We're going the wrong way in regards to the skyway's future. Instead of talking about making service worst for the next 25 years and driving the final nail in downtown's coffin, we should be implementing the affordable solutions that having been mentioned here for a number of years:
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2011-mar-salvaging-the-skyway
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2008-oct-re-evaluating-the-skyway
If we find a way to screw this skyway situation up (which given our history, its likely), imagine the national punchlines about being the largest city in the country with an abandoned monorail hanging over its downtown streets and what that will do for downtown revitalization.
QuoteSkyway could be torn down if ridership doesn’t improve â€" in next 25 years
Some hope a downtown resurgence will improve ridership numbers.
Skyway could be torn down if ridership doesn’t improve â€" in next 25 years
Jacksonville residents will only have about 25 more years to not ride the Skyway.
Jacksonville Transportation Authority officials, under prodding from City Council members, have conceded there may come a point when the Skyway will have to be torn down if ridership doesn’t increase.
JTA Executive Director Michael Blaylock said the Skyway could be torn down at the end of its natural life, which would be around 2036.
Assuming the Skyway continues to run deficits of about $4 million a year, that would be an additional $100 million of taxpayers’ money gone away.
“I won’t live to see that,†Councilman Bill Gulliford said this week.
The conversation about the Skyway, built in the 1980s, began during budget hearings this month when Councilman Richard Clark wondered why the Skyway was still around.
“Why are we still operating this?†Clark asked. “It’s almost become a novelty.â€
People aren’t using the Skyway, and Clark doubts they ever will.
In response, Blaylock said the Skyway had not exceeded its natural life span. And if the system was shut down now, the federal government â€" which funded the project â€" would demand $70 million to $80 million back.
Full article: http://jacksonville.com/news/florida/2011-08-26/story/skyway-could-be-torn-down-if-ridership-doesnt-improve-next-25-years
QuoteBlaylock said he wasn’t looking to get rid of the Skyway, and the system still had a chance to be viable. That claim drew snickers from some City Council members.
“We’re finally seeing some hope to make the Skyway viable,†Blaylock said, “with downtown starting to come back.â€
I snicker at this as well but not for the same reasons as some City Council members. My view is that Jacksonville and JTA can't sit around and wait for ridership to increase as downtown revitalizes. In my opinion, downtown isn't going to revitalize without mass transit and the skyway playing a huge leading role in that process. Instead of waiting to win the lottery (we have a better chance of getting struck by lighting twice), let's work to come up with affordable solutions that reduce operational costs while increasing ridership now.
Thats typical Jacksonville leadership mentality isn't it. Build something half-assed, don't maintain what you do have, then wonder why no one is using it.
I kind of see the majority of Council as suburbanites who may not even know the full history of the skyway, how mass transit works in general or what the impact of downtown revitalization will mean for this city and their neighborhoods. Unfortunate, but many of the things being said in these meetings confirm this viewpoint.
Headline should read "JTA has 5 years to deliver 100,000 riders per month or we will be shutting JTA down"
Reading this article really saddens me. When I go to work every day, I look forward to coming up with creative solutions to problems. I see this bunch of snicker makers and seat fillers/ they are the people wasting our tax money. It bothers me so much that leaders of this city don't even consider that there might be solutions to problems. Again as Lake said... most council snicker makers don't know the history etc of the situation. Most don't care to and maybe that is the problem. If they don't care, they never will! My advice to such council members is: If you don't care about something, then don't do it! You are a waste of tax payer money!
It seems like what we need are people to say "we have the skyway, now how do we make it work?" instead of "SHUT IT DOWN!!!!!"
The Skyway has already been built, is functional, and should become part of the plans to revitalize downtown. But knowing Jacksonville, the naysayers will win out, and they will continually reduce operating hours until nobody rides the thing because it only runs from 10 to 2 or something.
Very frustrating.
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-H7ZH9No4tpM/TleXOSWEqHI/AAAAAAAAFS0/aYkaIedVGuI/s640/Abandoned_MONORAIL.jpg)
Welcome to Jacksonville, last bastion of the Cretaceous period.
Councilman Bill Gulliford's idea to cut back service to 'save money' is a formula for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Anyone in transportation could tell him that the fastest way to distroy a transit system is to cut services. It starts a downhill snowball that frankly JTA has already started. Less frequency means less convenience and less convenience means less riders which in turn means less frequency... It's the classic Amtrak like fail, starve the system then complain that it doesn't perform.
Blaylock saying the system is showing signs of improvement is equally wrong, imagine if Metro-North in New York City only ran from Grand Central Station to 125Th Street? No trains to Danbury, no trains to New Haven, no trains to Poughkeepsie, just a short back and forth on Manhattan, pretty stupid eh? It wouldn't be the fault of parking garages either Mike, in the real world parking garages can work both ways. There is no reason someone from Mandarin or the beaches, who commutes into town and parks at a garage, wouldn't use the Skyway at lunch time or for some other downtown errand. Of course the Skyway would have to be convenient which takes us right back to Councilman Bill Gulliford's statement.
Y'all are right, half build it, don't maintain it, eliminate the services and complain that it doesn't work, it's the Jacksonville way. Just imagine as the relocation specialists for some blue chip company looks to relocate to Jacksonville. "The downtown isn't exactly the hub of commerce, there are few services for employees downtown and oh, they're tearing down their mass transit system... Say! Let's pick Jacksonville! NOT!" Momma Gump warned us about most of the people running our city, "Stupid is as stupid does."
OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: thelakelander on August 26, 2011, 06:38:17 AM
I kind of see the majority of Council as suburbanites who may not even know the full history of the skyway, how mass transit works in general or what the impact of downtown revitalization will mean for this city and their neighborhoods.
^This. This is the problem. We have people on city council that only look at the numbers and decide it's a waste and should be gone. They don't look at the root cause of why the numbers are so low and how this could be remedied. Instead, they let it languish.
The skyway needs re-brandiing.
Instead of the skyway, start calling it The Pelican. It sounds greener that way.
Quote from: cline on August 26, 2011, 09:09:28 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 26, 2011, 06:38:17 AM
I kind of see the majority of Council as suburbanites who may not even know the full history of the skyway, how mass transit works in general or what the impact of downtown revitalization will mean for this city and their neighborhoods.
^This. This is the problem. We have people on city council that only look at the numbers and decide it's a waste and should be gone. They don't look at the root cause of why the numbers are so low and how this could be remedied. Instead, they let it languish.
+1
Quote from: jcjohnpaint on August 26, 2011, 07:47:06 AM
Reading this article really saddens me. When I go to work every day, I look forward to coming up with creative solutions to problems. I see this bunch of snicker makers and seat fillers/ they are the people wasting our tax money. It bothers me so much that leaders of this city don't even consider that there might be solutions to problems. Again as Lake said... most council snicker makers don't know the history etc of the situation. Most don't care to and maybe that is the problem. If they don't care, they never will! My advice to such council members is: If you don't care about something, then don't do it! You are a waste of tax payer money!
Double true!
We've got to elect better leaders--we need the best and brightest, not the worst and dimmest.
Quote from: wwanderlust on August 26, 2011, 09:53:00 AM
Am I naive to think the solution is as simple as expanding the network, so that the Skyway goes to places people actually frequent? Is that too Pollyanna? If we had stations at Five Points, the Shoppes at Avondale, the Town Center, Atlantic Beach, and the airport (for starters), think of how many more people would ride.
I live in Riverside, and I would happily walk to a station near Five Points and hop a train to downtown so I could get dinner at Chew or have a drink at Mark's. But since it requires driving, I just end up walking to Sushi Cafe instead.
While I'm aware of the high costs of expanding the Skyway network, I'm certain the increased ridership would help mitigate those costs. Besides, public transit is an investment in the quality of life for a community; it should strive to be solvent, but not be viewed as a moneymaking endeavor...any more than the fire department.
I know, I know. I'll go back to the land of rainbows and unicorns now...
I think it is more about integrating the Skyway with other transit options rather than extending to the points that you mentioned. If Streetcar were built, you could hop on the streetcar at a stop in Riverside and then transfer to the Skway and ride it over to San Marco (assuming it is extended there as has been discussed). I don't think the Skyway is the answer to get to the airport. That would be better served by some combination of commuter rail and bus.
Quote from: L.P. Hovercraft on August 26, 2011, 09:59:00 AM
Quote from: jcjohnpaint on August 26, 2011, 07:47:06 AM
Reading this article really saddens me. When I go to work every day, I look forward to coming up with creative solutions to problems. I see this bunch of snicker makers and seat fillers/ they are the people wasting our tax money. It bothers me so much that leaders of this city don't even consider that there might be solutions to problems. Again as Lake said... most council snicker makers don't know the history etc of the situation. Most don't care to and maybe that is the problem. If they don't care, they never will! My advice to such council members is: If you don't care about something, then don't do it! You are a waste of tax payer money!
Double true!
We've got to elect better leaders--we need the best and brightest, not the worst and dimmest.
[/quote
Yeah and I even feel that this problem is so much worst than dim politicians. These people are so lost it isn't even funny. I mean - they all look at each other to say "this thing is still running"? Come on! If they pay this much attention to fixing this problem/ then this is how they deal with all of the problems of this city. These people are not problem solvers by any means. pathetic! Inform Yourself/ Enlighten Yourself- or get a job flipping burgers!
Quote from: wwanderlust on August 26, 2011, 09:53:00 AM
Am I naive to think the solution is as simple as expanding the network, so that the Skyway goes to places people actually frequent? Is that too Pollyanna? If we had stations at Five Points, the Shoppes at Avondale, the Town Center, Atlantic Beach, and the airport (for starters), think of how many more people would ride.
I live in Riverside, and I would happily walk to a station near Five Points and hop a train to downtown so I could get dinner at Chew or have a drink at Mark's. But since it requires driving, I just end up walking to Sushi Cafe instead.
While I'm aware of the high costs of expanding the Skyway network, I'm certain the increased ridership would help mitigate those costs. Besides, public transit is an investment in the quality of life for a community; it should strive to be solvent, but not be viewed as a moneymaking endeavor...any more than the fire department.
I know, I know. I'll go back to the land of rainbows and unicorns now...
I'm with you on chasing rainbows--it's like we're planning to fail. The Skyway (maybe we could rebrand it as the Osprey Express?) is only partially completed so let's tear it down before we're done? Huh?
Wha'?!
Finish the damn thing (or feed it with light rail/streetcar). Connect it to Riverside/Avondale, Everbank Field/sports district, Jax Beach, SJTC--places people go already and I think the ridership would increase exponentially than if we just leave it unfinished downtown and in San Marco. I would actually be way more apt to shop at the SJTC if I wouldn't have to drive there and could just hop on a streetcar in Riverside, jump on the Skyway to a light rail station downtown and then on to the Town Center.
Yes, it would cost lots of money to expand our transit system, but it would be an infrastructure investment that would spur economic development downtown and along the route if we go by the historic precedence of our peer cities and don't succumb to some false local notion of "Jacksonvillian Exceptionalism".
You won't see me taking rapid transit into the Prime Osborn to hop on a bus that fights traffic and waits at lights to get me to another part of downtown.
Use the already built and functional computerized system to get good timing for the Skyway's arrival at the Prime Osborn to shuttle me to the south or northbank (on the south or north rail, respectively), and I'll come in this way everyday. In fact, make this last leg of an integrated system free.
Channel 4 reporter was at the Kings Ave station a short while ago. She was surprised how many people were riding it. I tried to get the point across that it needs to be expanded and not cut back. It will be interesting to see how much, if any of the interview gets on the report. They said it should be on tonight.
Is there a way to make the Skyway cheaper to expand?
I don't see RAP or San Marco letting those elevated tracks into the neighborhood (although personally I think they provide some great shade for pedestrians on the street below...)
It would be great to get on a streetcar in Avondale, ride downtown, and then climb up onto the elevated tracks to avoid traffic. When I asked some JTA transit planners if it was possible they told me there was no way. So that makes me think it might be the way to go.
Absolutely it can be done cheaper. Bringing the system to ground level along side the FEC tracks in San Marco would cut the cost significantly. And we would not have the concerns about impacting homes. The stations would be nothing more than glorified bus shelters. The developments that will occur along the route can be set up as Tax Increment Finance projects and pay for much of the expansion cost.
It CAN be done, we just need the political will and enough of an economic rebound to get the developers busy again.
I imagine San Marco would not have a problem with the going as far as Atlantic Blvd. Service to the square and the new Publix TOD.
I've emailed. I've sent diagrams. I've been to several open-house meetings. I've talked to drivers. I've talked to riders. There are no plans to do anything to the skyway.
My main argument is Why don't you terminate the bus routes at Rosa Park, Jefferson St and the PO only - eliminate the DT Loop - use a dedicated trolley through the middle of town to pick up the people east of hogan or have the bay ST & Beaver St trolley do it for you. All of southside busses - Jefferson St Station - you just eliminated 15-20 minutes, EACH WAY, on their headtimes. All Westside busses -PO - you just eliminated 15-20 minutes, EACH WAY, on their headtimes. All northside & Beaches - Rosa Park - you really don't save anytime because they don't loop downtown. Oh yeah, they're already the most convenient bus lines of the system.
[I notice a pattern here, but JTA doesn't acknowledge it] The responses that I get are that I'm creating an extra transfer (no shit, it's also called extra revenue), there are no restrooms (have you seen the facilities at Rosa Park?), we don't have a ticket station (30k will get you two ticket counters w/ AC if you go the contruction trailer model)
I am offering solutions to the problem that 1.)Don't cost anything, 2.)Enhance the service, 3.)Generate more $$, but ...... No buts....... What's the fucking problem?
MAKE IT AN ELEVATED BIKE LANE!! PROBLEM SOLVED
Where's Brown on all this stuff? Pounding his pecker?? He's the one who needs to get the ball rolling & clean some house. Nothing will change if you've got the same old dinosaurs, using the same lame ass excuses, making decisions about urban & mass transit policies when they've never left the Jacksonville suburbs.
Their ignorance isn't as frustrating as is their willingness to remain ignorant, then pretend like they know WTF they're talking about. Then the dumb ass population (vast majority suburbanites who have never left either) agrees with them.
one idea worth exploring is getting streetcar started in our historic enighborhoods of San Marco, Riverside, and Springfield....then figuring out a way where the skyway could be retrofitted so streetcars could go up on it in the core of downtown....then bring them back down on Bay Street to extend out to the stadium
Quote from: peestandingup on August 26, 2011, 01:04:52 PM
Where's Brown on all this stuff? Pounding his pecker?? He's the one who needs to get the ball rolling & clean some house.
2 things
1. Brown has little say in what happens at JTA (it is a state agency and the Mayor only appoints a few board members)
2. Brown has even less say in what Council members think or do
^technically yes, but his voice does carry far. I have been told by those at JTA that what the mayor says does influence their direction. The same way that he wants to influence education, he can influence transportation. And should.
Quote from: tufsu1 on August 26, 2011, 01:50:51 PM
one idea worth exploring is getting streetcar started in our historic enighborhoods of San Marco, Riverside, and Springfield....then figuring out a way where the skyway could be retrofitted so streetcars could go up on it in the core of downtown....then bring them back down on Bay Street to extend out to the stadium
::)
#1 The whole idea with the skyway is that it doesn't require an onboard operator. Take that away and there's hardly anything left that would be worth keeping.
#2 The skyway structure is not wide enough for a bus, so it's doubtful that it would be wide enough for a streetcar.
#3 The skyway grades are too steep for a vehicle that would run on a steel rail.
And why is it that you would you want to put a streetcar up high downtown?
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 26, 2011, 12:43:12 PM
I've emailed. I've sent diagrams. I've been to several open-house meetings. I've talked to drivers. I've talked to riders. There are no plans to do anything to the skyway.
My main argument is Why don't you terminate the bus routes at Rosa Park, Jefferson St and the PO only - eliminate the DT Loop - use a dedicated trolley through the middle of town to pick up the people east of hogan or have the bay ST & Beaver St trolley do it for you. All of southside busses - Jefferson St Station - you just eliminated 15-20 minutes, EACH WAY, on their headtimes. All Westside busses -PO - you just eliminated 15-20 minutes, EACH WAY, on their headtimes. All northside & Beaches - Rosa Park - you really don't save anytime because they don't loop downtown. Oh yeah, they're already the most convenient bus lines of the system.
[I notice a pattern here, but JTA doesn't acknowledge it] The responses that I get are that I'm creating an extra transfer (no shit, it's also called extra revenue), there are no restrooms (have you seen the facilities at Rosa Park?), we don't have a ticket station (30k will get you two ticket counters w/ AC if you go the contruction trailer model)
I am offering solutions to the problem that 1.)Don't cost anything, 2.)Enhance the service, 3.)Generate more $$, but ...... No buts....... What's the fucking problem?
Those are seriously some great ideas! If JTA doesn't see that, then I don't see how anything else they do can be done right.
Well, we keep on reelecting those same do nothing, know nothing suburbanites into council. And until the whole city wakes up, it's always going to be this way. We've got the mayor, now we need the same type of people in council.
I know I've said it plenty of times, but I have to say it again. If streetcars go down Bay St. to the stadium, then the Skyway will be dead. An extension to San Marco is obvious but an extension to the stadium is just as obvious, if not more. Those two extensions would raise ridership by at least double. But if we get streetcar going down Bay St, where can the skyway go? This is what I think:
Streetcar - Park St, Water St, Ocean St (or Newnan), then to Main via side street, and down 8th to Shands,
Skyway - Bay St.
A connection between Newan and Ocean makes the most sense. I also still think the skyway should go to Five Points but that's already been debated.
5 suggestions to increase skyway ridership
1. Encourage downtown workers to park and ride from Kings Rd, Prime Osborne or First Baptist (with a catwalk from garage to Rosa Parks). Garage card doubles as skyway card. Free for the first year then included in garage parking thereafter (JTA can collect from the garage).
2. Giveaways for loyal riders - gift cards for: a month's free parking, gas, downtown and southbank merchants, and sporting venues. (look what Team Teal did for the Jaguars)
3. FSCJ students - especially if downtown lofts were made available as student housing. This would also provide residents and parttime workers for downtown.
4. Promote it, Don't slam it. When directing visitors to City Hall or the Courthouse through printed material or online have the directions be: From Southside park at the Kings Rd garage and ride the Skyway to Government Station (Hemming Plaza). From Westside or Northside park at the Prime Osborne lot... from Arlington park at the FBC garage on Laura and Beaver...
City Council Members -- this means you and your constituents should ride the Skyway for City Council meetings.
4. Art Walk - have art displays at each station along with live music and food/drink vendors. The ride can be free on these nights - a double bonus for regular riders.
5. Jaguar games - ride the Skyway to Bay and Hogan and then proceed down "Jaguar Bay" or "The Teal Bank" (Bay St) stopping at various fixed entertainment spots enhanced by temporary vendors - the party walk to the game. This was a Team Teal suggestion that was done very successfully by COJ once. Perhaps JTA, the Jaguars and the Entertainment District merchants could coordinate its revival.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 26, 2011, 12:43:12 PM
I've emailed. I've sent diagrams. I've been to several open-house meetings. I've talked to drivers. I've talked to riders. There are no plans to do anything to the skyway.
