  Some at JTA tell me it can't be done, but I've learned not to believe everything they say.

The Skyway into an actual retail-residential area would absolutely double the ridership numbers of the entire system. The Stadium Area extension along Bay Street is already drawn up and sitting in boxes over at JTA, though when they were requested JTA seems to have forgotten where they put them... uh huh? A stadium area extension will likewise double (or more)  the annual ridership, but only the line from Central Station to JSO/Maxwell House would have any chance of much of a daily contribution to the system. The Stadium line would do in a single weekend what the other lines take weeks to do, but then the eastern end of it might be unused on a daily basis.

Lastly the routing, sending the streetcar down Bay does two huge negative things to our Light Rail Hopes in Jacksonville.

1. It pretty much slams the door on ANY Skyway expansion to the Stadiums EVER by using the Skyway's right-of-way.

2. It would miss the potential junction with the old F&J Railroad at the Union Street Warehouse, that old rail line gives us our best LIGHT RAIL opportunity running from the Arena north to 21St Street then northwest to Gateway Mall. The ridership potential and usefulness of such a line couldn't be overstated...and we already OWN it!

OCKLAWAHA

Trust me - you cannot build the skyway to run at grade.  

There's nobody on the train who could watch for obstructions.

If you can run heavy rail at grade where cars and pedestrians (ex. DC Metro's yellow line just north of Alexandria, VA) don't have to cross, why can't you do the same with the skyway?

Quote from: dougskiles on May 25, 2011, 04:23:07 PM
And it would be in restricted access right-of-way adjacent to the FEC tracks.  Some at JTA tell me it can't be done, but I've learned not to believe everything they say.

http://www.youtube.com/v/VK_YvcxDT9E?fs=1&hl=en_US

JTA is pissing on somebody's leg and telling them it's raining... WATCH THE VIDEO, at 1:09... tell Doug and I that it can't be done!

OCKLAWAHA

I'm just saying that you have to design it so that nothing could ever get into the path of a moving vehicle.

If it was completely fenced off that would probably be okay.

Yes, it would have to be completely fenced off.

Quote from: Dashing Dan on May 25, 2011, 04:24:02 PM
Trust me - you cannot build the skyway to run at grade.  

There's nobody on the train who could watch for obstructions.

as Lake said, you can  build at-grade in the section between Kings and Atlantic where there are no crossing streets...and then put up walls/fences on either side to keep people from getting on the tracks.

The greatest concern with being on grade is electrocution of unauthorized people walking on it.  It would have to be fenced and monitored just like they do at the stations with the alarm.  Still cheaper than elevating it, though.

Quote from: tufsu1 on May 25, 2011, 04:34:55 PM

Quote from: Dashing Dan on May 25, 2011, 04:24:02 PM
Trust me - you cannot build the skyway to run at grade.  

There's nobody on the train who could watch for obstructions.

as Lake said, you can  build at-grade in the section between Kings and Atlantic where there are no crossing streets...and then put up walls/fences on either side to keep people from getting on the tracks.

??? That's too close to Landon. Very unsafe.

Actually at least two monorails run at grade in Florida right now.

1. The Skyway Maintenance Facility (where the tracks don't need protection)

2. Disney's 20,000 Leagues under the sea. That ride is simply a monorail that runs with the track covered in water to give the illusion of the sea... better still, boarding is at grade.


OCKLAWAHA

Quote from: iMarvin on May 25, 2011, 04:40:36 PM
??? That's too close to Landon. Very unsafe.

No closer than the FEC tracks.  If they can do this in cities with extensive heavy rail systems (right next to schools, residential areas, etc.) and nobody gets hurt, they can certainly do it in little ole Jacksonville.

Quote from: Ocklawaha on May 25, 2011, 04:42:22 PM
Actually at least two monorails run at grade in Florida right now.

1. The Skyway Maintenance Facility (where the tracks don't need protection)

2. Disney's 20,000 Leagues under the sea. That ride is simply a monorail that runs with the track covered in water to give the illusion of the sea... better still, boarding is at grade.


OCKLAWAHA

But those aren't near anything.

Quote from: thelakelander on May 25, 2011, 04:34:40 PM
Yes, it would have to be completely fenced off.

And stations along the line would have to include underpasses or overpasses.

Quote from: thelakelander on May 25, 2011, 04:43:19 PM

Quote from: iMarvin on May 25, 2011, 04:40:36 PM
??? That's too close to Landon. Very unsafe.