My main argument is Why don't you terminate the bus routes at Rosa Park, Jefferson St and the PO only - eliminate the DT Loop - use a dedicated trolley through the middle of town to pick up the people east of hogan or have the bay ST & Beaver St trolley do it for you. All of southside busses - Jefferson St Station - you just eliminated 15-20 minutes, EACH WAY, on their headtimes. All Westside busses -PO - you just eliminated 15-20 minutes, EACH WAY, on their headtimes. All northside & Beaches - Rosa Park - you really don't save anytime because they don't loop downtown. Oh yeah, they're already the most convenient bus lines of the system.
[I notice a pattern here, but JTA doesn't acknowledge it] The responses that I get are that I'm creating an extra transfer (no shit, it's also called extra revenue), there are no restrooms (have you seen the facilities at Rosa Park?), we don't have a ticket station (30k will get you two ticket counters w/ AC if you go the contruction trailer model)
I am offering solutions to the problem that 1.)Don't cost anything, 2.)Enhance the service, 3.)Generate more $$, but ...... No buts....... What's the fucking problem?
Btw, this how I had to get around in LA and San Diego last week. Transferring was typically no problem because transfers were coordinated. For example, in San Diego, to get downtown from the suburbs on the Green Line LRT, you have to transfer to the Blue Line LRT at Old Town. Both trains pull up on opposite sides of the same platform at the same time (at worst, there was a five minute wait), riders transferring switched trains and then they both went back in the directions they came from.
I think we need to give the newly elected crop of council members a chance. They are all completely up to their eyeballs with the budget right now. Let's also give the Mobility Plan a chance to work.
Just a few months ago we were listening to Mullaney and Hogan talk about mothballing the skyway (immediately). Now it is being given another 25 years. I honestly laughed when I saw that, because no matter how successful we make it in 5 years, 20 years later it will have reached the end of its structural life and would be time for a re-evaluation. It will have lasted longer than the original Fuller Warren bridge (1948 to 2002).
Great suggestions Gen7.
Quote from: iMarvin on August 26, 2011, 04:44:57 PM
I know I've said it plenty of times, but I have to say it again. If streetcars go down Bay St. to the stadium, then the Skyway will be dead. An extension to San Marco is obvious but an extension to the stadium is just as obvious, if not more. Those two extensions would raise ridership by at least double. But if we get streetcar going down Bay St, where can the skyway go?
Rosa Parks/FCCJ, Hemming Plaza, the Southbank and San Marco.
Here are four more suggestions that help increase ridership, reduce operational costs and generate revenue. Some of which may have already been mentioned:
1. Eliminate duplicate bus routes in downtown and run the skyway as a transit spine (same thing mentioned by NRW)
2. Lease out extra skyway station floor area to retail vendors (Kings Avenue, Rosa Parks, Hemming, Central would be great locations for merchants catering to transit users).
3. Allow private companies to buy wrap advertising on cars, station naming rights and advertise inside cars.
4. Integrate Skyway with DT Development Plans and TOD. For example, San Diego's transit agency makes a ton of money by leasing land around station sites to developers to build TOD at their stations. Doing this where applicable, each station not only generates revenue, it also becomes a destination that attracts built in ridership.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 26, 2011, 04:57:08 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 26, 2011, 04:44:57 PM
I know I've said it plenty of times, but I have to say it again. If streetcars go down Bay St. to the stadium, then the Skyway will be dead. An extension to San Marco is obvious but an extension to the stadium is just as obvious, if not more. Those two extensions would raise ridership by at least double. But if we get streetcar going down Bay St, where can the skyway go?
Rosa Parks/FCCJ, Hemming Plaza, the Southbank and San Marco.
A streetcar line to the stadium would take the ridership from the Skyway. The Skyway is already on Bay St, just do a simple extension to the stadium (sports complex) and ridership AT LEAST doubles.
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.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 26, 2011, 05:55:32 PM
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.
Here is the clip from Channel 4:
http://www.news4jax.com/video/28994236/index.html (http://www.news4jax.com/video/28994236/index.html)
Also interesting are the comments from the news story on the webpage. Much nicer than the typical FTU.
That he rode it from 5:30 to 6:30 on a Friday afternoon seemed like a setup to me. Everyone knows that DT clears out fast on a Friday afternoon. All other places in town do too. Unless of course you are stuck in a car on JTB or the Buckman Bridge. Had he been on it at noon, it would have been packed.
I can't find the comments on the Ch. 4 webpage. How do I reach them?
By the way I thought the story was quite good.
There was nothing sinister about the reporter being out there late on a Friday. The timing of the Ch. 4 story was set by the timing of the T-U story, which was set by a news event.
All that matters is that you got a good chance to pitch the San Marco extension, and that you made the most of it.
Thanks Doug!
Quote from: iMarvin on August 26, 2011, 06:30:41 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 26, 2011, 05:55:32 PM
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.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 09:05:42 AM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 26, 2011, 06:30:41 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 26, 2011, 05:55:32 PM
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.
+1. This is what I've always said. You have to have one "main" system, and the Skyway will never be that. I don't like forcing it into the mix just because it's there. I think you'll end up with two half-assed systems instead of just one.
There's no reason why a streetcar can't go everywhere the Skyway can. Hell, you'd probably be getting off much cheaper developing the entire streetcar system than it would to extend the Skyway to just a couple more stops.
Plus, people here seem like they have a generally dislike with anything associated with the Skyway, so if it were me, I'd concentrate on just the streetcar. We can all beat around the bush, but its pretty clear the Skyway was a collisional f*ck up that should have never been built. Yes, I understand the argument of "well, its here now, so we gotta find a way to make it fit". But I personally don't see it that way & there's no sense forcing people to change systems just because of that.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 09:05:42 AM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 26, 2011, 06:30:41 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 26, 2011, 05:55:32 PM
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 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.
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 09:52:47 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 09:05:42 AM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 26, 2011, 06:30:41 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 26, 2011, 05:55:32 PM
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.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2011, 10:04:49 AM
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.
Quote from: Dashing Dan on August 27, 2011, 08:49:07 AM
There was nothing sinister about the reporter being out there late on a Friday. The timing of the Ch. 4 story was set by the timing of the T-U story, which was set by a news event.
I would agree, except that I was there at 10:30 am when the news camera and reporter were there doing the interview. The station and trains were busy. It was a different reporter that I talked to and she commented to me that she was surprised at how many people were on it. I guess that wasn't the story the editors wanted so they sent someone else out to ride it later.
I was happy to get the opportunity to talk about the expansion. How lucky was that?
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2011, 10:04:49 AM
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.
My feeling exactly. The only extension on the north part of the skyway system that would make any sense to me would be from FSCJ to Shands. You would have two main lines serving urban core:
1. Skyway from San Marco through DT to Springfield would be the North/South route
2. Streetcar from Riverside through DT to Sports Complex would be the East/West route
Transfers would occur at Central Station on Bay Street. This would not be uncommon for any subway system when you often have to transfer once when changing directions.
Another huge benefit for the streetcar on Bay Street to the Sports Complex is that it will be much better for the businesses and a sense of pedestrian scale. The Skyway doesn't do much for the businesses below, except to provide some shade.
Quote from: iMarvin on August 26, 2011, 06:30:41 PM
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.
The streetcar route isn't really on Bay Street, its on Water/Independence between Newnan and Lee. As far as East Bay is concerned I'd seriously skip it with the streetcar and use a northerly access along a Beaver Street alignment, basically Newnan to Beaver and hence east to Randolph. This sets up a future expansion of LRT/Rapid Streetcar straight up the old railroad right of way between Eastside and Springfield and on to Gateway Plaza. Access to this same abandoned rail line from Bay Street would be unlikely as it would need to run through the middle of Maxwell House.
As for the Skyway, with very little effort it could easily go to the farmers market/Woodstock, Shand's/VA Clinic and Riverside. You'll recall that Riverside was the last destination that JTA advertised they were planning on going with it. It was supposed to serve Brooklyn Park and end near Blue Cross, the failure of the development killed that extension. JTA needs to focus on established neighborhoods and get the Skyway AND Streetcar to those destinations. If a stadium extension was ever built (And I think it should) it needs to tap the Eastside neighborhoods.
Single transfers, especially across-the-platform transfers would be fine, beyond that you lose ridership. OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2011, 10:04:49 AM
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.
Streetcars cross rivers all the time. We can't lay tracks on the Acosta Bridge or use the railroad bridge that runs parallel to it??
A study I read this morning estimated that travellers believe transfers take up to three times longer than what they take in reality. Also, convenience isn't just a question of time it also comprises things like restroom facilities, retail, etc. at the transfer station. Perceptions of safety was also important in evaluating transfer "penalties." While transferring from something like commuter rail or commuter bus to the Skyway for distributing purposes could be necessary, I think you want as few transfers as possible intra- and inter-system. IMHO.
..."across the platform transfers"...very helpful.
Turn it into a roller coaster....add a loop and a few corkscrews over the river...
Quote from: Ocklawaha on August 27, 2011, 10:41:25 AM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 26, 2011, 06:30:41 PM
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.
The streetcar route isn't really on Bay Street, its on Water/Independence between Newnan and Lee. As far as East Bay is concerned I'd seriously skip it with the streetcar and use a northerly access along a Beaver Street alignment, basically Newnan to Beaver and hence east to Randolph. This sets up a future expansion of LRT/Rapid Streetcar straight up the old railroad right of way between Eastside and Springfield and on to Gateway Plaza. Access to this same abandoned rail line from Bay Street would be unlikely as it would need to run through the middle of Maxwell House.
As for the Skyway, with very little effort it could easily go to the farmers market/Woodstock, Shand's/VA Clinic and Riverside. You'll recall that Riverside was the last destination that JTA advertised they were planning on going with it. It was supposed to serve Brooklyn Park and end near Blue Cross, the failure of the development killed that extension. JTA needs to focus on established neighborhoods and get the Skyway AND Streetcar to those destinations. If a stadium extension was ever built (And I think it should) it needs to tap the Eastside neighborhoods.
Single transfers, especially across-the-platform transfers would be fine, beyond that you lose ridership.
OCKLAWAHA
+1 on single transfers max.
But about East Bay Street, I believe the streetcar must deliberately use that route, perhaps in addition to the one you suggest, in order to serve the growing entertainment district down there. It's the sole, singular, thing generating any activity downtown, we'd be silly not to plant this thing right down the middle and connect that asset with the residential neighborhoods. Especially where the type of business we're talking about combined with the natural desire to want to avoid a DUI presents a unique impetus to ridership.
Quote from: peestandingup on August 27, 2011, 10:42:23 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2011, 10:04:49 AM
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.
Streetcars cross rivers all the time. We can't lay tracks on the Acosta Bridge or use the railroad bridge that runs parallel to it??
Of course you could run a streetcar line over an existing bridge, it's just one more thing to pay for though. Which is Lake's point I think. The railroad bridge would be tougher, it's unlikely FEC would allow it, plus depending on what gauge the streetcar system uses it might be incompatible. A lot of the streetcar systems didn't use standard freight gauge track, they didn't have to since there was no interchange required between the two. If Ock is planning on obtainting some actual vintage hardware, then I dunno, you'd have to ask him.
But a lot of the resistance you're seeing in this thread to what is obviously nothing more than accepting reality, is this lingering desire to make something out of the skyway mess. Unfortunately, I think the risks of designing the streetcar around the skyway far exceed the cost of doing what needs to be done to create a self-sufficient system. This is truly our last chance at real mass transit, folks. After the skyway, if this winds up being another expensive novelty the public appetite won't be there to get yet another chance at this apple. It must be done right this time, and we really have no choice but to design a self-sufficient and complete streetcar system so the damn thing actually works, instead of some ill-conceived shotgun wedding between streetcar and skyway that winds up forcing people to make multiple transfers. In doing so, you're relegating both systems to novelties instead of real transportation. The streetcar needs to go where it needs to go to be successful, forget the skyway for now.
I wish the skyway had turned out differently, and I don't think we should tear it down. But these ideas about having a streetcar system force extra transfers to make people utilize the skyway, just so people will ride it, and ignoring obvious streetcar destinations to avoid competing with the skyway, is risky and extremely ill-advised. You run the very real risk of having two incomplete systems, instead of just one. Again, this should be real transportation, not just a novelty, or one of those things you'd like to use but you just don't have the extra hour to waste in the morning.
Without building a completely new bridge, there is no simple way across the river for a streetcar line. You'd also have to elevate it over the railroad to get into San Marco. The Main Street Bridge would work well IF you could get rid of the freeway ramps and restrict/control boat traffic. These are the principal reasons why the Skyway needs to stay and needs to serve DEEP San Marco and perhaps someday San Jose. Leaving it alone on the north bank and extending the south end would still give many residents a way to work.
Streetcar/LRT will shine best on the north bank and the historic core neighborhoods. The benefit here is if we do it right, a future extension to Orange Park with Light Rail becomes a reality, running from the end of the streetcar line to where ever. The track can be built to handle both streetcars and light rail vehicles.
OCKLAWAHA
As it stands right now, a Streetcar down Water from Lee to Newnan could effect an easy transfer at the Jacksonville Terminal (JRTC/PO). Unlike JTA'S stupid BRT plan, there isn't another area where the Skyway and Streetcar would compete for traffic.
OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: Ocklawaha on August 27, 2011, 11:05:18 AM
Without building a completely new bridge, there is no simple way across the river for a streetcar line. You'd also have to elevate it over the railroad to get into San Marco. The Main Street Bridge would work well IF you could get rid of the freeway ramps and restrict/control boat traffic. These are the principal reasons why the Skyway needs to stay and needs to serve DEEP San Marco and perhaps someday San Jose. Leaving it alone on the north bank and extending the south end would still give many residents a way to work.
Streetcar/LRT will shine best on the north bank and the historic core neighborhoods. The benefit here is if we do it right, a future extension to Orange Park with Light Rail becomes a reality, running from the end of the streetcar line to where ever. The track can be built to handle both streetcars and light rail vehicles.
OCKLAWAHA
The Acosta wound up being so underutilized that you could probably carve out space for a streetcar line and nobody would really notice a missing lane. Or rather than enclosing off the streetcar like the skyway is, just imbed the tracks flush into the concrete of the right lanes on each side and put up flashing "Caution: Watch for Streetcar" signs for motorists.
This doesn't have to be expensive or complicated, people...just imbed the tracks in the lanes on the bridge like they do elsewhere;
(http://media.oregonlive.com/commuting/photo/9505016-large.jpg)
Yes it's easily done but you'd have to get rid of the 'freeway' aspect of the Acosta, many times I've seen cars on the bridge going 60-65mph. Unless a 30-40 mph streetcar had an exclusive line using Jersey barriers it would be a no go. Don't forget some of the ramp areas are just two lanes.
OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 09:52:47 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 09:05:42 AM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 26, 2011, 06:30:41 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 26, 2011, 05:55:32 PM
How would a streetcar to the stadium take ridership away from something that isn't there? A streetcar only takes ridership away if there was a duplicate proposal to build a skyway line down the same corridor.
Btw, from my point of view, I'm not in favor of extending the skyway simply to add riders to that particular mode. I'm gunning for whatever makes economic and fiscal sense from a holistic view point. Given the costs, if the streetcar is already running down a corridor like Newnan, its not too far off base to run a line from that point to the stadium district. However, there's no sense in battling the specifics of that corridor today. We need to go ahead and get transit extended into some neighborhoods outside of DT first. At least then, we'll have something that takes some people where they want to go along while feeding riders into the skyway and local bus network.
I agree with the bottom portion. The need for transit in surrounding neighborhoods is there. What I'm saying is that a streetcar going to Bay St, IMO, would not make much sense if we have the skyway right on Bay St. There's about 4 more potential stops on Bay St with the skyway. A streetcar is great for Riverside and Springfield, and when we're thinking about expanding the skyway, there's really only two places it can go: San Marco and the Sports Complex. The streetcar shouldn't do all the work.
You can't just intentionally force people to switch transit modes in order to support a system that otherwise doesn't work on its own, either. You're going to end up with two incomplete / half-functional systems, that create enough inconvenience to make them an unattractive proposition to users. Remember you are competing with the car. Forcing people to get off a streetcar, board the skyway, then get off to board another streetcar, just so that people will ride the skyway, is not going to have good results. We should have a complete and functional streetcar system, not just a feeder for the skyway and for JTA buses. Your comment indicating it could ever be a meaningful feeder for JTA's buses is a little misplaced, you are talking about two different demographics. People will ride a streetcar, but most don't and won't ride JTA buses. The streetcar should be a self-sufficient system, if it happens to have some ancillary benefit to other modes nearby, great, but don't sacrifice the sound planning of the new system to force people to accomodate failed systems, it's not going to turn out well. The streetcar should go down Bay Street, regardless of whether the skyway is there or not, it should extend all the way to the stadium too.
The skyway is a red herring, leave it out of the streetcar planning. Make a complete streetcar system that's functional, instead of trying to use it to force people to ride the skyway. Introduce enough hassle into it and nobody will use either system.
The skyway will still have the pitiful ridership it has now if we get the streetcar to go everywhere the skyway can go. One extension to San Marco would increase ridership, but the sports complex would be how we get a serious gain. A streetcar from to St. Vincents to Shands is a complete system, IMO. A later extension to Avondale would make much sense, and I think when you have all that, you have a pretty good base for ridership. In an city with real transit, you're going to have to make transfers. That's just how it is. If we build a streetcar line that goes all around the core, then we might as well start tearing down the skyway as soon as the streetcar is finished. No one will ride it if it stays the same.
Have you guys ever been to a city and used transit. Transfers and multi model operations happen smoothly all the time. You don't end lines to force people to ride the skyway you do it to take best advantage of the resources you have. You don't end an express bus line just to put people on the skyway just don't duplicate services. That way your buses will do a better job covering the rest of the area. You lower the costs of the transit system as a whole.
btw The skyway is already the busiest transit line in the area.
(http://www.world-guides.com/images/little_rock/little_rock_trolley_travel.jpg)(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/82/229125226_8569cd110c_o.jpg)
Arkansas River bridge in Littlerock is similar, but there are NO FREEWAY ramps. We still have the problem of getting the tracks over the FEC.
OCKLAWAHA
What's the point in paying hundreds of millions for a new or retrofitted bridge over the river, when the skyway already does it well? Besides, regardless of if it's a streetcar/skyway or streetcar/streetcar connection, a rider would still have to transfer, since the main streetcar line would connect Riverside to Springfield.
Quote from: Ocklawaha on August 27, 2011, 11:39:10 AM
Yes it's easily done but you'd have to get rid of the 'freeway' aspect of the Acosta, many times I've seen cars on the bridge going 60-65mph. Unless a 30-40 mph streetcar had an exclusive line using Jersey barriers it would be a no go. Don't forget some of the ramp areas are just two lanes.
OCKLAWAHA
Yeah you got a point, it was probably me you saw going over the bridge, lol. The speed limit isn't anywhere near that high, but everybody just goes that fast anyway because most of the time you have two or three lanes all to yourself and you're often the only car or two on the bridge. So may as well book it. If it weren't so underutilized and empty people wouldn't go so fast. So the concern would be somebody soeeding and smashing into the streetcar? What do you do about that? Flashing signs woukdn't cut it?
Quote from: JeffreyS on August 27, 2011, 11:43:26 AM
Have you guys ever been to a city and used transit.