No closer than the FEC tracks.  If they can do this in cities with extensive heavy rail systems (right next to schools, residential areas, etc.) and nobody gets hurt, they can certainly do it in little ole Jacksonville.

Lol... I'm not sure how to respond to that. I guess your right.

Quote from: dougskiles on May 25, 2011, 04:40:08 PM
The greatest concern with being on grade is electrocution of unauthorized people walking on it.  It would have to be fenced and monitored just like they do at the stations with the alarm.  Still cheaper than elevating it, though.

Not too close to Landon or anything else, it simply can be done. As Doug said, you fence it with something like barb wire topped chain-link, then the fence itself is hidden by landscape plantings of Spanish Bayonet and Pyracantha. Just add camera and alarms.


OCKLAWAHA

Quote from: Dashing Dan on May 25, 2011, 04:50:23 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on May 25, 2011, 04:34:40 PM
Yes, it would have to be completely fenced off.

And stations along the line would have to include underpasses or overpasses.

A station at Lasalle or Landon would need a pedestrian cross walk over the skyway and FEC tracks.  A station at Atlantic would not.

That's what I said.  You need overpasses or underpasses along the line, but not at the end of the line

Landon would probably (depending on exact location) be elevated, at least somewhat, but Atlantic would be at grade. For you non-transit types the huge advantage of this besides a huge cost reduction is ridership...

Passengers can cross a single platform on one side of the Skyway and step aboard a commuter train on the FEC, on the other side, a Skyway passenger could step off and right aboard a bus or BRT coach. The station itself could (according to their VP) easily attract Amtrak as a second Jacksonville stop. Again, this is nothing new, it's done everyday in the Northeast and between Deland and Kissimmee.

OCKLAWAHA

Quote from: Ocklawaha on May 25, 2011, 04:42:22 PM
Actually at least two monorails run at grade in Florida right now.

1. The Skyway Maintenance Facility (where the tracks don't need protection)

2. Disney's 20,000 Leagues under the sea. That ride is simply a monorail that runs with the track covered in water to give the illusion of the sea... better still, boarding is at grade.


OCKLAWAHA

All of the tracks in the skyway maintenance facility are fenced in, and none of them are at grade.  

(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa111/Ocklawaha/TRANSIT%20monorail%20and%20Skyway/RobertsFIRSTbirthday001.jpg)

Fence it in and everything will be fine.

(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-6970-p1150892.JPG)

(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-6969-p1150870.JPG)

This is probably as close to grade as you will able to get.

Quote from: Ocklawaha on May 25, 2011, 04:51:17 PM

Quote from: dougskiles on May 25, 2011, 04:40:08 PM
The greatest concern with being on grade is electrocution of unauthorized people walking on it.  It would have to be fenced and monitored just like they do at the stations with the alarm.  Still cheaper than elevating it, though.

(http://herba.msu.ru/vesna/images/spic4.jpg)
Pyracantha which is bright green with red berries, used everywhere for security or beauty.

(http://thymeafterthyme.com/images/Yucca_filamentosa_brightedge.jpg)
Spanish Bayonet, another stunning plant you WON'T CRAWL THROUGH.

Not too close to Landon or anything else, it simply can be done. As Doug said, you fence it with something like barb wire topped chain-link, then the fence itself is hidden by landscape plantings of Spanish Bayonet and Pyracantha. Just add camera and alarms.


OCKLAWAHA

Nice choices Ock,

I can say from experience with Apartment Complexes, those both deter people from getting where they don't need to be.  Pyracantha has been very successful in preventing the destruction of fencing at one of the properties I manage that repeatedly had to have fence repairs from people wanting to cut through our property rather than use the proper egresses in the neighborhood. 

Quote from: Dashing Dan on May 25, 2011, 05:02:20 PM

Quote from: Ocklawaha on May 25, 2011, 04:42:22 PM
Actually at least two monorails run at grade in Florida right now.

1. The Skyway Maintenance Facility (where the tracks don't need protection)

2. Disney's 20,000 Leagues under the sea. That ride is simply a monorail that runs with the track covered in water to give the illusion of the sea... better still, boarding is at grade.


OCKLAWAHA

All of the tracks in the skyway maintenance facility are fenced in, and none of them are at grade.  