I believe I have.OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2011, 11:44:51 AM
What's the point in paying hundreds of millions for a new or retrofitted bridge over the river, when the skyway already does it well? Besides, regardless of if it's a streetcar/skyway or streetcar/streetcar connection, a rider would still have to transfer, since the main streetcar line would connect Riverside to Springfield.
Did you look at the picture I posted? No new bridge is needed.
And you don't actually think it would cost hundreds of million dollars to lay two tracks into the surface of the Acosta do you?
So, you're prepared to argue that imbedding two simple tracks into the concrete will cost as mucb as the courthouse? Really?
Quote from: JeffreyS on August 27, 2011, 11:43:26 AM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 09:52:47 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 09:05:42 AM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 26, 2011, 06:30:41 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 26, 2011, 05:55:32 PM
How would a streetcar to the stadium take ridership away from something that isn't there? A streetcar only takes ridership away if there was a duplicate proposal to build a skyway line down the same corridor.
Btw, from my point of view, I'm not in favor of extending the skyway simply to add riders to that particular mode. I'm gunning for whatever makes economic and fiscal sense from a holistic view point. Given the costs, if the streetcar is already running down a corridor like Newnan, its not too far off base to run a line from that point to the stadium district. However, there's no sense in battling the specifics of that corridor today. We need to go ahead and get transit extended into some neighborhoods outside of DT first. At least then, we'll have something that takes some people where they want to go along while feeding riders into the skyway and local bus network.
I agree with the bottom portion. The need for transit in surrounding neighborhoods is there. What I'm saying is that a streetcar going to Bay St, IMO, would not make much sense if we have the skyway right on Bay St. There's about 4 more potential stops on Bay St with the skyway. A streetcar is great for Riverside and Springfield, and when we're thinking about expanding the skyway, there's really only two places it can go: San Marco and the Sports Complex. The streetcar shouldn't do all the work.
You can't just intentionally force people to switch transit modes in order to support a system that otherwise doesn't work on its own, either. You're going to end up with two incomplete / half-functional systems, that create enough inconvenience to make them an unattractive proposition to users. Remember you are competing with the car. Forcing people to get off a streetcar, board the skyway, then get off to board another streetcar, just so that people will ride the skyway, is not going to have good results. We should have a complete and functional streetcar system, not just a feeder for the skyway and for JTA buses. Your comment indicating it could ever be a meaningful feeder for JTA's buses is a little misplaced, you are talking about two different demographics. People will ride a streetcar, but most don't and won't ride JTA buses. The streetcar should be a self-sufficient system, if it happens to have some ancillary benefit to other modes nearby, great, but don't sacrifice the sound planning of the new system to force people to accomodate failed systems, it's not going to turn out well. The streetcar should go down Bay Street, regardless of whether the skyway is there or not, it should extend all the way to the stadium too.
The skyway is a red herring, leave it out of the streetcar planning. Make a complete streetcar system that's functional, instead of trying to use it to force people to ride the skyway. Introduce enough hassle into it and nobody will use either system.
The skyway will still have the pitiful ridership it has now if we get the streetcar to go everywhere the skyway can go. One extension to San Marco would increase ridership, but the sports complex would be how we get a serious gain. A streetcar from to St. Vincents to Shands is a complete system, IMO. A later extension to Avondale would make much sense, and I think when you have all that, you have a pretty good base for ridership. In an city with real transit, you're going to have to make transfers. That's just how it is. If we build a streetcar line that goes all around the core, then we might as well start tearing down the skyway as soon as the streetcar is finished. No one will ride it if it stays the same.
Have you guys ever been to a city and used transit. Transfers and multi model operations happen smoothly all the time. You don't end lines to force people to ride the skyway you do it to take best advantage of the resources you have. You don't end an express bus line just to put people on the skyway just don't duplicate services. That way your buses will do a better job covering the rest of the area. You lower the costs of the transit system as a whole.
btw The skyway is already the busiest transit line in the area.
Yes, I have. That's how I know this streetcar/skyway merger talk is a dumb idea.
Also, when you talk about other cities, they have different mass transit cost/benefit ratios. The level of service and convenience required to make a system gain ridership here is significantly higher than in larger denser cities, because it doesn't cost $400/mo to rent a garage space for a car here like in NYC. We don't have Boston traffic, where going 10 miles on 93 takes 2 hours. Quit comparing the incomparable.
As to your comment about the skyway being the portion of the JTA system with the highest ridership, as you should recall, we are near dead-last in public transit ridership out of every major MSA in the nation. Nobody with a car, or even the possibility of of riding a herpetic donkey to work in the morning, will ride JTA buses for myriad reasons that have already been discussed elsewhere. Comparing such a broken system to itself is ridiculous, and presents a false conclusion. Do I get an award if I'm the skinniest kid at fat-camp?
Yes, I do believe you'll sink over $100 million into an Acosta Bridge retrofit easily. To accommodate two tracks on the Acosta, additional modifications would be needed to keep auto/transit separated (the Acosta is a freeway) and you still need to pay for a new structure over the FEC tracks. I'm not saying it can't be done. However, I am saying for the expense, it's not worth it and that there are better cost effective alternatives available.
My point is ending bus lines at the skyway terminus is not just a trick to increase the skyway's numbers. It could be useful to better leverage all of the JTA's assets.
btw the way the skinniest kid at fat camp may do the best with the girls there.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2011, 11:59:30 AM
Yes, I do believe you'll sink over $100 million into an Acosta Bridge retrofit easily. To accommodate two tracks on the Acosta, additional modifications would be needed to keep auto/transit separated (the Acosta is a freeway) and you still need to pay for a new structure over the FEC tracks. I'm not saying it can't be done. However, I am saying for the expense, it's not worth it and that there are better cost effective alternatives available.
The Acosta was supposed to be a freeway. What it wound up being is a mostly empty under-used bridge. Seems like the perfect asset for the streetcar, frankly. All the other bridges have enough traffic that running a streetcar woukd probably impede traffic flow, you don't have that problem on the Acosta because there is generally no traffic to speak of. Further, it already directly connects to Riverside Ave, the proposed route, and has entrance/exit ramps that are 3 lanes wide but only have a single lane painted onto them. Perfect. And the $100mm figure is grossly bloated, wouldn't cost anywhere near that. Portland Oregon laid those tracks I just showed you for less than 1/10th of that.
Quote from: JeffreyS on August 27, 2011, 12:05:03 PM
btw the way the skinniest kid at fat camp may do the best with the girls there.
lmao!
This ain't that hard;
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6003/5982527290_0c5b9436f7.jpg)
And I'm going somewhere with this. The streetcar is cheaply and easily expandable, the skyway is not. Whatever the cost of running a couple tracks over the bridge, it's a fraction of the cost of adding even a single additional station/extension onto the skyway, so once the tracks are in we'll have an expandable complete system, could run down san jose or wherever else you wanted it to go later. What's the cost of doing that with the skyway?
I get everybody want to use whatever natural synergy exists with the skyway. Unfortunately, in reality, and when you look at the larger picture, there really isn't any. You're limiting expandability by forcing the incorporation of the skyway.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2011, 11:59:30 AM
Yes, I do believe you'll sink over $100 million into an Acosta Bridge retrofit easily. To accommodate two tracks on the Acosta, additional modifications would be needed to keep auto/transit separated (the Acosta is a freeway) and you still need to pay for a new structure over the FEC tracks. I'm not saying it can't be done. However, I am saying for the expense, it's not worth it and that there are better cost effective alternatives available.
A streetcar could not handle the grades on the Acosta Bridge. For a bridge that would carry streetcars, the approaches would have to be much flatter. You either have to go with a drawbridge, like the FEC bridge, or you'd have to have much much longer approaches to get high enough without them being too steep for a streetcar.
Even the Acosta Bridge does not meet the documented design specifications for the skyway. They bent the rules for that part of the route.
It would work if you had a cable car instead of a streetcar.
That's also how incline railways work. If you're ever in Chattanooga or Pittsburgh, they are well worth checking out.
Roller coasters are also pulled by a cable.
Quote from: Dashing Dan on August 27, 2011, 12:18:29 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2011, 11:59:30 AM
Yes, I do believe you'll sink over $100 million into an Acosta Bridge retrofit easily. To accommodate two tracks on the Acosta, additional modifications would be needed to keep auto/transit separated (the Acosta is a freeway) and you still need to pay for a new structure over the FEC tracks. I'm not saying it can't be done. However, I am saying for the expense, it's not worth it and that there are better cost effective alternatives available.
A streetcar could not handle the grades on the Acosta Bridge. For a bridge that would carry streetcars, the approaches would have to be much flatter. You either have to go with a drawbridge, like the FEC bridge, or you'd have to have much much longer approaches to get high enough without them being too steep for a streetcar.
Even the Acosta Bridge does not meet the documented design specifications for the skyway. They bent the rules for that part of the route.
It would work if you had a cable car instead of a streetcar.
That's also how incline railways work. If you're ever in Chattanooga or Pittsburgh, they are well worth checking out.
Roller coasters are also pulled by a cable.
I know the difference between a cablecar and a streetcar. From my understanding, the Acosta bridge has a 6% grade, while most streetcars can handle 9% and stay well within their design specs. Not sure what the problem would be?
(http://www.lightrailnow.org/images/lr-stc-river-rail-car-ascends-grade-n-lr-bridge-close-20041204br_lh.jpg)
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 12:16:43 PM
This ain't that hard;
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6003/5982527290_0c5b9436f7.jpg)
No it wouldn't be hard - on the Acosta Bridge it would be impossible.
I think putting tracks down on the Acosta is the best way to go instead of making people jump off a streetcar onto a totally different system (that's not the same thing as just a line change). There's plenty of room to work with (certainly more than Main street bridge, that seems like a nightmare). The tracks could be laid on both sides of the bridge (the "exit lanes"). Cars can also use the same lane obviously if the streetcar isn't on it (or they could just go around it like they do any other car). Enforce the speed limit & put up some flashing lights to indicate whenever the streetcar is in route. Is it really that difficult (not being a smarty pants, I genuinely want to know)?
So I'm not sure how that costs $100 Million? What would be the extra costs?? Lights?? And anyways, if we're also talking about Skyway extensions to make those legs actually useful (you'd have to go deeper into San Marco with the Skyway), wouldn't that cost far outweigh what we're talking about with any streetcar tracks over a bridge & into a neighborhood??
Quote from: stephendare on August 27, 2011, 12:20:25 PM
as one of the few actual transit users in this forum, I can tell you that I personally do not mind a transfer, and I do not know anyone who does. If you need to get someplace, you will go the way that gets you there. Switching from Trolley to skyway to bus is no big deal, and people do similar transfers every day in cities across the world.
But you won't drive a car, so the choice is a bit different for you than most, isn't it? Last I checked, you were being all eco-naz...err "green" to use the PC term, and had determined to eschew the use of such vile smoke-belching forms of transportation. Don't worry, as I always remind you, I've got you covered and churn out enough carbon for both of us. But the choice is really between walking or whatever level of convenience JTA provides, isn't it? That's not going to be the case with most folks, and it takes more than one rider, or even a whole marauding flock of greenpeacers, to make a successful transit system. Lol, you know I'm kidding, btw.
You could get away with one transfer or two maybe, beyond that it's a hassle and most people won't use it to go such short distances.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 12:27:56 PM
From my understanding, the Acosta bridge has a 6% grade, while most streetcars can handle 9% and stay well within their design specs. Not sure what the problem would be?
Yes, the Acosta Bridge is 6% and the skyway can just about handle those grades.
For normal trains the standard limit is 2.2%.
If you know of design specs for a streetcar that could handle a 9% grade, then I withdraw my comments about it being impossible for a streetcar to use the Acosta Bridge.
But I still think that the skyway would work out better for the Acosta, mainly because it's already there.
Quote from: Dashing Dan on August 27, 2011, 12:41:42 PM
But I still think that the skyway would work out better for the Acosta, mainly because it's already there.
And the skyway is perfectly setup to cross the FEC tracks in San Marco whereas a streetcar is not. We already have an elevated system that can cross the tracks. For people commuting downtown from/to San Marco, the #1 pain in the rear is getting stopped by the train. Provide a viable alternative by extending the skyway further south will generate more riders simply as a way to avoid sitting for 20 minutes staring at a stopped train on the tracks.
And how is walking down the stairs at Central Station to get on a streetcar different than getting off one streetcar line to get on another streetcar line?
Quote from: Dashing Dan on August 27, 2011, 12:41:42 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 12:27:56 PM
I know the difference between a cablecar and a streetcar. From my understanding, the Acosta bridge has a 6% grade, while most streetcars can handle 9% and stay well within their design specs. Not sure what the problem would be?
Yes, the Acosta Bridge is 6% and the skyway can just about handle those grades. For normal trains the standard limit is 2.2%.
If you know of design specs for a streetcar that could handle a 9% grade, then I withdraw my comments about it being impossible for a streetcar to use the Acosta Bridge.
But I still think that the skyway would work out better for the Acosta, mainly because it's already there.
Pretty much any given streetcar will do 6% and can more than handle the Acosta with plenty of margin left over. I would give you an example, except pretty much all of them do it, I mean, pick any given model. Ask Ock what hardware is intended for the jax system and we can see what it will handle. The only reason San Fran had to go with cable cars is some of their their grades are 21%, obviously a streetcar wouldn't do that. But 6% is not a big issue.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 10:07:42 AM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 09:52:47 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 09:05:42 AM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 26, 2011, 06:30:41 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 26, 2011, 05:55:32 PM
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?
Quote from: Dashing Dan on August 27, 2011, 12:41:42 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 12:27:56 PM
From my understanding, the Acosta bridge has a 6% grade, while most streetcars can handle 9% and stay well within their design specs. Not sure what the problem would be?
Yes, the Acosta Bridge is 6% and the skyway can just about handle those grades.
For normal trains the standard limit is 2.2%.
If you know of design specs for a streetcar that could handle a 9% grade, then I withdraw my comments about it being impossible for a streetcar to use the Acosta Bridge.
But I still think that the skyway would work out better for the Acosta, mainly because it's already there.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/101222_redhook_sc_casestudies.pdf
http://www.tacomatomorrow.com/2011/08/new-stadium-way-designed-to-support.html
http://www.seattlestreetcar.org/about/docs/sepa/First%20Hill%20Streetcar%20SEPA%20Checklist.pdf
http://www.cityofsalem.net/Departments/UrbanDevelopment/DepartmentProjects/UnionStreetRailroadBridge/Documents/prelim/design_criteria_memo_final.pdf
http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/05/12/united-streetcar-10t-3/
How many examples do you want?
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 10:15:42 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2011, 10:04:49 AM
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.
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 12:58:16 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 10:07:42 AM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 09:52:47 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 09:05:42 AM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 26, 2011, 06:30:41 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 26, 2011, 05:55:32 PM
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.
Quote from: Ocklawaha on August 27, 2011, 10:41:25 AM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 26, 2011, 06:30:41 PM
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.
The streetcar route isn't really on Bay Street, its on Water/Independence between Newnan and Lee. As far as East Bay is concerned I'd seriously skip it with the streetcar and use a northerly access along a Beaver Street alignment, basically Newnan to Beaver and hence east to Randolph. This sets up a future expansion of LRT/Rapid Streetcar straight up the old railroad right of way between Eastside and Springfield and on to Gateway Plaza. Access to this same abandoned rail line from Bay Street would be unlikely as it would need to run through the middle of Maxwell House.
As for the Skyway, with very little effort it could easily go to the farmers market/Woodstock, Shand's/VA Clinic and Riverside. You'll recall that Riverside was the last destination that JTA advertised they were planning on going with it. It was supposed to serve Brooklyn Park and end near Blue Cross, the failure of the development killed that extension. JTA needs to focus on established neighborhoods and get the Skyway AND Streetcar to those destinations. If a stadium extension was ever built (And I think it should) it needs to tap the Eastside neighborhoods.
Single transfers, especially across-the-platform transfers would be fine, beyond that you lose ridership.
OCKLAWAHA
I mean E. Bay St.
Riverside extension - I would love to see a skyway extension down Riverside Ave. Between that, San Marco, and the Sports Complex, I think the skyway could have a pretty decent ridership. Not a complete system, IMO, but it hits destinations.
About the transfers - Yeah, I don't see the big deal with transfers. I mean ONE transfer is not an issue. People do it all over the world.
Quote from: JeffreyS on August 27, 2011, 11:43:26 AM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 09:52:47 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 09:05:42 AM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 26, 2011, 06:30:41 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 26, 2011, 05:55:32 PM
How would a streetcar to the stadium take ridership away from something that isn't there? A streetcar only takes ridership away if there was a duplicate proposal to build a skyway line down the same corridor.
Btw, from my point of view, I'm not in favor of extending the skyway simply to add riders to that particular mode. I'm gunning for whatever makes economic and fiscal sense from a holistic view point. Given the costs, if the streetcar is already running down a corridor like Newnan, its not too far off base to run a line from that point to the stadium district. However, there's no sense in battling the specifics of that corridor today. We need to go ahead and get transit extended into some neighborhoods outside of DT first. At least then, we'll have something that takes some people where they want to go along while feeding riders into the skyway and local bus network.
I agree with the bottom portion. The need for transit in surrounding neighborhoods is there. What I'm saying is that a streetcar going to Bay St, IMO, would not make much sense if we have the skyway right on Bay St. There's about 4 more potential stops on Bay St with the skyway. A streetcar is great for Riverside and Springfield, and when we're thinking about expanding the skyway, there's really only two places it can go: San Marco and the Sports Complex. The streetcar shouldn't do all the work.
You can't just intentionally force people to switch transit modes in order to support a system that otherwise doesn't work on its own, either. You're going to end up with two incomplete / half-functional systems, that create enough inconvenience to make them an unattractive proposition to users. Remember you are competing with the car. Forcing people to get off a streetcar, board the skyway, then get off to board another streetcar, just so that people will ride the skyway, is not going to have good results. We should have a complete and functional streetcar system, not just a feeder for the skyway and for JTA buses. Your comment indicating it could ever be a meaningful feeder for JTA's buses is a little misplaced, you are talking about two different demographics. People will ride a streetcar, but most don't and won't ride JTA buses. The streetcar should be a self-sufficient system, if it happens to have some ancillary benefit to other modes nearby, great, but don't sacrifice the sound planning of the new system to force people to accomodate failed systems, it's not going to turn out well. The streetcar should go down Bay Street, regardless of whether the skyway is there or not, it should extend all the way to the stadium too.
The skyway is a red herring, leave it out of the streetcar planning. Make a complete streetcar system that's functional, instead of trying to use it to force people to ride the skyway. Introduce enough hassle into it and nobody will use either system.
The skyway will still have the pitiful ridership it has now if we get the streetcar to go everywhere the skyway can go. One extension to San Marco would increase ridership, but the sports complex would be how we get a serious gain. A streetcar from to St. Vincents to Shands is a complete system, IMO. A later extension to Avondale would make much sense, and I think when you have all that, you have a pretty good base for ridership. In an city with real transit, you're going to have to make transfers. That's just how it is. If we build a streetcar line that goes all around the core, then we might as well start tearing down the skyway as soon as the streetcar is finished. No one will ride it if it stays the same.