Actually they are on grade and the fence is some distance from where employees walk around the trains. Bottom line is the track is NOT elevated and thus is cheap to build. If you built the same track in a well drained ditch, the car floors could be at platform height that matched train and bus. I think your making this harder then it has to be.

20,000 leagues Under the Sea last time I checked had thousands of people within 4 feet of the vehicle. In any case the discussion is silly at this point, we've shown that it can be done, is done, and with some will we'll do it.

OCKLAWAHA

All along, my only point has been that you can't build the skyway so that it can be crossed at grade. 

As the pictures from lakelander show, if you build it so that the bottom of the beam rests on the ground, then the skyway itself is not at grade level. 

In any case I don't believe that the elevation of the guideway is a significant factor affecting the cost unless you have to build it really high, like at the existing "San Marco" station on the Southbank. 

If you build it so that people can get underneath it, then you save the cost of building an overpass or an underpass.

A skyway track on the ground would be a whole lot cheaper than elevated.

You can't just stick it on the ground and hope that it stays in the same place for 50+ years. 

On the ground or up in the air, there has to be a substructure.

Quote from: thelakelander on May 25, 2011, 04:52:57 PM
A station at Lasalle or Landon would need a pedestrian cross walk over the skyway and FEC tracks.  A station at Atlantic would not.

I'm not sure that you need a crosswalk.  If the track becomes one-way at that point, then passengers going in either direction can enter from the west side.  It would be so close to the end of the line that there really is no point for two tracks.

And there would be very few passengers needing to access the Skyway from the east side of the tracks in that area.  Most of the density would be near Kings Avenue and could access the Skyway from the new station built on the south side of the garage (the one serving the new TOD - the existing station is too far north).

You only need a crosswalk if a TOD were constructed east of the FEC. However, if that happened, the TOD's developer would pay for it. Oh, and placing the skyway on the ground along the FEC would be significantly cheaper than going elevated with elevated stations.

Quote from: thelakelander on May 25, 2011, 08:35:17 PM
Oh, and placing the skyway on the ground along the FEC would be significantly cheaper than going elevated with elevated stations.

If there is only one track, a ground level station would be cheaper.  

If you had two tracks then an elevated station would make more sense, because it it was elevated then you could get away with only one center platform instead of one on each side, with an overpass or underpass to connect them.

Even at the end of a line there are issues if you have two tracks.  You have to design a crossover to change trains from one track to the other, and for reasons I'm not fully conversant with, that works better if the crossover is located beyond the platform.

To help frame this, we're only talking about single track four or five block end of the line stretch in San Marco (parallel to the FEC.

Why not just put the skyway station at Hendricks and Atlantic?

Quote from: Dashing Dan on May 25, 2011, 07:16:17 PM
All along, my only point has been that you can't build the skyway so that it can be crossed at grade. 

As the pictures from lakelander show, if you build it so that the bottom of the beam rests on the ground, then the skyway itself is not at grade level. 

In any case I don't believe that the elevation of the guideway is a significant factor affecting the cost unless you have to build it really high, like at the existing "San Marco" station on the Southbank. 

If you build it so that people can get underneath it, then you save the cost of building an overpass or an underpass.

...And our only point is nobody plans to build it with a "railroad crossing" on it... can you imagine? Hey maybe we could set up a concession selling pogo sticks and let em jump. You yourself are are a known "Ferroequinologist" and for the most part every person you've been discussing this with are either engineers, planners and/or transportation specialists. We actually came up with the idea to lower the track into a bit of a trench BEFORE we knew that Disney had done the same thing in Tokyo. If you check out the video of the Disney Monorail a few posts back you can watch it dip into a trench and run at grade level.

As for the Skyway at Hendricks and Atlantic that corner would require the Skyway to go over blocks of private property, next to homes, apartments and schools, you wouldn't have a snowballs chance in hell of getting it passed. The second problem with that proposal is the entire line would have to be elevated, meaning $30+/- million a mile might be a realistic figure, (streetcars run between $2-10 million a mile for comparison but of course they would be useless in San Marco because of the railroad blocking the crossing). The last problem with that idea is Commuters coming north or going south to and from downtown would have to ride all the way into Jacksonville Terminal to get to work on the south side hospital and office towers and catch a bus backtracking several miles. With the Atlantic at FEC RY you visualize a attractive station with rental/lease retail/office units in it. Two platforms stretch from the crossing north towards town. East of Platform 1 is the FEC-Jacksonville Commuter Rail track, you catch the train there. To the West of Platform 1 is the Skyway Track, you can walk between a train and the monorail and board the one you want. West of the Skyway Tracks is Platform 2 and on the west edge of Platform 2 you can step aboard a bus, again you walk between them, bus on one side, monorail on the other. People moving to and from the south side could use this as it would be a much quicker ride then going all the way into town.

Hope that helps...



OCKLAWAHA

In any case the tricky part of this job is going to be at the other end, i.e. beneath I-95 and past the parking garage.

What are the issues of concern in that particular area?

Quote from: Dashing Dan on May 25, 2011, 07:57:11 PM
You can't just stick it on the ground and hope that it stays in the same place for 50+ years. 

On the ground or up in the air, there has to be a substructure.

Sure, and on the ground it is a lot less substantial.  A bridge is more expensive and more maintenance intensive no matter how you try to spin it.

I don't like the skyway at grade for one major reason, expansion.  It would need to cross over Atlantic to continue south to places like Jackson Square further down the line.

Is there a way that they can modify the existing infrastructure that the skyway is running on currently by adding tracks and making the system like an elevated light rail system and then as it extends out into the surrounding area it becomes at grade? Not sure how they would do that, but it seems like an idea.

Quote from: thelakelander on May 25, 2011, 09:52:13 PM
What are the issues of concern in that particular area?

#1 Others may be more up to date than I am, but I haven't seen where the JTA and FDOT have come to terms on how the JTA skyway would run beneath FDOT's new I-95 overland bridge.

#2 Depending on how #1 works out, the extension may have to run along the east side of the Kings Avenue Garage instead of between the garage and the hotel.  Also, I'm not completely certain that the skyway would still fit between those two structures, even though there is supposed to be enough space there for that to happen.

I've heard JTA folks say at public meetings that the tracks could fit between the hotel and the garage, but a station won't fit there - it would have to be over the retention pond just south.  I don't think there is a problem getting the Skyway under the new overland bridge - looks like there is a lot of room underneath.

Quote from: Charles Hunter on May 25, 2011, 10:29:01 PM
I've heard JTA folks say at public meetings that the tracks could fit between the hotel and the garage, but a station won't fit there - it would have to be over the retention pond just south.  I don't think there is a problem getting the Skyway under the new overland bridge - looks like there is a lot of room underneath.

I hope you're right - I'm just not sure.

Quote from: Dashing Dan on May 25, 2011, 10:40:03 PM

Quote from: Charles Hunter on May 25, 2011, 10:29:01 PM
I've heard JTA folks say at public meetings that the tracks could fit between the hotel and the garage, but a station won't fit there - it would have to be over the retention pond just south.  I don't think there is a problem getting the Skyway under the new overland bridge - looks like there is a lot of room underneath.

I hope you're right - I'm just not sure.

Fitting could be determined by how the stations are constructed. Nothing says those stations have to be space hogs and look like all the others on the block. Station space on the garage side could be within the parking structure itself with the track hugging the side of the building. Giving up  a short stretch of parking area would not pose a hardship. Computer controlled car positioning would be a snap in lining up the car doors with the current openings in the side of the structure.

I'd have to take another long look at how the hotel is built to say that station space could be borrowed from one of the hotel floors or maybe a good looking walk up covered platform adjacent to the facade would make a good station on that side.  Having only one track between the buildings, especially if that is going to be the end of the line, would gain more space.

However, if the cute Disney style train thru the hotel is not doable, the guests would just have to walk across to the garage, either at the ground level or a dedicated walkable covered skyway under or over the track level.

Quote from: Dashing Dan on May 25, 2011, 07:57:11 PM
You can't just stick it on the ground and hope that it stays in the same place for 50+ years. 

On the ground or up in the air, there has to be a substructure.

Why can't they build the beam track into existing bridges, middle lanes & medians? Doesn't it do something similar crossing the river from San Marco??

They'll never be able to expand this thing otherwise.

An extension of the skyway is very doable.

^True.  The main thing holding the skyway back at this point is local politics.  It really is a hot potato issue in this city.

Quote from: stephendare on May 26, 2011, 07:58:56 AM
But its only amongst a small handful of people.

maybe so, but some of them are in pretty powerful positions

I would prefer to keep it elevated and turn it at Atlantic to drop people where the new publix is slated.  It could just be a single elevated beam.