Have you guys ever been to a city and used transit. Transfers and multi model operations happen smoothly all the time. You don't end lines to force people to ride the skyway you do it to take best advantage of the resources you have. You don't end an express bus line just to put people on the skyway just don't duplicate services. That way your buses will do a better job covering the rest of the area. You lower the costs of the transit system as a whole.
btw The skyway is already the busiest transit line in the area.
The streetcar would just continue north and the streetcar would continue east. It wouldn't stop and then turn around.
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 01:00:26 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 10:15:42 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2011, 10:04:49 AM
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.
Quote from: stephendare on August 27, 2011, 12:20:25 PM
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).
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 10:47:54 AM
Quote from: Ocklawaha on August 27, 2011, 10:41:25 AM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 26, 2011, 06:30:41 PM
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.
The streetcar route isn't really on Bay Street, its on Water/Independence between Newnan and Lee. As far as East Bay is concerned I'd seriously skip it with the streetcar and use a northerly access along a Beaver Street alignment, basically Newnan to Beaver and hence east to Randolph. This sets up a future expansion of LRT/Rapid Streetcar straight up the old railroad right of way between Eastside and Springfield and on to Gateway Plaza. Access to this same abandoned rail line from Bay Street would be unlikely as it would need to run through the middle of Maxwell House.
As for the Skyway, with very little effort it could easily go to the farmers market/Woodstock, Shand's/VA Clinic and Riverside. You'll recall that Riverside was the last destination that JTA advertised they were planning on going with it. It was supposed to serve Brooklyn Park and end near Blue Cross, the failure of the development killed that extension. JTA needs to focus on established neighborhoods and get the Skyway AND Streetcar to those destinations. If a stadium extension was ever built (And I think it should) it needs to tap the Eastside neighborhoods.
Single transfers, especially across-the-platform transfers would be fine, beyond that you lose ridership.
OCKLAWAHA
+1 on single transfers max.
But about East Bay Street, I believe the streetcar must deliberately use that route, perhaps in addition to the one you suggest, in order to serve the growing entertainment district down there. It's the sole, singular, thing generating any activity downtown, we'd be silly not to plant this thing right down the middle and connect that asset with the residential neighborhoods. Especially where the type of business we're talking about combined with the natural desire to want to avoid a DUI presents a unique impetus to ridership.
Why do you want the streetcar to do everything? The skyway is going to be here for at least more years. Money's already been spent. We might as well try to make it work. If we get the streetcar to go everywhere, then we will just continue to lose $4 million every year.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 01:03:41 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 12:58:16 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 10:07:42 AM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 09:52:47 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 09:05:42 AM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 26, 2011, 06:30:41 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 26, 2011, 05:55:32 PM
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.
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 01:09:34 PM
Quote from: stephendare on August 27, 2011, 12:20:25 PM
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.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 01:08:53 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 01:00:26 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 10:15:42 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2011, 10:04:49 AM
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.
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 01:15:15 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 01:03:41 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 12:58:16 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 10:07:42 AM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 09:52:47 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 09:05:42 AM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 26, 2011, 06:30:41 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 26, 2011, 05:55:32 PM
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.
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 01:19:33 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 01:08:53 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 01:00:26 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 10:15:42 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2011, 10:04:49 AM
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?
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 01:17:08 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 01:09:34 PM
Quote from: stephendare on August 27, 2011, 12:20:25 PM
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.
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 01:26:18 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 01:17:08 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 01:09:34 PM
Quote from: stephendare on August 27, 2011, 12:20:25 PM
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?
Quote from: stephendare on August 27, 2011, 01:29:14 PM
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.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 01:21:23 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 01:15:15 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 01:03:41 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 12:58:16 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 10:07:42 AM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 09:52:47 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 09:05:42 AM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 26, 2011, 06:30:41 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 26, 2011, 05:55:32 PM
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.
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?
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 01:26:03 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 01:19:33 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 01:08:53 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 01:00:26 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 10:15:42 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2011, 10:04:49 AM
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.
Quote from: stephendare on August 27, 2011, 01:39:39 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 01:36:01 PM
Quote from: stephendare on August 27, 2011, 01:29:14 PM
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.
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 01:41:55 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 01:26:03 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 01:19:33 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 01:08:53 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 01:00:26 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 10:15:42 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2011, 10:04:49 AM
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.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 01:40:47 PM
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:
Quote from: stephendare on August 27, 2011, 01:38:15 PM
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.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 01:45:39 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 01:41:55 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 01:26:03 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 01:19:33 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 01:08:53 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 01:00:26 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 10:15:42 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2011, 10:04:49 AM
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?
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.
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 01:46:45 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 01:40:47 PM
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:
Quote from: stephendare on August 27, 2011, 01:38:15 PM
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.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 01:42:34 PM
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]
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 27, 2011, 01:53:13 PM
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.
My apologies, I confused Jefferson with the convention center station since they're both next to the convention center.
And I know it has no escalator, I was trying to tell Stephen that originally. You'd think he'd have believed me without you having had to confirm it, he certainly knows me well enough to know I wouldn't take the stairs in 100 degree Florida weather unless I had to. Lol
Honestly, the only reason that I know this is because I get off of the WS-2 at Jefferson Station in the mornings.
Why in the hell would you do that? I'm glad you asked. Because, fucking Kent Stover, if I ride the bus through the DT loop, I have to wait another 10 minutes to catch my next bus (fortunately is either the L8 or L7, other wise, my 10 minute wait would be about an hour - digressing) BUT!!!!! If I get off at the skyway station, catch the next train and ride the skyway to Rosa Park - it saves me at least 10 minutes of driving around. Yes it's another transfer. Yes, I've convinced a few people to get off with me and have honestly saved some of them 30-40 minutes on their morning commute (due to transfers of the CT2 & CT4). No, I prefer to make a transfer that requires me to cross a street (not really a busy one) walk through an unmaintained parking lot, up a set of stairs if it means me saving half an hour.
Or, genius, you could drop off everyone there, save everyone time, increase your ridership, decrease your busses headways, etc. etc. etc.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 01:52:47 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 01:46:45 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 01:40:47 PM
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:
Quote from: stephendare on August 27, 2011, 01:38:15 PM
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.
I could possibly. JTA doesn't make the smartest decisions, in fact they make some dumb ones, but I believe that rescheduling is so easy, it can't be messed up. If they actually had routes and times that made sense - is this not easy? - transfers are easy, EVERYTHING is easy if they had routes and times that made sense.
I don't know who would operate the streetcar but, whoever does should make try to coordinate it with the skyway so that transfers are painless. And I do understand (I actually never did) that 6 transfers is too much, but one way. 3 transfers one way might be too much for some, but it's not unreasonable.
Wow, this has been a busy thread today. Earlier, I was at a little league football game so I couldn't keep up with the posts. Anyway, I'll pick a chose a few comments to respond too.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 12:05:48 PM
The Acosta was supposed to be a freeway. What it wound up being is a mostly empty under-used bridge.
Regardless of traffic count (which happens to be higher than the road we want to turn into the Outer Beltway), it is a freeway. Its designed and operates as a limited access facility.
QuoteSeems like the perfect asset for the streetcar, frankly. All the other bridges have enough traffic that running a streetcar woukd probably impede traffic flow, you don't have that problem on the Acosta because there is generally no traffic to speak of.
Maybe I missed it within this thread, but where exactly are you trying to stretch a streetcar line too? San Marco, STJC, Avenues? Once the overall goal is established, then the true pros and cons of an extra bridge crossing or retrofit will come to light.
QuoteFurther, it already directly connects to Riverside Ave, the proposed route, and has entrance/exit ramps that are 3 lanes wide but only have a single lane painted onto them. Perfect.
The streetcar route would not be on Riverside Avenue in that area. It would go off Riverside at Forest and over to Park or Myrtle to directly connect into the JRTC.
QuoteAnd the $100mm figure is grossly bloated, wouldn't cost anywhere near that. Portland Oregon laid those tracks I just showed you for less than 1/10th of that.
Comparing the Portland or Little Rock examples to a freeway with a complex set of interchanges on both ends are apples to oranges comparisons. Retroffiting is going to cost you a ton because you'll have to find a solution that keeps these modes from interacting with each other on the bridge, the two interchanges and design/construct some difficult type of approach to even get the streetcar route onto the structure.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 01:03:41 PM
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.
My view on the Sports Complex issue is that it isn't served by anything right now. If the plan calls for the streetcar to go down Newnan to connect DT to Springfield, it makes more sense (both for pedestrian scale context and cost) to extend a streetcar line to the Sports Complex instead of extending an elevated skyway to it (the skyway ends 4 blocks west of where the Newnan St streetcar route would be. While it does makes sense to take advantage of the existing skyway to access certain locations (like the Southbank), why pay to expand it just for the sake of expanding it when cheaper and more efficient solutions are available?
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2011, 02:14:05 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 01:03:41 PM
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.
My view on the Sports Complex issue is that it isn't served by anything right now. If the plan calls for the streetcar to go down Newnan to connect DT to Springfield, it makes more sense (both for pedestrian scale context and cost) to extend a streetcar line to the Sports Complex instead of extending an elevated skyway to it (the skyway ends 4 blocks west of where the Newnan St streetcar route would be. While it does makes sense to take advantage of the existing skyway to access certain locations (like the Southbank), why pay to expand it just for the sake of expanding it when cheaper and more efficient solutions are available?
Well as it turns out you and I are in complete agreement on this issue then.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2011, 02:14:05 PM
My view on the Sports Complex issue is that it isn't served by anything right now.
Don't you dare piss on JTA's leg and tell them that it's raining. The stadium is serviced by dedicated shuttles from lots all over the city every home game. Why is there any need have a dedicated line, football is only 10 games a year! ;)
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 01:00:00 PM
Quote from: Dashing Dan on August 27, 2011, 12:41:42 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 12:27:56 PM
From my understanding, the Acosta bridge has a 6% grade, while most streetcars can handle 9% and stay well within their design specs. Not sure what the problem would be?
Yes, the Acosta Bridge is 6% and the skyway can just about handle those grades.
For normal trains the standard limit is 2.2%.
If you know of design specs for a streetcar that could handle a 9% grade, then I withdraw my comments about it being impossible for a streetcar to use the Acosta Bridge.
But I still think that the skyway would work out better for the Acosta, mainly because it's already there.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/101222_redhook_sc_casestudies.pdf
http://www.tacomatomorrow.com/2011/08/new-stadium-way-designed-to-support.html
http://www.seattlestreetcar.org/about/docs/sepa/First%20Hill%20Streetcar%20SEPA%20Checklist.pdf
http://www.cityofsalem.net/Departments/UrbanDevelopment/DepartmentProjects/UnionStreetRailroadBridge/Documents/prelim/design_criteria_memo_final.pdf
http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/05/12/united-streetcar-10t-3/
How many examples do you want?
I read through a few of those references. One of the links didn't work but for the rest the consensus seems to be 5% might be okay, 6% might also be okay, but that 9% is a stretch. Even 5% is more than double what I'd expected, so I'll concede the point. But I still have to wonder why a rubber tired skyway is limited to 6% and a steel wheel on steel rail streetcar is capable of up to 9%. It just doesn't make sense to me. Aside from the operations aspect of this there is also a question, at least in my mind, about how you could stand up in a vehicle that was on a 9% grade. I know that they do it on cable cars in SF, but the incline railways all have angled floors.
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 01:09:34 PM
Quote from: stephendare on August 27, 2011, 12:20:25 PM
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).
In San Diego is wasn't that difficult. Several transfers were made at the same platforms:
Blue Line LRT, Green Line LRT, commuter rail and local bus cross platform transferring at Old Town Transit Center:
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/San-Diego-Trolley-Green-Line/i-Vq6pPXc/0/L/P1490269-L.jpg)
Amtrak, commuter rail and Blue Line LRT cross platform transferring in DT San Diego
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Pacific-Surfliner-2011/i-Brhc5jm/0/L/P1490331-L.jpg)
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2011, 02:14:05 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 01:03:41 PM
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.
My view on the Sports Complex issue is that it isn't served by anything right now. If the plan calls for the streetcar to go down Newnan to connect DT to Springfield, it makes more sense (both for pedestrian scale context and cost) to extend a streetcar line to the Sports Complex instead of extending an elevated skyway to it (the skyway ends 4 blocks west of where the Newnan St streetcar route would be. While it does makes sense to take advantage of the existing skyway to access certain locations (like the Southbank), why pay to expand it just for the sake of expanding it when cheaper and more efficient solutions are available?
How is a streetcar any more efficient and better for pedestrian scale than the skyway?
JTA doesn't even offer transfers like a REAL transit system would. Even across the platform transfers wouldn't help that streetcar on Bay Street when game traffic is turned loose. An SINGLE exclusive transit lane would just reduce road and streetcar capacity. Even if you could build an exclusive lane, the streetcar would be powerless to assist with stadium traffic unless you had two transit lanes/tracks for bidirectional running. With two lanes we just cut the automobile access along Bay in half. The only logical route to the stadium for streetcar is Beaver Street and/or Monroe Street. Beaver would include a few blocks of private right of way over Hogans Creek, if it turned south and hooked up with Duval East of the Randolph parking garage for a return loop then we'd only lose one traffic lane prone to stadium rush.
The Skyway is superior to the stadium for the same reasons it is to San Marco; 1. It's already poised to go either way. 2. Above the stadium rush. Streetcar however is superior to all of the above between Gateway/Shand's and the Stadium since it would all be on private right of way and it's a hell of a lot cheaper.
OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2011, 02:20:07 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 01:09:34 PM
Quote from: stephendare on August 27, 2011, 12:20:25 PM
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).
In San Diego is wasn't that difficult. Several transfers were made at the same platforms:
Blue Line LRT, Green Line LRT, commuter rail and local bus cross platform transferring at Old Town Transit Center:
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/San-Diego-Trolley-Green-Line/i-Vq6pPXc/0/L/P1490269-L.jpg)
Amtrak, commuter rail and Blue Line LRT cross platform transferring in DT San Diego
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Pacific-Surfliner-2011/i-Brhc5jm/0/L/P1490331-L.jpg)
These 2 photos contain virtually ALL of the reasons why JTA's 'Greyhound Station' plan is completely off the target and why the JRTC plan is so screwed up.OCKLAWAHA
San Diego has milder weather than Jax. It probably is more important to limit transfers here but I think some act like a transfer is this monster problem.
I wish the broader conversation in this city was more like on this site. We talk about what routes and modes are the best where as the bulk of this city just wants to not pay for anything and have parking for their monster truck.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 27, 2011, 02:19:32 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2011, 02:14:05 PM
My view on the Sports Complex issue is that it isn't served by anything right now.
Don't you dare piss on JTA's leg and tell them that it's raining. The stadium is serviced by dedicated shuttles from lots all over the city every home game. Why is there any need have a dedicated line, football is only 10 games a year! ;)
JTA needs to put a lot on the NORTHSIDE. Not sure how much space there is, but one on Airport Center Dr would be great. Dunn Ave would also work.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2011, 02:05:18 PM
Wow, this has been a busy thread today. Earlier, I was at a little league football game so I couldn't keep up with the posts. Anyway, I'll pick a chose a few comments to respond too.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 12:05:48 PM
The Acosta was supposed to be a freeway. What it wound up being is a mostly empty under-used bridge.
Regardless of traffic count (which happens to be higher than the road we want to turn into the Outer Beltway), it is a freeway. Its designed and operates as a limited access facility.
QuoteSeems like the perfect asset for the streetcar, frankly. All the other bridges have enough traffic that running a streetcar woukd probably impede traffic flow, you don't have that problem on the Acosta because there is generally no traffic to speak of.
Maybe I missed it within this thread, but where exactly are you trying to stretch a streetcar line too? San Marco, STJC, Avenues? Once the overall goal is established, then the true pros and cons of an extra bridge crossing or retrofit will come to light.
QuoteFurther, it already directly connects to Riverside Ave, the proposed route, and has entrance/exit ramps that are 3 lanes wide but only have a single lane painted onto them. Perfect.
The streetcar route would not be on Riverside Avenue in that area. It would go off Riverside at Forest and over to Park or Myrtle to directly connect into the JRTC.
QuoteAnd the $100mm figure is grossly bloated, wouldn't cost anywhere near that. Portland Oregon laid those tracks I just showed you for less than 1/10th of that.
Comparing the Portland or Little Rock examples to a freeway with a complex set of interchanges on both ends are apples to oranges comparisons. Retroffiting is going to cost you a ton because you'll have to find a solution that keeps these modes from interacting with each other on the bridge, the two interchanges and design/construct some difficult type of approach to even get the streetcar route onto the structure.
Well obviously I agree with you about the outer beltway and the traffic count, but the conclusion there is only tbat the outer beltway is a completely unnecessary waste of money, not that the Acosta is running anywhere near its capacity. About the route, it's firmly decided that Park Street is the route? I remember Riverside was a proposed route and I still believe that may be the better choice, given that eventually Riverside Ave will develop commercially. But then again the same thing could be said about Park between 95 and the Terminal, and that has a better shot of developing than Riverside Ave since it already has existing building fabric. So actually now that I think about it that probably is the better route.
Quote from: JeffreyS on August 27, 2011, 02:26:07 PM
San Diego has milder weather than Jax. It probably is more important to limit transfers here but I think some act like a transfer is this monster problem.
I wish the broader conversation in this city was more like on this site. We talk about what routes and modes are the best where as the bulk of this city just wants to not pay for anything and have parking for their monster truck.
Nobody has ever argued that "
A" transfer is a problem, that's misstating the facts.
6 transfers to go a few miles is, on the other hand, a huge problem.
Quote from: Ocklawaha on August 27, 2011, 02:22:53 PM
JTA doesn't even offer transfers like a REAL transit system would. Even across the platform transfers wouldn't help that streetcar on Bay Street when game traffic is turned loose. An SINGLE exclusive transit lane would just reduce road and streetcar capacity. Even if you could build an exclusive lane, the streetcar would be powerless to assist with stadium traffic unless you had two transit lanes/tracks for bidirectional running. With two lanes we just cut the automobile access along Bay in half. The only logical route to the stadium for streetcar is Beaver Street and/or Monroe Street. Beaver would include a few blocks of private right of way over Hogans Creek, if it turned south and hooked up with Duval East of the Randolph parking garage for a return loop then we'd only lose one traffic lane prone to stadium rush.
The Skyway is superior to the stadium for the same reasons it is to San Marco; 1. It's already poised to go either way. 2. Above the stadium rush. Streetcar however is superior to all of the above between Gateway/Shand's and the Stadium since it would all be on private right of way and it's a hell of a lot cheaper.
OCKLAWAHA
Another reason I didn't think about! Not only would you have to take up at LEAST one lane of traffic on Bay St, but in the process of doing that, traffic would be even more clogged during game days! This makes the skyway make even more sense to me now.
Are there plans for a streetcar to go to Gateway? I thought that would be commuter rail...
Chris I don't think you have argued any unreasonable positions. That comment is a reference to many posts about transfers over the years here. I think there has been a lot of reasonable give and take on this thread.
I would also like to know where the streetcar was supposed to go over the river. If we build the streetcar going over the river, the skyway would get even less riders.
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 02:31:52 PM
Quote from: Ocklawaha on August 27, 2011, 02:22:53 PM
JTA doesn't even offer transfers like a REAL transit system would. Even across the platform transfers wouldn't help that streetcar on Bay Street when game traffic is turned loose. An SINGLE exclusive transit lane would just reduce road and streetcar capacity. Even if you could build an exclusive lane, the streetcar would be powerless to assist with stadium traffic unless you had two transit lanes/tracks for bidirectional running. With two lanes we just cut the automobile access along Bay in half. The only logical route to the stadium for streetcar is Beaver Street and/or Monroe Street. Beaver would include a few blocks of private right of way over Hogans Creek, if it turned south and hooked up with Duval East of the Randolph parking garage for a return loop then we'd only lose one traffic lane prone to stadium rush.
The Skyway is superior to the stadium for the same reasons it is to San Marco; 1. It's already poised to go either way. 2. Above the stadium rush. Streetcar however is superior to all of the above between Gateway/Shand's and the Stadium since it would all be on private right of way and it's a hell of a lot cheaper.
OCKLAWAHA
Another reason I didn't think about! Not only would you have to take up at LEAST one lane of traffic on Bay St, but in the process of doing that, traffic would be even more clogged during game days! This makes the skyway make even more sense to me now.
Are there plans for a streetcar to go to Gateway. I thought that would be commuter rail...
I think it's rather silly to plan Downtown's development around the few days a year there's a football game on.
More than silly, actually.
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 02:21:26 PM
How is a streetcar any more efficient and better for pedestrian scale than the skyway?
See the pics below:
Streetcar/LRT line(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/San-Diego-2011/i-vjVN6mR/0/L/P1490163-L.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/San-Diego-2011/i-kwz7JJ9/0/L/P1490172-L.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/San-Diego-2011/i-k82PpF6/0/L/P1490300-L.jpg)
Skyway(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/471906673_ao3XW-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/471904149_DLFf3-M.jpg)
Increasing pedestrian traffic an retail/entertainment at street level is a major goal for the revitalization of downtown. One mode does this better than the other, plus it happens to cost significantly less.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 02:35:06 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 02:31:52 PM
Quote from: Ocklawaha on August 27, 2011, 02:22:53 PM
JTA doesn't even offer transfers like a REAL transit system would. Even across the platform transfers wouldn't help that streetcar on Bay Street when game traffic is turned loose. An SINGLE exclusive transit lane would just reduce road and streetcar capacity. Even if you could build an exclusive lane, the streetcar would be powerless to assist with stadium traffic unless you had two transit lanes/tracks for bidirectional running. With two lanes we just cut the automobile access along Bay in half. The only logical route to the stadium for streetcar is Beaver Street and/or Monroe Street. Beaver would include a few blocks of private right of way over Hogans Creek, if it turned south and hooked up with Duval East of the Randolph parking garage for a return loop then we'd only lose one traffic lane prone to stadium rush.
The Skyway is superior to the stadium for the same reasons it is to San Marco; 1. It's already poised to go either way. 2. Above the stadium rush. Streetcar however is superior to all of the above between Gateway/Shand's and the Stadium since it would all be on private right of way and it's a hell of a lot cheaper.
OCKLAWAHA
Another reason I didn't think about! Not only would you have to take up at LEAST one lane of traffic on Bay St, but in the process of doing that, traffic would be even more clogged during game days! This makes the skyway make even more sense to me now.
Are there plans for a streetcar to go to Gateway. I thought that would be commuter rail...
I think it's rather silly to plan Downtown's development around the few days a year there's a football game on.
More than silly, actually.
What about concerts, Giants games, Sharks games, baseball games, the fair, and other things that happen in that area? Congestion might not be as bad or last as long but the skyway could be an easy alternative.
Btw, no one is planning downtown development on football.
Quote from: stephendare on August 27, 2011, 01:38:15 PM
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.
These idiots could completely undermine the direction and laws of gravity if they only had a chance. In fact if JTA were in charge of gravity, we would call it blueberry jelly, and it would only work three times a day.
I was getting ready to post something similar. If JTA's in charge, it'll be crap. So we're all probably arguing over nothing. I think they'll just use buses anyway no matter what & then say "See there, does the same thing as that expensive streetcar would have. What's the problem??"
Quote from: stephendare on August 27, 2011, 01:39:39 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 01:36:01 PM
Quote from: stephendare on August 27, 2011, 01:29:14 PM
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.
Maybe, but I do
try to use the Skyway (public trans in general) whenever I can (not because I have to) & something is ALWAYS messed up with the Skyway. Its usually the change machines & turnstiles. When they're broken, guess what? I don't pay. I'd GLADLY pay & am willing to do so. So I figure if they want my money, the least they could do is fix the things that, you know, allow them to actually TAKE my money. Its amazing.
In fact, at one of the stations (the one close to the landing I believe), the handicapped entry door hasn't worked for months. Why do I use that door? Because I like to take my 3 year old along for the rides (and she's in a stroller because we walk around a lot). And it wont fit through the normal turnstiles either. So you can imagine the fun of getting a screaming baby out of her stroller (if she's asleep then God help me), throwing the stroller over a turnstile, then carrying the baby over it, then putting her right back in it. "Oh crap! There went the train! Son of a!!" All because JTA is too f*cking lazy to fix something.
JTA sucks, guys. End of story. Don't try to defend them. They're horrible at their jobs. So if you're trying to include them in with the streetcar plans in any way, prepare for it to fail.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2011, 02:37:52 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 02:21:26 PM
How is a streetcar any more efficient and better for pedestrian scale than the skyway?
See the pics below:
Streetcar/LRT line
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/San-Diego-2011/i-vjVN6mR/0/L/P1490163-L.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/San-Diego-2011/i-kwz7JJ9/0/L/P1490172-L.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/San-Diego-2011/i-k82PpF6/0/L/P1490300-L.jpg)
Skyway
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/471906673_ao3XW-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/471904149_DLFf3-M.jpg)
Increasing pedestrian traffic an retail/entertainment at street level is a major goal for the revitalization of downtown. One mode does this better than the other, plus it happens to cost significantly less.
I'm not positive so I have to ask - Does the metromover in Miami not have this type of developments near it stations? I know it's not the skyway, but the two are sisters and if we could get downtown going again, I don't see why new residential or mixed-use projects couldn't be built near stations and look just like those pics of San Diego.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 02:28:05 PM
Well obviously I agree with you about the outer beltway and the traffic count, but the conclusion there is only tbat the outer beltway is a completely unnecessary waste of money, not that the Acosta is running anywhere near its capacity. About the route, it's firmly decided that Park Street is the route? I remember Riverside was a proposed route and I still believe that may be the better choice, given that eventually Riverside Ave will develop commercially. But then again the same thing could be said about Park between 95 and the Terminal, and that has a better shot of developing than Riverside Ave since it already has existing building fabric. So actually now that I think about it that probably is the better route.
The Acosta Bridge/Riverside interchange was never a part of any route proposal. It was never really feasible because of the steep grades on Riverside Avenue's bridges, more limited TOD potential than other corridors in Brooklyn and it wouldn't connect with the JRTC.
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 02:34:35 PM
I would also like to know where the streetcar was supposed to go over the river. If we build the streetcar going over the river, the skyway would get even less riders.
We can't just design the streetcar system from the get-go around not rocking the skyway's boat, or else you wind up with two incomplete failed systems instead of one. The streetcar needs to be its own thing, the skyway is a just red herring in this process and shouldn't get in the way of sound planning, or even warrant consideration when designing the streetcar routes. The streetcar needs to do what it needs to do to be successful, the skyway really ought to be left out of it. The only way to utilize it is by cannibalizing the streetcar's potential to force people onto it, at which point nobody will use it since nobody in their right mind is going to make 6 transfers to go a couple miles. We really need to design this to be successful on its own, leave the skyway out of it.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2011, 02:44:25 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 02:28:05 PM
Well obviously I agree with you about the outer beltway and the traffic count, but the conclusion there is only tbat the outer beltway is a completely unnecessary waste of money, not that the Acosta is running anywhere near its capacity. About the route, it's firmly decided that Park Street is the route? I remember Riverside was a proposed route and I still believe that may be the better choice, given that eventually Riverside Ave will develop commercially. But then again the same thing could be said about Park between 95 and the Terminal, and that has a better shot of developing than Riverside Ave since it already has existing building fabric. So actually now that I think about it that probably is the better route.
The Acosta Bridge/Riverside interchange was never a part of any route proposal. It was never really feasible because of the steep grades on Riverside Avenue's bridges, more limited TOD potential than other corridors in Brooklyn and it wouldn't connect with the JRTC.
Did this site not conduct a poll asking what routes people would prefer, one of which was Riverside Ave, prior to submitting its input on the design? I seem to recall it did. Whatever made it into the final proposal I wouldn't know, I don't have anything to do with it.
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 02:43:25 PM
I'm not positive so I have to ask - Does the metromover in Miami not have this type of developments near it stations? I know it's not the skyway, but the two are sisters and if we could get downtown going again, I don't see why new residential or mixed-use projects couldn't be built near stations and look just like those pics of San Diego.
The Metromover does have some TOD along its stations in Brickell. However, its also a part of a system that includes Heavy Rail and commuter rail. Nevertheless, Miami is still moving forward with streetcar expansion as opposed to extending the metromover. Considering its the most successful example of an urban people mover in America, that should speak volumes:
http://www.miamigov.com/MiamiStreetcar/pages/
Quote from: peestandingup on August 27, 2011, 02:41:25 PM
Quote from: stephendare on August 27, 2011, 01:38:15 PM
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.
These idiots could completely undermine the direction and laws of gravity if they only had a chance. In fact if JTA were in charge of gravity, we would call it blueberry jelly, and it would only work three times a day.
I was getting ready to post something similar. If JTA's in charge, it'll be crap. So we're all probably arguing over nothing. I think they'll just use buses anyway no matter what & then say "See there, does the same thing as that expensive streetcar would have. What's the problem??"
Quote from: stephendare on August 27, 2011, 01:39:39 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 01:36:01 PM
Quote from: stephendare on August 27, 2011, 01:29:14 PM
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.
Maybe, but I do try to use the Skyway (public trans in general) whenever I can (not because I have to) & something is ALWAYS messed up with the Skyway. Its usually the change machines & turnstiles. When they're broken, guess what? I don't pay. I'd GLADLY pay & am willing to do so. So I figure if they want my money, the least they could do is fix the things that, you know, allow them to actually TAKE my money. Its amazing.
In fact, at one of the stations (the one close to the landing I believe), the handicapped entry door hasn't worked for months. Why do I use that door? Because I like to take my 3 year old along for the rides (and she's in a stroller because we walk around a lot). And it wont fit through the normal turnstiles either. So you can imagine the fun of getting a screaming baby out of her stroller (if she's asleep then God help me), throwing the stroller over a turnstile, then carrying the baby over it, then putting her right back in it. "Oh crap! There went the train! Son of a!!" All because JTA is too f*cking lazy to fix something.
JTA sucks, guys. End of story. Don't try to defend them. They're horrible at their jobs. So if you're trying to include them in with the streetcar plans in any way, prepare for it to fail.
Lol. I know it wouldn't be expensive to fix the turnstiles and everything else that's wrong with the stations. That is a concern I have with the skyway, though. The turnstiles or the slot where you put change in always is messed up.
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 02:34:35 PM
I would also like to know where the streetcar was supposed to go over the river. If we build the streetcar going over the river, the skyway would get even less riders.
The streetcar was never proposed to go over the river. It was proposed for a certain corridor one on side of the river. Up to date, the south side of the river would be served by a commuter rail line that would eventually link the airport area with St. Augustine. That system would use the existing FEC bridge. Partial funding for this project is also included as a priority in the mobility plan.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2011, 02:47:51 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 02:43:25 PM
I'm not positive so I have to ask - Does the metromover in Miami not have this type of developments near it stations? I know it's not the skyway, but the two are sisters and if we could get downtown going again, I don't see why new residential or mixed-use projects couldn't be built near stations and look just like those pics of San Diego.
The Metromover does have some TOD along its stations in Brickell. However, its also a part of a system that includes Heavy Rail and commuter rail. Nevertheless, Miami is still moving forward with streetcar expansion as opposed to extending the metromover. Considering its the most successful example of an urban people mover in America, that should speak volumes:
http://www.miamigov.com/MiamiStreetcar/pages/
Wow, no info online about the streetcar. Anyways, 30,000 people ride the metromover everyday without using any other mode of transportation. Those people have to come from the condo towers. We might not be able to get 30,000 a day, but we could definitely get 3,500 a day if we rehabbed some of those buildings (and built some) along the skyway route into residential or mixed-use. Btw, 3500 comes from the prediction of 100,000 riders a month. That would be a little over that.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2011, 02:51:44 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 02:34:35 PM
I would also like to know where the streetcar was supposed to go over the river. If we build the streetcar going over the river, the skyway would get even less riders.
The streetcar was never proposed to go over the river. It was proposed for a certain corridor one on side of the river. Up to date, the south side of the river would be served by a commuter rail line that would eventually link the airport area with St. Augustine. That system would use the existing FEC bridge. Partial funding for this project is also included as a priority in the mobility plan.
Long-term, it should go over the river and connect to San Marco. Commuter rail doesn't serve the same purpose or bring the same benefits to neighborhoods like that, and neither does the skyway. You could and should eventually run it over there.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 02:44:45 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 02:34:35 PM
I would also like to know where the streetcar was supposed to go over the river. If we build the streetcar going over the river, the skyway would get even less riders.
We can't just design the streetcar system from the get-go around not rocking the skyway's boat, or else you wind up with two incomplete failed systems instead of one. The streetcar needs to be its own thing, the skyway is a just red herring in this process and shouldn't get in the way of sound planning, or even warrant consideration when designing the streetcar routes. The streetcar needs to do what it needs to do to be successful, the skyway really ought to be left out of it. The only way to utilize it is by cannibalizing the streetcar's potential to force people onto it, at which point nobody will use it since nobody in their right mind is going to make 6 transfers to go a couple miles. We really need to design this to be successful on its own, leave the skyway out of it.
So you think we should forget about the skyway, build a streetcar that goes everywhere, let the skyway rot for 25 YEARS, then tear it down (since by then it would be a waste if no one was riding it)?
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 02:48:43 PM
Quote from: peestandingup on August 27, 2011, 02:41:25 PM
Quote from: stephendare on August 27, 2011, 01:38:15 PM
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.
These idiots could completely undermine the direction and laws of gravity if they only had a chance. In fact if JTA were in charge of gravity, we would call it blueberry jelly, and it would only work three times a day.
I was getting ready to post something similar. If JTA's in charge, it'll be crap. So we're all probably arguing over nothing. I think they'll just use buses anyway no matter what & then say "See there, does the same thing as that expensive streetcar would have. What's the problem??"
Quote from: stephendare on August 27, 2011, 01:39:39 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 01:36:01 PM
Quote from: stephendare on August 27, 2011, 01:29:14 PM
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.
Maybe, but I do try to use the Skyway (public trans in general) whenever I can (not because I have to) & something is ALWAYS messed up with the Skyway. Its usually the change machines & turnstiles. When they're broken, guess what? I don't pay. I'd GLADLY pay & am willing to do so. So I figure if they want my money, the least they could do is fix the things that, you know, allow them to actually TAKE my money. Its amazing.
In fact, at one of the stations (the one close to the landing I believe), the handicapped entry door hasn't worked for months. Why do I use that door? Because I like to take my 3 year old along for the rides (and she's in a stroller because we walk around a lot). And it wont fit through the normal turnstiles either. So you can imagine the fun of getting a screaming baby out of her stroller (if she's asleep then God help me), throwing the stroller over a turnstile, then carrying the baby over it, then putting her right back in it. "Oh crap! There went the train! Son of a!!" All because JTA is too f*cking lazy to fix something.
JTA sucks, guys. End of story. Don't try to defend them. They're horrible at their jobs. So if you're trying to include them in with the streetcar plans in any way, prepare for it to fail.
Lol. I know it wouldn't be expensive to fix the turnstiles and everything else that's wrong with the stations. That is a concern I have with the skyway, though. The turnstiles or the slot where you put change in always is messed up.
Well, its not so much a rant about fixing it as it is about JTA letting things like that go for so long. The fact that those things are easily fixed actually makes it worse because it shows how incredibly awful & lazy they are.
Like I said, if you let them touch any part of the streetcar system (and that includes forcing people to transfer via the JTA-ran Skyway), you might as well not even do it.
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 02:48:43 PM
Quote from: peestandingup on August 27, 2011, 02:41:25 PM
Quote from: stephendare on August 27, 2011, 01:38:15 PM
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.
These idiots could completely undermine the direction and laws of gravity if they only had a chance. In fact if JTA were in charge of gravity, we would call it blueberry jelly, and it would only work three times a day.
I was getting ready to post something similar. If JTA's in charge, it'll be crap. So we're all probably arguing over nothing. I think they'll just use buses anyway no matter what & then say "See there, does the same thing as that expensive streetcar would have. What's the problem??"
Quote from: stephendare on August 27, 2011, 01:39:39 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 01:36:01 PM
Quote from: stephendare on August 27, 2011, 01:29:14 PM
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.
Maybe, but I do try to use the Skyway (public trans in general) whenever I can (not because I have to) & something is ALWAYS messed up with the Skyway. Its usually the change machines & turnstiles. When they're broken, guess what? I don't pay. I'd GLADLY pay & am willing to do so. So I figure if they want my money, the least they could do is fix the things that, you know, allow them to actually TAKE my money. Its amazing.
In fact, at one of the stations (the one close to the landing I believe), the handicapped entry door hasn't worked for months. Why do I use that door? Because I like to take my 3 year old along for the rides (and she's in a stroller because we walk around a lot). And it wont fit through the normal turnstiles either. So you can imagine the fun of getting a screaming baby out of her stroller (if she's asleep then God help me), throwing the stroller over a turnstile, then carrying the baby over it, then putting her right back in it. "Oh crap! There went the train! Son of a!!" All because JTA is too f*cking lazy to fix something.
JTA sucks, guys. End of story. Don't try to defend them. They're horrible at their jobs. So if you're trying to include them in with the streetcar plans in any way, prepare for it to fail.
Lol. I know it wouldn't be expensive to fix the turnstiles and everything else that's wrong with the stations. That is a concern I have with the skyway, though. The turnstiles or the slot where you put change in always is messed up.
Nooooo, that can't be correct guys, nothing
ever breaks at the skyway stations, apparently I was making it all up. ::)
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2011, 02:51:44 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 02:34:35 PM
I would also like to know where the streetcar was supposed to go over the river. If we build the streetcar going over the river, the skyway would get even less riders.
The streetcar was never proposed to go over the river. It was proposed for a certain corridor one on side of the river. Up to date, the south side of the river would be served by a commuter rail line that would eventually link the airport area with St. Augustine. That system would use the existing FEC bridge. Partial funding for this project is also included as a priority in the mobility plan.
Oh, I know, I just wanted to know where the streetcar would go since some people want it to go over the river.
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 02:55:02 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 02:44:45 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 02:34:35 PM
I would also like to know where the streetcar was supposed to go over the river. If we build the streetcar going over the river, the skyway would get even less riders.