Quote from: stephendare on May 26, 2011, 07:58:56 AM
But its only amongst a small handful of people.  Its like saying that sustainable and green living is a real hot potato in this city.

There are certainly some very passionate people on that issue.

I think that if the skyway went to san marco square, that there would be considerable support for it.

During the mobility planning process, there was no issue with including green and sustainable living policies into the new comp plan.  There was also no issue including streetcars and commuter rail in it.  Slipped the skyway in and enough commotion took place that it was decided for the sake of moving the entire thing forward, to remove the San Marco extension link.  Nevertheless, I do believe that fears of the skyway will go away once this city fully implements strategies to better utilize it.

I believe it will to, Lake. Things are looking up.

Good point.

I strongly agree that Jacksonville has benefited from a broadening base of public participation over the past year or so.  

To make an extension of the skyway more likely, the existing skyway needs to work better, and more people need to be riding it.  

As a first step add more connections to existing bus routes.

Quote from: Dashing Dan on May 26, 2011, 10:05:17 AM
I strongly agree that Jacksonville has benefited from a broadening base of public participation over the past year or so.  

To make an extension of the skyway more likely, the existing skyway needs to work better, and more people need to be riding it.  

As a first step add more connections to existing bus routes.

I know this kind of ventures into speculation, but since some of the southeastern bus routes have been altered to terminate at the Kings Ave Station, would it be possible or viable to have all of them terminate there? 

I guess that's kind of predicated on whether Kings Ave becomes the official southern terminus of the Skyway and it is indeed not extended to San Marco, but still... 

Terminate bus routes at whatever the southern terminus of the Skyway ends up being:  Kings Ave, San Marco, or Jackson Square?

Doable or dumb?

Quote from: stephendare on May 26, 2011, 08:32:42 AM

Quote from: tufsu1 on May 26, 2011, 08:27:55 AM

Quote from: stephendare on May 26, 2011, 07:58:56 AM
But its only amongst a small handful of people.

maybe so, but some of them are in pretty powerful positions

Like who?

That can be changed, after all, you know.

without naming people, there are folks on the existing and future City Council who are strongly opposed to any more Skyway funding

Doctor K, I like it.  While there is an argument to keep a few crosstown routes running, it would seem like we would get more bang for our buck eliminating all routes at skyway terminal stops and converting the skyway into a free fare transit spine between all of them.  Skyway ridership would signficantly increase and overall bus operational cost and frequencies should decrease with the dreaded downtown loop officially eliminated.

Since I work well to the east of Hogan Street, it wouldn't help me if all of the buses turned back at the nearest skyway terminal.

For good downtown circulation there would also have to be much better service on the downtown trolleys, i.e. bring back the Laura Ocean Trolley, and make them all run much more often.

Of course.  The simple solution (I've stated it in the past but didn't go in to detail on the previous post) is to include the faux trolleys to provide free shuttle service to areas of downtown not within close walking distance of the skyway.

Quote from: thelakelander on May 26, 2011, 11:44:30 AM
Of course.  The simple solution (I've stated it in the past but didn't go in to detail on the previous post) is to include the faux trolleys to provide free shuttle service to areas of downtown not within close walking distance of the skyway.

Which would then naturally be augmented by the upcoming trolley-trolleys, yes?

Yes but -

First let's set the stage for an extension of the skyway into San Marco.

Quote from: Doctor_K on May 26, 2011, 10:48:13 AM

Quote from: Dashing Dan on May 26, 2011, 10:05:17 AM
I strongly agree that Jacksonville has benefited from a broadening base of public participation over the past year or so.  

To make an extension of the skyway more likely, the existing skyway needs to work better, and more people need to be riding it.  

As a first step add more connections to existing bus routes.

I know this kind of ventures into speculation, but since some of the southeastern bus routes have been altered to terminate at the Kings Ave Station, would it be possible or viable to have all of them terminate there? 

I guess that's kind of predicated on whether Kings Ave becomes the official southern terminus of the Skyway and it is indeed not extended to San Marco, but still... 

Terminate bus routes at whatever the southern terminus of the Skyway ends up being:  Kings Ave, San Marco, or Jackson Square?

Doable or dumb?

Here you go boys and girls, the Official Ocklawaha Concept Plan for the Skyway San Marco Multimodal Station.
...And yes, it's rough - I'm on a learn as you doodle program for this drawing stuff.

OCKLAWAHA