We can't just design the streetcar system from the get-go around not rocking the skyway's boat, or else you wind up with two incomplete failed systems instead of one. The streetcar needs to be its own thing, the skyway is a just red herring in this process and shouldn't get in the way of sound planning, or even warrant consideration when designing the streetcar routes. The streetcar needs to do what it needs to do to be successful, the skyway really ought to be left out of it. The only way to utilize it is by cannibalizing the streetcar's potential to force people onto it, at which point nobody will use it since nobody in their right mind is going to make 6 transfers to go a couple miles. We really need to design this to be successful on its own, leave the skyway out of it.
So you think we should forget about the skyway, build a streetcar that goes everywhere, let the skyway rot for 25 YEARS, then tear it down (since by then it would be a waste if no one was riding it)?
I think we should forget about the skyway when designing the streetcar, yes. It's not wise to saddle one with the other's problems, or to try and force unnatural synergies that result in a number of transfers that make gaining ridership impossible, much less not allow the streetcar to go to obvious destinations in order to avoid competing with the skyway. That's all silly and will result in two incomplete and failed systems instead of one.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 02:46:39 PM
Did this site not conduct a poll asking what routes people would prefer, one of which was Riverside Ave, prior to submitting its input on the design? I seem to recall it did. Whatever made it into the final proposal I wouldn't know, I don't have anything to do with it.
The proposed streetcar route is on Riverside Avenue for a segment. However, not were it doesn't make sense. By going on Park, north of Forest, you're still within a 1/4 mile of FTU and Haskell's offices but you open access up to a larger area for redevelopment potential and directly hit the JRTC. Nevertheless, before it can be built, ridership and economic analysis studies would have to be done before a final alignment is chosen.
Quote from: peestandingup on August 27, 2011, 02:55:10 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 02:48:43 PM
Quote from: peestandingup on August 27, 2011, 02:41:25 PM
Quote from: stephendare on August 27, 2011, 01:38:15 PM
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.
These idiots could completely undermine the direction and laws of gravity if they only had a chance. In fact if JTA were in charge of gravity, we would call it blueberry jelly, and it would only work three times a day.
I was getting ready to post something similar. If JTA's in charge, it'll be crap. So we're all probably arguing over nothing. I think they'll just use buses anyway no matter what & then say "See there, does the same thing as that expensive streetcar would have. What's the problem??"
Quote from: stephendare on August 27, 2011, 01:39:39 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 01:36:01 PM
Quote from: stephendare on August 27, 2011, 01:29:14 PM
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.
Maybe, but I do try to use the Skyway (public trans in general) whenever I can (not because I have to) & something is ALWAYS messed up with the Skyway. Its usually the change machines & turnstiles. When they're broken, guess what? I don't pay. I'd GLADLY pay & am willing to do so. So I figure if they want my money, the least they could do is fix the things that, you know, allow them to actually TAKE my money. Its amazing.
In fact, at one of the stations (the one close to the landing I believe), the handicapped entry door hasn't worked for months. Why do I use that door? Because I like to take my 3 year old along for the rides (and she's in a stroller because we walk around a lot). And it wont fit through the normal turnstiles either. So you can imagine the fun of getting a screaming baby out of her stroller (if she's asleep then God help me), throwing the stroller over a turnstile, then carrying the baby over it, then putting her right back in it. "Oh crap! There went the train! Son of a!!" All because JTA is too f*cking lazy to fix something.
JTA sucks, guys. End of story. Don't try to defend them. They're horrible at their jobs. So if you're trying to include them in with the streetcar plans in any way, prepare for it to fail.
Lol. I know it wouldn't be expensive to fix the turnstiles and everything else that's wrong with the stations. That is a concern I have with the skyway, though. The turnstiles or the slot where you put change in always is messed up.
Well, its not so much a rant about fixing it as it is about JTA letting things like that go for so long. The fact that those things are easily fixed actually makes it worse because it shows how incredibly awful & lazy they are.
Like I said, if you let them touch any part of the streetcar system (and that includes forcing people to transfer via the JTA-ran Skyway), you might as well not even do it.
You're right. Hopefully when we get this new fare card (called the STAR card), they will fix that. I don't even know if the skyway will use it.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 02:56:09 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 02:48:43 PM
Quote from: peestandingup on August 27, 2011, 02:41:25 PM
Quote from: stephendare on August 27, 2011, 01:38:15 PM
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.
These idiots could completely undermine the direction and laws of gravity if they only had a chance. In fact if JTA were in charge of gravity, we would call it blueberry jelly, and it would only work three times a day.
I was getting ready to post something similar. If JTA's in charge, it'll be crap. So we're all probably arguing over nothing. I think they'll just use buses anyway no matter what & then say "See there, does the same thing as that expensive streetcar would have. What's the problem??"
Quote from: stephendare on August 27, 2011, 01:39:39 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 01:36:01 PM
Quote from: stephendare on August 27, 2011, 01:29:14 PM
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.
Maybe, but I do try to use the Skyway (public trans in general) whenever I can (not because I have to) & something is ALWAYS messed up with the Skyway. Its usually the change machines & turnstiles. When they're broken, guess what? I don't pay. I'd GLADLY pay & am willing to do so. So I figure if they want my money, the least they could do is fix the things that, you know, allow them to actually TAKE my money. Its amazing.
In fact, at one of the stations (the one close to the landing I believe), the handicapped entry door hasn't worked for months. Why do I use that door? Because I like to take my 3 year old along for the rides (and she's in a stroller because we walk around a lot). And it wont fit through the normal turnstiles either. So you can imagine the fun of getting a screaming baby out of her stroller (if she's asleep then God help me), throwing the stroller over a turnstile, then carrying the baby over it, then putting her right back in it. "Oh crap! There went the train! Son of a!!" All because JTA is too f*cking lazy to fix something.
JTA sucks, guys. End of story. Don't try to defend them. They're horrible at their jobs. So if you're trying to include them in with the streetcar plans in any way, prepare for it to fail.
Lol. I know it wouldn't be expensive to fix the turnstiles and everything else that's wrong with the stations. That is a concern I have with the skyway, though. The turnstiles or the slot where you put change in always is messed up.
Nooooo, that can't be correct guys, nothing ever breaks at the skyway stations, apparently I was making it all up. ::)
I can say that the turnstiles are often broken, but the escalator or elevator, I've never seen them broke or shut down.
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 02:53:48 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2011, 02:47:51 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 02:43:25 PM
I'm not positive so I have to ask - Does the metromover in Miami not have this type of developments near it stations? I know it's not the skyway, but the two are sisters and if we could get downtown going again, I don't see why new residential or mixed-use projects couldn't be built near stations and look just like those pics of San Diego.
The Metromover does have some TOD along its stations in Brickell. However, its also a part of a system that includes Heavy Rail and commuter rail. Nevertheless, Miami is still moving forward with streetcar expansion as opposed to extending the metromover. Considering its the most successful example of an urban people mover in America, that should speak volumes:
http://www.miamigov.com/MiamiStreetcar/pages/
Wow, no info online about the streetcar. Anyways, 30,000 people ride the metromover everyday without using any other mode of transportation. Those people have to come from the condo towers. We might not be able to get 30,000 a day, but we could definitely get 3,500 a day if we rehabbed some of those buildings (and built some) along the skyway route into residential or mixed-use. Btw, 3500 comes from the prediction of 100,000 riders a month. That would be a little over that.
I think you misunderstood the wiki link for metromover. The 30k figure is for all Metromover ridership. However, a significant chunk of its 30k daily riders transfer to it from Metrorail.
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 03:00:30 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 02:56:09 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 02:48:43 PM
Quote from: peestandingup on August 27, 2011, 02:41:25 PM
Quote from: stephendare on August 27, 2011, 01:38:15 PM
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.
These idiots could completely undermine the direction and laws of gravity if they only had a chance. In fact if JTA were in charge of gravity, we would call it blueberry jelly, and it would only work three times a day.
I was getting ready to post something similar. If JTA's in charge, it'll be crap. So we're all probably arguing over nothing. I think they'll just use buses anyway no matter what & then say "See there, does the same thing as that expensive streetcar would have. What's the problem??"
Quote from: stephendare on August 27, 2011, 01:39:39 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 01:36:01 PM
Quote from: stephendare on August 27, 2011, 01:29:14 PM
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.
Maybe, but I do try to use the Skyway (public trans in general) whenever I can (not because I have to) & something is ALWAYS messed up with the Skyway. Its usually the change machines & turnstiles. When they're broken, guess what? I don't pay. I'd GLADLY pay & am willing to do so. So I figure if they want my money, the least they could do is fix the things that, you know, allow them to actually TAKE my money. Its amazing.
In fact, at one of the stations (the one close to the landing I believe), the handicapped entry door hasn't worked for months. Why do I use that door? Because I like to take my 3 year old along for the rides (and she's in a stroller because we walk around a lot). And it wont fit through the normal turnstiles either. So you can imagine the fun of getting a screaming baby out of her stroller (if she's asleep then God help me), throwing the stroller over a turnstile, then carrying the baby over it, then putting her right back in it. "Oh crap! There went the train! Son of a!!" All because JTA is too f*cking lazy to fix something.
JTA sucks, guys. End of story. Don't try to defend them. They're horrible at their jobs. So if you're trying to include them in with the streetcar plans in any way, prepare for it to fail.
Lol. I know it wouldn't be expensive to fix the turnstiles and everything else that's wrong with the stations. That is a concern I have with the skyway, though. The turnstiles or the slot where you put change in always is messed up.
Nooooo, that can't be correct guys, nothing ever breaks at the skyway stations, apparently I was making it all up. ::)
I can say that the turnstiles are often broken, but the escalator or elevator, I've never seen them broke or shut down.
Well I have. And the station I mentioned doesn't even have an escalator, so is the fact that it never existed for JTA to not maintain it something I should what, thank them for?
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 02:57:46 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 02:55:02 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 02:44:45 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 02:34:35 PM
I would also like to know where the streetcar was supposed to go over the river. If we build the streetcar going over the river, the skyway would get even less riders.
We can't just design the streetcar system from the get-go around not rocking the skyway's boat, or else you wind up with two incomplete failed systems instead of one. The streetcar needs to be its own thing, the skyway is a just red herring in this process and shouldn't get in the way of sound planning, or even warrant consideration when designing the streetcar routes. The streetcar needs to do what it needs to do to be successful, the skyway really ought to be left out of it. The only way to utilize it is by cannibalizing the streetcar's potential to force people onto it, at which point nobody will use it since nobody in their right mind is going to make 6 transfers to go a couple miles. We really need to design this to be successful on its own, leave the skyway out of it.
So you think we should forget about the skyway, build a streetcar that goes everywhere, let the skyway rot for 25 YEARS, then tear it down (since by then it would be a waste if no one was riding it)?
I think we should forget about the skyway when designing the streetcar, yes. It's not wise to saddle one with the other's problems, or to try and force unnatural synergies that result in a number of transfers that make gaining ridership impossible, much less not allow the streetcar to go to obvious destinations in order to avoid competing with the skyway. That's all silly and will result in two incomplete and failed systems instead of one.
OK, so do you think that the skyway will ever have a good number of riders if we pretend that it's not there when we build the streetcar? The streetcar is not feasible for crossing the river. The skyway is. An extension to San Marco is needed, IMO (along with the sports complex). But if we let the ridership stay the same, I'm almost 100% positive that this thing will get torn down in 2036. That would basically de-connect the Southbank and San Marco from Downtown. Or we could spend $100 million on building a bridge for a streetcar so it can be convenient with a minimum number of transfers? The only way the Southbank will be connected to the rest of the urban core is the skyway. We should get it to go other places also.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2011, 03:01:49 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 02:53:48 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2011, 02:47:51 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 02:43:25 PM
I'm not positive so I have to ask - Does the metromover in Miami not have this type of developments near it stations? I know it's not the skyway, but the two are sisters and if we could get downtown going again, I don't see why new residential or mixed-use projects couldn't be built near stations and look just like those pics of San Diego.
The Metromover does have some TOD along its stations in Brickell. However, its also a part of a system that includes Heavy Rail and commuter rail. Nevertheless, Miami is still moving forward with streetcar expansion as opposed to extending the metromover. Considering its the most successful example of an urban people mover in America, that should speak volumes:
http://www.miamigov.com/MiamiStreetcar/pages/
Wow, no info online about the streetcar. Anyways, 30,000 people ride the metromover everyday without using any other mode of transportation. Those people have to come from the condo towers. We might not be able to get 30,000 a day, but we could definitely get 3,500 a day if we rehabbed some of those buildings (and built some) along the skyway route into residential or mixed-use. Btw, 3500 comes from the prediction of 100,000 riders a month. That would be a little over that.
I think you misunderstand the wiki link for metromover. The 30k figure is for all Metromover ridership. However, a significant chunk of its 30k daily riders transfer to it from Metrorail.
I didn't misunderstand. I went on wikipedia to look up the ridership. If we get commuter rail, people would transfer to the skyway, but the difference would be that the metromover is a complete skyway, whereas the skyway is not.
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 03:09:05 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 02:57:46 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 02:55:02 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 02:44:45 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 02:34:35 PM
I would also like to know where the streetcar was supposed to go over the river. If we build the streetcar going over the river, the skyway would get even less riders.
We can't just design the streetcar system from the get-go around not rocking the skyway's boat, or else you wind up with two incomplete failed systems instead of one. The streetcar needs to be its own thing, the skyway is a just red herring in this process and shouldn't get in the way of sound planning, or even warrant consideration when designing the streetcar routes. The streetcar needs to do what it needs to do to be successful, the skyway really ought to be left out of it. The only way to utilize it is by cannibalizing the streetcar's potential to force people onto it, at which point nobody will use it since nobody in their right mind is going to make 6 transfers to go a couple miles. We really need to design this to be successful on its own, leave the skyway out of it.
So you think we should forget about the skyway, build a streetcar that goes everywhere, let the skyway rot for 25 YEARS, then tear it down (since by then it would be a waste if no one was riding it)?
I think we should forget about the skyway when designing the streetcar, yes. It's not wise to saddle one with the other's problems, or to try and force unnatural synergies that result in a number of transfers that make gaining ridership impossible, much less not allow the streetcar to go to obvious destinations in order to avoid competing with the skyway. That's all silly and will result in two incomplete and failed systems instead of one.
OK, so do you think that the skyway will ever have a good number of riders if we pretend that it's not there when we build the streetcar? The streetcar is not feasible for crossing the river. The skyway is. An extension to San Marco is needed, IMO (along with the sports complex). But if we let the ridership stay the same, I'm almost 100% positive that this thing will get torn down in 2036. That would basically de-connect the Southbank and San Marco from Downtown. Or we could spend $100 million on building a bridge for a streetcar so it can be convenient with a minimum number of transfers? The only way the Southbank will be connected to the rest of the urban core is the skyway. We should get it to go other places also.
1:) The streetcar is perfectly able to cross the river, as I've demonstrated.
2:) No new bridge would be necessary, only adding rails to an existing bridge that's actually pretty well suited for it.
3:) The streetcar will be a failure if you force people to make 4-6 transfers to go a few miles. Forgetting crossing the river for the sake of argument, it should at a minimum definitely also serve the Bay Street entertainment district and the sports district, both of which people have been arguing on this thread that the streetcar shouldn't do for the sole purpose of forcing people to use the skyway. The point of the streetcar isn't to force people to use the skyway. That's liable to result in two failures instead of just the one we already have.
For the sake of argument, getting the Skyway east of Main would do wonders for it's ridership. Forget the stadium for a minute and think of Newnan Street with streetcar below and Skyway above then toss in buses. You could create a lot of synergy in a location like that. Add one new sparkling Convention Center and the east side of downtown would take off like Moody's goose. With just that addition and Atlantic Avenue I think we could consider the Skyway a well connected PART of the overall system. As it is right now, UFGator is right, it's pretty hard to make a case for including it in streetcar planning except for a single possible interchange point at the 'Jacksonville Terminal' (P.O. to the us washed masses).
Also mentioned was how silly it would be not to build the streetcar on East Bay because of cutting down the auto lanes at game time. Flip this over, and you'll be questioning how to operate a bidirectional streetcar service down east Bay with the street at near gridlock. Unless it had exclusive lanes both ways, you'd foul the schedule from King Street to Randolph. I'd hate to see a complaint down the road that the streetcar ran on schedule except for 11 home Jag games, 13 Suns games, 3 concerts and a fair week.
One possibility that hasn't been discussed though is directional running on single track, up Newnan, East on Beaver, South on Randolph, West on Bay back to Newnan.
OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 03:19:20 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 03:09:05 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 02:57:46 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 02:55:02 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 02:44:45 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 02:34:35 PM
I would also like to know where the streetcar was supposed to go over the river. If we build the streetcar going over the river, the skyway would get even less riders.
We can't just design the streetcar system from the get-go around not rocking the skyway's boat, or else you wind up with two incomplete failed systems instead of one. The streetcar needs to be its own thing, the skyway is a just red herring in this process and shouldn't get in the way of sound planning, or even warrant consideration when designing the streetcar routes. The streetcar needs to do what it needs to do to be successful, the skyway really ought to be left out of it. The only way to utilize it is by cannibalizing the streetcar's potential to force people onto it, at which point nobody will use it since nobody in their right mind is going to make 6 transfers to go a couple miles. We really need to design this to be successful on its own, leave the skyway out of it.
So you think we should forget about the skyway, build a streetcar that goes everywhere, let the skyway rot for 25 YEARS, then tear it down (since by then it would be a waste if no one was riding it)?
I think we should forget about the skyway when designing the streetcar, yes. It's not wise to saddle one with the other's problems, or to try and force unnatural synergies that result in a number of transfers that make gaining ridership impossible, much less not allow the streetcar to go to obvious destinations in order to avoid competing with the skyway. That's all silly and will result in two incomplete and failed systems instead of one.
OK, so do you think that the skyway will ever have a good number of riders if we pretend that it's not there when we build the streetcar? The streetcar is not feasible for crossing the river. The skyway is. An extension to San Marco is needed, IMO (along with the sports complex). But if we let the ridership stay the same, I'm almost 100% positive that this thing will get torn down in 2036. That would basically de-connect the Southbank and San Marco from Downtown. Or we could spend $100 million on building a bridge for a streetcar so it can be convenient with a minimum number of transfers? The only way the Southbank will be connected to the rest of the urban core is the skyway. We should get it to go other places also.
1:) The streetcar is perfectly able to cross the river, as I've demonstrated.
2:) No new bridge would be necessary, only adding rails to an existing bridge that's actually pretty well suited for it.
3:) The streetcar will be a failure if you force people to make 4-6 transfers to go a few miles. Forgetting crossing the river for the sake of argument, it should at a minimum definitely also serve the Bay Street entertainment district and the sports district, both of which people have been arguing on this thread that the streetcar shouldn't do for the sole purpose of forcing people to use the skyway. The point of the streetcar isn't to force people to use the skyway. That's liable to result in two failures instead of just the one we already have.
1) How much money do you think it would cost?
2) I'm not so sure about that. As downtown grows, that bridge will get used more. I think it's better to leave it alone and add an extra lane for it, but then the price would be outrageous.
3) You don't think King St and Five Points is enough entertainment along the streetcar route? Bay St should be skyway territory. The streetcar route already has everything you said you wanted: residential, commercial, and entertainment.
Quote from: Ocklawaha on August 27, 2011, 03:31:40 PM
For the sake of argument, getting the Skyway east of Main would do wonders for it's ridership. Forget the stadium for a minute and think of Newnan Street with streetcar below and Skyway above then toss in buses. You could create a lot of synergy in a location like that. Add one new sparkling Convention Center and the east side of downtown would take off like Moody's goose. With just that addition and Atlantic Avenue I think we could consider the Skyway a well connected PART of the overall system. As it is right now, UFGator is right, it's pretty hard to make a case for including it in streetcar planning except for a single possible interchange point at the 'Jacksonville Terminal' (P.O. to the us washed masses).
OCKLAWAHA
So you think an extension to Newnan to connect with the streetcar (and let the streetcar go the sports complex) and buses make sense?
Quote from: Ocklawaha on August 27, 2011, 03:31:40 PM
For the sake of argument, getting the Skyway east of Main would do wonders for it's ridership. Forget the stadium for a minute and think of Newnan Street with streetcar below and Skyway above then toss in buses. You could create a lot of synergy in a location like that. Add one new sparkling Convention Center and the east side of downtown would take off like Moody's goose. With just that addition and Atlantic Avenue I think we could consider the Skyway a well connected PART of the overall system. As it is right now, UFGator is right, it's pretty hard to make a case for including it in streetcar planning except for a single possible interchange point at the 'Jacksonville Terminal' (P.O. to the us washed masses).
Also mentioned was how silly it would be not to build the streetcar on East Bay because of cutting down the auto lanes at game time. Flip this over, and you'll be questioning how to operate a bidirectional streetcar service down east Bay with the street at near gridlock. Unless it had exclusive lanes both ways, you'd foul the schedule from King Street to Randolph. I'd hate to see a complaint down the road that the streetcar ran on schedule except for 11 home Jag games, 13 Suns games, 3 concerts and a fair week.
One possibility that hasn't been discussed though is directional running on single track, up Newnan, East on Beaver, South on Randolph, West on Bay back to Newnan.
OCKLAWAHA
The only one of those that would really pose that problem would be the Jags games, because of the way JSO handles traffic that does result in gridlock. I don't think the Suns or the fair would pose any real problem, I've been in and around there many times for both and it's not that big of a deal traffic-wise, there are certainly more people around but it's nothing like the mess after a Jags game. I know you're the expert on this, and you definitely have a valid concern. I would just question whether we really want to make these kinds of planning decisions based on a football game 11 days out of a 365 day year. It seems to me the other 354 days, the utility would far outweigh the hassle on the 11 days when the Jags have home games.
Quote from: Ocklawaha on August 27, 2011, 03:31:40 PMOne possibility that hasn't been discussed though is directional running on single track, up Newnan, East on Beaver, South on Randolph, West on Bay back to Newnan.[/b]
OCKLAWAHA
I just noticed that Beaver is not complete. A bridge would have to be built over Hogan's Creek for that to work. You could use Duval but that is westbound one-way street.
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 03:44:02 PM
Quote from: Ocklawaha on August 27, 2011, 03:31:40 PMOne possibility that hasn't been discussed though is directional running on single track, up Newnan, East on Beaver, South on Randolph, West on Bay back to Newnan.[/b]
OCKLAWAHA
I just noticed that Beaver is not complete. A bridge would have to be built over Hogan's Creek for that to work. You could use Duval but that is westbound one-way street.
(http://www.playle.com/KDL/35306.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3314/3439339094_834e43f2fc.jpg)
About like this Marvin, remember the streetcar doesn't need a street...it's a type of train. OCKLAWAHA
I've worn myself out trying to keep up with all of this today.
Now all I want is to wait for the next PCT to come by and take me home.
;)
Dan, will that involve a transfer?
OCKLAWAHA ;D
No transfer ... just a 1/2 mile walk from my office on Forsyth St. to The Landing, and then waiting for a "trolley" that has a 65 minute headway on Saturdays. :(
But it does drop me off at my back door in Avondale. ;D
The P4 is actually a better choice for me. 8)
Quote from: Ocklawaha on August 27, 2011, 03:49:20 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 03:44:02 PM
Quote from: Ocklawaha on August 27, 2011, 03:31:40 PMOne possibility that hasn't been discussed though is directional running on single track, up Newnan, East on Beaver, South on Randolph, West on Bay back to Newnan.[/b]
OCKLAWAHA
I just noticed that Beaver is not complete. A bridge would have to be built over Hogan's Creek for that to work. You could use Duval but that is westbound one-way street.
(http://www.playle.com/KDL/35306.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3314/3439339094_834e43f2fc.jpg)
About like this Marvin, remember the streetcar doesn't need a street...it's a type of train.
OCKLAWAHA
Lol, silly me. That's not expensive at all.
The way that the system is set up right now, transfers just don't make sense. The headways are too long and you can't tell enough from the schedules to know when the buses are supposed to arrive at transfer points.
Transfers would be less of a pain if you could look at a smartphone and know the bus locations in real time. Other systems already have this capability, but the JTA is behind the curve.
Walking downtown is awful in the summer so I've been doing a lot of driving to and from downtown lately, with the parking tickets to show for it.
Quote from: stephendare on August 27, 2011, 03:37:32 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 03:19:20 PM
1:) The streetcar is perfectly able to cross the river, as I've demonstrated.
2:) No new bridge would be necessary, only adding rails to an existing bridge that's actually pretty well suited for it.
3:) The streetcar will be a failure if you force people to make 4-6 transfers to go a few miles. Forgetting crossing the river for the sake of argument, it should at a minimum definitely also serve the Bay Street entertainment district and the sports district, both of which people have been arguing on this thread that the streetcar shouldn't do for the sole purpose of forcing people to use the skyway. The point of the streetcar isn't to force people to use the skyway. That's liable to result in two failures instead of just the one we already have.
Sorry, but these are bugaboo points.
Sure we could pretend there isnt one of the worlds great rivers right in the middle of our downtown for the sake of argument.
We could also tunnel under the river for the sake of argument, or pretend that people can breathe underwater for the sake of argument.
Shoot, we could even pretend that star trek's teleporters are up and functional if we wanted to.
But this is a lot of pretending in order to find a situation that it makes sense to ignore the equipment we've already invested in doesnt it?
First we have to ludicrously pretend that anyone would have to make four to six transfers to go a couple of miles. No one has ever suggested that, nor is it even possible that anyone would.
Second we would have to pretend that we have unlimited funds to build new bridges for transit.
Third we would have to pretend that it would be easier to retrofit an existing bridge and use a combination cablecar/trolley system than it would be to transfer from one system to the next.
Fourth we would have to pretend that literally no phased build out or other options would ever be possible again once we did something.
IM lost. Why are we pretending all of this? For what purpose?
The street cars as planned should function independently of the skyway on the side of the river they are planned for. But the do need a central hub to get over the river and we already have a transit bridge in place.
I certainly would not be averse to building or retrofitting a bridge for trollies, but I also wouldnt mind transferring for a 5 minute trip over the river in order to get onto a regional trolley/train/or bus.
In fact I did that quite often while travelling from my home in sanfranciscos SoMa district to get to Telegraph Avenue in Berkely. Bus from SoMa to BART station, under the bay and over to Berkely. Transfer to bus and head on down Telegraph. The transfers were good for a couple of hours, and I never ever thought twice about them.
No big deal. People literally do it ever day in cities across the world. Same as the subways in New York connecting to train and bus. I think you have to be an actual transit user to understand this.
What I can't understand is the driver behavior and all the inconveniences that they are willing to deal with. First they have to sit in traffic. Then they have to make pit stops in order to wait in line for gas (outside regardless of the weather) then they have to find a place to park---sometimes they additionally have to pay to do so. Then they still have to walk the same distance as a transit user. Its way more inconvenient than using mass transit, i think. But hey. People do it.
Well, actually, each of those points is valid and I'd suggest you may want to reread the past 5 pages or so on this topic. Or, if I'm supposed to pretend that we don't have a river, are you pretending that rails can't cross water?
You are also, possibly by mistake, possibly not, reframing the issue as one of building a new bridge, when it is simply one of embedding the rails in an existing bridge, as I've stated from the beginning. It may cost money, yes. Most things worth doing generally do.
Regarding the number of transfers, let's do some basic math. At a bare minimum, requiring the skyway to be used in conjunction with the streetcar would require 1 transfer from the streetcar to the skyway, one transfer from the skyway back to the streetcar on the return leg, and about half the time, and definitely if you are crossing the river, will also require an additional a skyway-to-skyway transfer on each leg.
So, unless you're arguing that 2+2 does not = 4, haven't you just added a total of 4 additional transfers on a roundtrip? Plus however many were required on the streetcar system itself. Let's put that number at 1, following Ock's statement that there is a limit of 1 transfer before you start losing passengers. 1 transfer on each leg, which unless you're arguing that 1+1 doesn't = 2, plus the 2-4 additional transfers on the skyway, yields exactly what I depicted; namely 4-6 transfers to go a few miles. So yes, not only was that exactly what was being suggested, that's exactly how it would work in reality. That will pose a problem in attracting ridership.
Additionally, if you read the previous posts in this thread, you'll note the river crossing subject was purely ancillary, though I do believe adding a trolley crossing is a wise choice, if the funds ever become available. The original issue, however, is that several posters claimed or implied that the streetcar should not go to various areas of downtown, or to the sports district, and should instead only connect up with a skyway station because this will finally force people to use the skyway. I responded then, as I am now, that this is a horrible idea because of the added transfers which will decrease ridership, especially on such a short route.
You people are nuts if you think anyone in their right mind won't simply spend 2 minutes in the car instead of having to endure 4-6 transfers only to travel a few miles.
Or are we just designing another JTA-esque system for people who have no other option?
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 04:28:15 PM
You people are nuts if you think anyone in their right mind won't simply spend 2 minutes in the car instead.
This is why you can't debate this. You are a very car-centric person with not even an ounce of willingness to try public transportation. In the 7-11 post you wished it were a gas station so you didn't have to drive 2 blocks out of your way for gas. And you keep referrin people back to SD's 30 Days of JTA - while I assume that mostly it's factual, no doubt that it's been a tad embellished for the sake of good story.
No one here is arguing that public transportation is better than driving, just that it's an alternative. Streetcars are another alternative. The Skyway is another alternative. I'm willing to argue you that even if these services got you from doorstep to doorstep in the same amount of time, you'd still be unwilling to reliquish the freedom of the car (ask my wife). No one is arguing that the system doesn't need to be fixed. There are a myriad of deficiencies and over-runs and duplications that could/should/need to be corrected, and those of us that use it are keenly aware of them.
I'm just asking you re-read your statements in the perspective of someone who's trying to see the glass half full - it's a flawed system, but if more people would quit beating the dead horse and actually start actually beating the hard-headed owners of the horse for neglect, then maybe something could be done.
Or maybe we just need 'an accident' [in my most sinister, mafioso tone] to happen to someone in charge of JTA.
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 03:12:07 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2011, 03:01:49 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 02:53:48 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2011, 02:47:51 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 02:43:25 PM
I'm not positive so I have to ask - Does the metromover in Miami not have this type of developments near it stations? I know it's not the skyway, but the two are sisters and if we could get downtown going again, I don't see why new residential or mixed-use projects couldn't be built near stations and look just like those pics of San Diego.
The Metromover does have some TOD along its stations in Brickell. However, its also a part of a system that includes Heavy Rail and commuter rail. Nevertheless, Miami is still moving forward with streetcar expansion as opposed to extending the metromover. Considering its the most successful example of an urban people mover in America, that should speak volumes:
http://www.miamigov.com/MiamiStreetcar/pages/
Wow, no info online about the streetcar. Anyways, 30,000 people ride the metromover everyday without using any other mode of transportation. Those people have to come from the condo towers. We might not be able to get 30,000 a day, but we could definitely get 3,500 a day if we rehabbed some of those buildings (and built some) along the skyway route into residential or mixed-use. Btw, 3500 comes from the prediction of 100,000 riders a month. That would be a little over that.
I think you misunderstand the wiki link for metromover. The 30k figure is for all Metromover ridership. However, a significant chunk of its 30k daily riders transfer to it from Metrorail.
I didn't misunderstand. I went on wikipedia to look up the ridership. If we get commuter rail, people would transfer to the skyway, but the difference would be that the metromover is a complete skyway, whereas the skyway is not.
Except what you actually said was this;
QuoteAnyways, 30,000 people ride the metromover everyday without using any other mode of transportation.
Lake simply pointed out that you'd misunderstood which figures you were citing, since those figures do indeed include a significant number of passengers connecting from other transportation sources, when you said they did not.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 27, 2011, 04:47:49 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 04:28:15 PM
You people are nuts if you think anyone in their right mind won't simply spend 2 minutes in the car instead.
This is why you can't debate this. You are a very car-centric person with not even an ounce of willingness to try public transportation. In the 7-11 post you wished it were a gas station so you didn't have to drive 2 blocks out of your way for gas. And you keep referrin people back to SD's 30 Days of JTA - while I assume that mostly it's factual, no doubt that it's been a tad embellished for the sake of good story.
No one here is arguing that public transportation is better than driving, just that it's an alternative. Streetcars are another alternative. The Skyway is another alternative. I'm willing to argue you that even if these services got you from doorstep to doorstep in the same amount of time, you'd still be unwilling to reliquish the freedom of the car (ask my wife). No one is arguing that the system doesn't need to be fixed. There are a myriad of deficiencies and over-runs and duplications that could/should/need to be corrected, and those of us that use it are keenly aware of them.
I'm just asking you re-read your statements in the perspective of someone who's trying to see the glass half full - it's a flawed system, but if more people would quit beating the dead horse and actually start actually beating the hard-headed owners of the horse for neglect, then maybe something could be done.
Or maybe we just need 'an accident' [in my most sinister, mafioso tone] to happen to someone in charge of JTA.
1) I am not a car-centric person, I just live in a city where stowing away on a trash barge is faster and nicer than JTA.
2) In cities where it is done properly, public transit is often much better than driving a car. If it were done properly here, I'd love to use it. But no, admittedly I'm not about to make a half-dozen train changes to go a few miles, and my apologies in advance, but the vast majority of people won't either. Which is why I'm being proactive and pointing out now, ahead of time, that we should avoid creating the same type of systemic deficiencies everyone hates about JTA.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 04:51:50 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 03:12:07 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2011, 03:01:49 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 02:53:48 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2011, 02:47:51 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 02:43:25 PM
I'm not positive so I have to ask - Does the metromover in Miami not have this type of developments near it stations? I know it's not the skyway, but the two are sisters and if we could get downtown going again, I don't see why new residential or mixed-use projects couldn't be built near stations and look just like those pics of San Diego.
The Metromover does have some TOD along its stations in Brickell. However, its also a part of a system that includes Heavy Rail and commuter rail. Nevertheless, Miami is still moving forward with streetcar expansion as opposed to extending the metromover. Considering its the most successful example of an urban people mover in America, that should speak volumes:
http://www.miamigov.com/MiamiStreetcar/pages/
Wow, no info online about the streetcar. Anyways, 30,000 people ride the metromover everyday without using any other mode of transportation. Those people have to come from the condo towers. We might not be able to get 30,000 a day, but we could definitely get 3,500 a day if we rehabbed some of those buildings (and built some) along the skyway route into residential or mixed-use. Btw, 3500 comes from the prediction of 100,000 riders a month. That would be a little over that.
I think you misunderstand the wiki link for metromover. The 30k figure is for all Metromover ridership. However, a significant chunk of its 30k daily riders transfer to it from Metrorail.
I didn't misunderstand. I went on wikipedia to look up the ridership. If we get commuter rail, people would transfer to the skyway, but the difference would be that the metromover is a complete skyway, whereas the skyway is not.
Except what you actually said was this;
QuoteAnyways, 30,000 people ride the metromover everyday without using any other mode of transportation.
Lake simply pointed out that you'd misunderstood which figures you were citing, since those figures do indeed include a significant number of passengers connecting from other transportation sources, when you said they did not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metromover#Ridership
Quote from: Dashing Dan on August 27, 2011, 04:01:01 PM
No transfer ... just a 1/2 mile walk from my office on Forsyth St. to The Landing, and then waiting for a "trolley" that has a 65 minute headway on Saturdays. :(
But it does drop me off at my back door in Avondale. ;D
The P4 is actually a better choice for me. 8)
This is another of the 'issues' that I've been trying to get an explanation for from JTA. BTW - it's not about the weekend service as much as it's about frequency and staggering of routes through riverside/avondale.
Short Version - 2 roads -Park and St. John's AVe - 4 busses - P4, R5, RT, WS12 - 3 of them leave DT within 10 minutes of another (add a 4th if you count the WS-2 to FSCJ) and the other 30 minutes. You have 2 lines spaced typically 5-8 minutes apart on each, Park (R5,WS12) & St. John's (P4, RT), but then it's another 50 minutes for the next 'round' of busses to come by. If they would stagger the busses every 12 minutes, you would never have more than a 20-25 minute wait for each leg and if you're willing to walk a little more, then you would essentially have a bus coming by every 10 minutes!!!
Again, I stress, that they're so able to do more with less that it dumbfounds me, and when questioned I get blank crickets for answers.
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 05:19:12 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 04:51:50 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 03:12:07 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2011, 03:01:49 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 02:53:48 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2011, 02:47:51 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 02:43:25 PM
I'm not positive so I have to ask - Does the metromover in Miami not have this type of developments near it stations? I know it's not the skyway, but the two are sisters and if we could get downtown going again, I don't see why new residential or mixed-use projects couldn't be built near stations and look just like those pics of San Diego.
The Metromover does have some TOD along its stations in Brickell. However, its also a part of a system that includes Heavy Rail and commuter rail. Nevertheless, Miami is still moving forward with streetcar expansion as opposed to extending the metromover. Considering its the most successful example of an urban people mover in America, that should speak volumes:
http://www.miamigov.com/MiamiStreetcar/pages/
Wow, no info online about the streetcar. Anyways, 30,000 people ride the metromover everyday without using any other mode of transportation. Those people have to come from the condo towers. We might not be able to get 30,000 a day, but we could definitely get 3,500 a day if we rehabbed some of those buildings (and built some) along the skyway route into residential or mixed-use. Btw, 3500 comes from the prediction of 100,000 riders a month. That would be a little over that.
I think you misunderstand the wiki link for metromover. The 30k figure is for all Metromover ridership. However, a significant chunk of its 30k daily riders transfer to it from Metrorail.
I didn't misunderstand. I went on wikipedia to look up the ridership. If we get commuter rail, people would transfer to the skyway, but the difference would be that the metromover is a complete skyway, whereas the skyway is not.
Except what you actually said was this;
QuoteAnyways, 30,000 people ride the metromover everyday without using any other mode of transportation.
Lake simply pointed out that you'd misunderstood which figures you were citing, since those figures do indeed include a significant number of passengers connecting from other transportation sources, when you said they did not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metromover#Ridership
Gotcha, I understand now, it looks like it was not you who misunderstood.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 27, 2011, 05:27:27 PM
Quote from: Dashing Dan on August 27, 2011, 04:01:01 PM
No transfer ... just a 1/2 mile walk from my office on Forsyth St. to The Landing, and then waiting for a "trolley" that has a 65 minute headway on Saturdays. :(
But it does drop me off at my back door in Avondale. ;D
The P4 is actually a better choice for me. 8)
This is another of the 'issues' that I've been trying to get an explanation for from JTA. BTW - it's not about the weekend service as much as it's about frequency and staggering of routes through riverside/avondale.
Short Version - 2 roads -Park and St. John's AVe - 4 busses - P4, R5, RT, WS12 - 3 of them leave DT within 10 minutes of another (add a 4th if you count the WS-2 to FSCJ) and the other 30 minutes. You have 2 lines spaced typically 5-8 minutes apart on each, Park (R5,WS12) & St. John's (P4, RT), but then it's another 50 minutes for the next 'round' of busses to come by. If they would stagger the busses every 12 minutes, you would never have more than a 20-25 minute wait for each leg and if you're willing to walk a little more, then you would essentially have a bus coming by every 10 minutes!!!
Again, I stress, that they're so able to do more with less that it dumbfounds me, and when questioned I get blank crickets for answers.
There's also the WS-6 on Herschel, which runs every 60 >:( minutes, all day every day.
^^^ A little off topic, but more to my point.
They do the same thing along the Lem Turner corridor - staggering the L8 & L7 so that from golfair to soutel there is a bus every 15 minutes heading downtown. and there is a bus that goes by Shands every 15 minutes. And there is a bus that goes by Edgwood & Lem Turner every 15 minutes.
My biggest argument about the BRT is that they're going to fuck this all up by implementing BRT down the corridor. They're not adding to the service, they're modifying the service by essentially turning the L8 into a BRT line. Really? Spend the money on 2 more regular busses and you cut the service down to 5 minute intervals along this corridor. BRT is 10 - yet to be seen.
My way is the cost of two busses. Yearly costs of two busses and two drivers. I give them 5 minute service down the Lem Turner Corridor and ease up the 30 minute headways on the rest of their routes as both busses are interliner service to Ramona and the Avenues, L8 & L7 repspectively.
Their way is the cost of 4 busses. Modified streets. New BRT labled stations. and potentially Traffic Signal modification software. and the upkeep and wear and tear on more equipment and still adding 2 more drivers. 10 minute service - and the busses don't stop everywhere - only at BRT designated stops.
The biggest difference between their way and my way is that mine is more streamlined, doesn't affect current service but comes out of JTA's pocket. They get Federal assistance with the BRT.
If you ain't talkin' dollars then you ain't makin' sense. - Young Jeezy
Quote from: Dashing Dan on August 27, 2011, 05:33:48 PM
There's also the WS-6 on Herschel, which runs every 60 >:( minutes, all day every day.
I forgot about that one.
OK, all of these busses run on basically an hour headway, with the exception of the trolley being every 30 minutes. It's undesirable, but workable if you stagger the busses. The headtimes of the individual busses are still 60 minutes, but there's a bus going down the corridor every 15 minutes (possible 10-12 if we can work in the WS6) so if you're just trying to get to a general area - the system works like a charm. If you're trying to get downtown, the system works like a charm.
The way that it's set up, you get a lot of angry birds time waiting on the bus instead of riding on the bus.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 05:28:13 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 05:19:12 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 04:51:50 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 03:12:07 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2011, 03:01:49 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 02:53:48 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2011, 02:47:51 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 02:43:25 PM
I'm not positive so I have to ask - Does the metromover in Miami not have this type of developments near it stations? I know it's not the skyway, but the two are sisters and if we could get downtown going again, I don't see why new residential or mixed-use projects couldn't be built near stations and look just like those pics of San Diego.
The Metromover does have some TOD along its stations in Brickell. However, its also a part of a system that includes Heavy Rail and commuter rail. Nevertheless, Miami is still moving forward with streetcar expansion as opposed to extending the metromover. Considering its the most successful example of an urban people mover in America, that should speak volumes:
http://www.miamigov.com/MiamiStreetcar/pages/
Wow, no info online about the streetcar. Anyways, 30,000 people ride the metromover everyday without using any other mode of transportation. Those people have to come from the condo towers. We might not be able to get 30,000 a day, but we could definitely get 3,500 a day if we rehabbed some of those buildings (and built some) along the skyway route into residential or mixed-use. Btw, 3500 comes from the prediction of 100,000 riders a month. That would be a little over that.
I think you misunderstand the wiki link for metromover. The 30k figure is for all Metromover ridership. However, a significant chunk of its 30k daily riders transfer to it from Metrorail.
I didn't misunderstand. I went on wikipedia to look up the ridership. If we get commuter rail, people would transfer to the skyway, but the difference would be that the metromover is a complete skyway, whereas the skyway is not.
Except what you actually said was this;
QuoteAnyways, 30,000 people ride the metromover everyday without using any other mode of transportation.
Lake simply pointed out that you'd misunderstood which figures you were citing, since those figures do indeed include a significant number of passengers connecting from other transportation sources, when you said they did not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metromover#Ridership
Gotcha, I understand now, it looks like it was not you who misunderstood.
Lol, it's alright. :)
Well frankly, now that we're talking about JTA, that is really my main motivation in why I believe the streetcar should not in any way rely on the skyway. I just didn't want to come out loud and say it. It is looking like it may be set up as a separate light rail authority rather than under JTA. Get where I'm going here? If it is kept away from them, JTA can't possibly f*uck it up. Drag them into it, by some psuedo-merger with the skyway, asking for special scheduling, or by designing it in such a way that a streetcar passenger winds up having to rely on JTA to get to a significant number of streetcar destinations, and we're really no better off than we started, are we?
Keep JTA out of it, and it might actually be real public transit with real service, independent of the JTA buffoons.
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 05:44:21 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 05:28:13 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 05:19:12 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 04:51:50 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 03:12:07 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2011, 03:01:49 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 02:53:48 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2011, 02:47:51 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 02:43:25 PM
I'm not positive so I have to ask - Does the metromover in Miami not have this type of developments near it stations? I know it's not the skyway, but the two are sisters and if we could get downtown going again, I don't see why new residential or mixed-use projects couldn't be built near stations and look just like those pics of San Diego.
The Metromover does have some TOD along its stations in Brickell. However, its also a part of a system that includes Heavy Rail and commuter rail. Nevertheless, Miami is still moving forward with streetcar expansion as opposed to extending the metromover. Considering its the most successful example of an urban people mover in America, that should speak volumes:
http://www.miamigov.com/MiamiStreetcar/pages/
Wow, no info online about the streetcar. Anyways, 30,000 people ride the metromover everyday without using any other mode of transportation. Those people have to come from the condo towers. We might not be able to get 30,000 a day, but we could definitely get 3,500 a day if we rehabbed some of those buildings (and built some) along the skyway route into residential or mixed-use. Btw, 3500 comes from the prediction of 100,000 riders a month. That would be a little over that.
I think you misunderstand the wiki link for metromover. The 30k figure is for all Metromover ridership. However, a significant chunk of its 30k daily riders transfer to it from Metrorail.
I didn't misunderstand. I went on wikipedia to look up the ridership. If we get commuter rail, people would transfer to the skyway, but the difference would be that the metromover is a complete skyway, whereas the skyway is not.
Except what you actually said was this;
QuoteAnyways, 30,000 people ride the metromover everyday without using any other mode of transportation.
Lake simply pointed out that you'd misunderstood which figures you were citing, since those figures do indeed include a significant number of passengers connecting from other transportation sources, when you said they did not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metromover#Ridership
Gotcha, I understand now, it looks like it was not you who misunderstood.
Lol, it's alright. :)
No problem, when you're right you're right! Thanks for sharing the link.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 05:46:16 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 05:44:21 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 05:28:13 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 05:19:12 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 04:51:50 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 03:12:07 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2011, 03:01:49 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 02:53:48 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2011, 02:47:51 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 02:43:25 PM
I'm not positive so I have to ask - Does the metromover in Miami not have this type of developments near it stations? I know it's not the skyway, but the two are sisters and if we could get downtown going again, I don't see why new residential or mixed-use projects couldn't be built near stations and look just like those pics of San Diego.
The Metromover does have some TOD along its stations in Brickell. However, its also a part of a system that includes Heavy Rail and commuter rail. Nevertheless, Miami is still moving forward with streetcar expansion as opposed to extending the metromover. Considering its the most successful example of an urban people mover in America, that should speak volumes:
http://www.miamigov.com/MiamiStreetcar/pages/
Wow, no info online about the streetcar. Anyways, 30,000 people ride the metromover everyday without using any other mode of transportation. Those people have to come from the condo towers. We might not be able to get 30,000 a day, but we could definitely get 3,500 a day if we rehabbed some of those buildings (and built some) along the skyway route into residential or mixed-use. Btw, 3500 comes from the prediction of 100,000 riders a month. That would be a little over that.
I think you misunderstand the wiki link for metromover. The 30k figure is for all Metromover ridership. However, a significant chunk of its 30k daily riders transfer to it from Metrorail.
I didn't misunderstand. I went on wikipedia to look up the ridership. If we get commuter rail, people would transfer to the skyway, but the difference would be that the metromover is a complete skyway, whereas the skyway is not.
Except what you actually said was this;
QuoteAnyways, 30,000 people ride the metromover everyday without using any other mode of transportation.
Lake simply pointed out that you'd misunderstood which figures you were citing, since those figures do indeed include a significant number of passengers connecting from other transportation sources, when you said they did not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metromover#Ridership
Gotcha, I understand now, it looks like it was not you who misunderstood.
Lol, it's alright. :)
No problem, when you're right you're right! Thanks for sharing the link.
No problem!
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 05:45:39 PM
Well frankly, now that we're talking about JTA, that is really my main motivation in why I believe the streetcar should not in any way rely on the skyway. I just didn't want to come out loud and say it. It is looking like it may be set up as a separate light rail authority rather than under JTA. Get where I'm going here? If it is kept away from them, JTA can't possibly f*uck it up. Drag them into it, by some psuedo-merger with the skyway, asking for special scheduling, or by designing it in such a way that a streetcar passenger winds up having to rely on JTA to get to a significant number of streetcar destinations, and we're really no better off than we started, are we?
Keep JTA out of it, and it might actually be real public transit with real service, independent of the JTA buffoons.
Maybe JTA could hand it over to a different authority...
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 05:53:16 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 05:45:39 PM
Well frankly, now that we're talking about JTA, that is really my main motivation in why I believe the streetcar should not in any way rely on the skyway. I just didn't want to come out loud and say it. It is looking like it may be set up as a separate light rail authority rather than under JTA. Get where I'm going here? If it is kept away from them, JTA can't possibly f*uck it up. Drag them into it, by some psuedo-merger with the skyway, asking for special scheduling, or by designing it in such a way that a streetcar passenger winds up having to rely on JTA to get to a significant number of streetcar destinations, and we're really no better off than we started, are we?
Keep JTA out of it, and it might actually be real public transit with real service, independent of the JTA buffoons.
Maybe JTA could hand it over to a different authority...
I wish JTA would be eliminated altogether and replaced with something under the direct control of our city government, rather than being this hybrid state/city agency where everyone is obligated to foot bill but nobody has any control over what they do. That would fix the problem entirely. But, alternately, if we can come up with a system that works and is independent of JTA, like streetcars operated by a separate agency, I'm happy with that too. If JTA wanted to turn the skyway over to someone else to run, fine, anything is an improvement over JTA. Anything. Including a bunch of monkeys in a room with typewriters.
Quote from: Dashing Dan on August 27, 2011, 04:38:14 PM
The way that the system is set up right now, transfers just don't make sense. The headways are too long and you can't tell enough from the schedules to know when the buses are supposed to arrive at transfer points.
Transfers would be less of a pain if you could look at a smartphone and know the bus locations in real time. Other systems already have this capability, but the JTA is behind the curve.
Walking downtown is awful in the summer so I've been doing a lot of driving to and from downtown lately, with the parking tickets to show for it.
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1372/1218010757_1e2ab149e7.jpg)
When I'm talking about transfers this is what I'm talking about and its a foreign concept to JTA. We are already a low wage city, something that might work for us for business relocation but sucks for the citizen and quality of life issues. If that low wage workforce doesn't have year round access to cheap, dependable transit then they become disenfranchised. While transit isn't a solve all social problems type of service it can make a huge impact in quality of life issues. Carry this same idea over to the wealthy commuter, and given good, dependable service he/she is more likely to also be on that bus. Argue with that all you want but when someone like the Weavers walks into Publix don't you think the 2 for 1 prices get their attention? Currently with a hub and spokes system (like we have) dispersed over a greater number of streets (IE: one street per route for example) and the use of clustering schedules, where a broad assortment of end to end bus routes will arrive and depart from Rosa Parks, lets say 4 times per hour, transfers become a traffic builder. Transfers basically give bus riders a 2 for 1 deal but it may come close to doubling the ridership, if needed a slight fare increase can make up the difference.
Currently JTA has neither the transfer system or the scheduling to effect this type of service. Every change of buses require a fresh fare deposit which equals lost time and that equals lost fuel and money. A transfer system would make a change of buses/streetcar/Skyway a seamless process.
One last bitching point, WATER TAXIS! Okay so they've expanded the routes and the taxi's can go to the Arts Market and the Metropolitan Park landing. For all of their talk and all of their studies about riverine commuting
the Water Taxi's are not part of the transit system. With transfers the bus could collect the water taxi fare, and the water taxi could collect the bus fare, again making it seamless and a small part of the overall network. OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 05:53:16 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 05:45:39 PM
Well frankly, now that we're talking about JTA, that is really my main motivation in why I believe the streetcar should not in any way rely on the skyway. I just didn't want to come out loud and say it. It is looking like it may be set up as a separate light rail authority rather than under JTA. Get where I'm going here? If it is kept away from them, JTA can't possibly f*uck it up. Drag them into it, by some psuedo-merger with the skyway, asking for special scheduling, or by designing it in such a way that a streetcar passenger winds up having to rely on JTA to get to a significant number of streetcar destinations, and we're really no better off than we started, are we?
Keep JTA out of it, and it might actually be real public transit with real service, independent of the JTA buffoons.
Maybe JTA could hand it over to a different authority...
Marvin, it's not JTA'S to hand to anyone. Thus far the streetcar is a completely independent project. OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 06:31:50 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 05:53:16 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 05:45:39 PM
Well frankly, now that we're talking about JTA, that is really my main motivation in why I believe the streetcar should not in any way rely on the skyway. I just didn't want to come out loud and say it. It is looking like it may be set up as a separate light rail authority rather than under JTA. Get where I'm going here? If it is kept away from them, JTA can't possibly f*uck it up. Drag them into it, by some psuedo-merger with the skyway, asking for special scheduling, or by designing it in such a way that a streetcar passenger winds up having to rely on JTA to get to a significant number of streetcar destinations, and we're really no better off than we started, are we?
Keep JTA out of it, and it might actually be real public transit with real service, independent of the JTA buffoons.
Maybe JTA could hand it over to a different authority...
I wish JTA would be eliminated altogether and replaced with something under the direct control of our city government, rather than being this hybrid state/city agency where everyone is obligated to foot bill but nobody has any control over what they do. That would fix the problem entirely. But, alternately, if we can come up with a system that works and is independent of JTA, like streetcars operated by a separate agency, I'm happy with that too. If JTA wanted to turn the skyway over to someone else to run, fine, anything is an improvement over JTA. Anything. Including a bunch of monkeys in a room with typewriters.
I agree. JTA just doesn't really understand how to do things (realated to transit) correctly.
Quote from: Ocklawaha on August 27, 2011, 06:57:47 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 27, 2011, 05:53:16 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 05:45:39 PM
Well frankly, now that we're talking about JTA, that is really my main motivation in why I believe the streetcar should not in any way rely on the skyway. I just didn't want to come out loud and say it. It is looking like it may be set up as a separate light rail authority rather than under JTA. Get where I'm going here? If it is kept away from them, JTA can't possibly f*uck it up. Drag them into it, by some psuedo-merger with the skyway, asking for special scheduling, or by designing it in such a way that a streetcar passenger winds up having to rely on JTA to get to a significant number of streetcar destinations, and we're really no better off than we started, are we?
Keep JTA out of it, and it might actually be real public transit with real service, independent of the JTA buffoons.
Maybe JTA could hand it over to a different authority...
Marvin, it's not JTA'S to hand to anyone. Thus far the streetcar is a completely independent project.
OCKLAWAHA
I was talking about the skyway.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 05:46:16 PM
No problem, when you're right you're right! Thanks for sharing the link.
Both of you are wrong. Metromover averages +30k riders a day. Metrorail averages +65k riders a day. Combine them and the Metro gets the +96k riders a day. With that said, if you take Metrorail and transfer to Metromover, you are counted twice. You're a rider on Metrorail and Metromover. You can call it a fuzzy way of counting but a chunk of Metromover riders do transfer to the downtown loop from Metrorail and local buses.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f0/Miamitransit2011.svg/480px-Miamitransit2011.svg.png)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_Metrorail
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metromover
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami-Dade_Transit
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2011, 07:13:44 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 05:46:16 PM
No problem, when you're right you're right! Thanks for sharing the link.
Both of you are wrong. Metromover averages +30k riders a day. Metrorail averages +65k riders a day. Combine them and the Metro gets the +96k riders a day. With that said, if you take Metrorail and transfer to Metromover, you are counted twice. You're a rider on Metrorail and Metromover. You can call it a fuzzy way of counting but a chunk of Metromover riders do transfer to the downtown loop from Metrorail and local buses.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f0/Miamitransit2011.svg/480px-Miamitransit2011.svg.png)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_Metrorail
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metromover
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami-Dade_Transit
Maybe I should've said that 30,000 with no help from other rail systems. That is right.
Metrorail is another rail system and the riders it feeds into Metromover are a part of the 30k number you're quoting. They just happen to count an individual transferring between them as (1) rider for Metrorail and (1) rider for Metromover. So when you combine Metrorail's (+65k riders) with Metromover's (+30k riders) you end up with 96k. For example, if live in Kendall and work in downtown, my commute would be a combination of Metrorail and Metromover. Each trip I make to my office, I'd be counted as two riders. I'd be a rider on Metrorail and another rider on Metromover. If you click on the links for Metrorail you'll see the same numbers shown for Metromover in reverse. Also, I suspect there are some BRT and commuter rail riders being tagged multiple times as well.
Comparing this to Jax, if I lived in Riverside and worked in the Southbank, such a trip would require me to take the streetcar and transfer to the skyway. Thus, I'd be counted twice. Once as a streetcar rider and a second time as a skyway rider.
As far as fares go I'm over 60 so the only thing I have to pay for is the skyway. My personal issue with transfers has
nothing to do with the fact that they aren't free or discounted, although I do believe that they should be.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 06:31:50 PM
I wish JTA would be eliminated altogether and replaced with something under the direct control of our city government, rather than being this hybrid state/city agency where everyone is obligated to foot bill but nobody has any control over what they do.
actually the trend seems to be for regional transit agencies...look for legislation on that during the 2012 Legislative session
btw, Chris...can you please explain your "6 transfer" thing?
My issue is you seem to be implying that the 6 transfers occur on a round trip....that's just now how the transit world works....trips are one-way, as most people make multiple trips with different origins and destinations.
In transit speak, trips are viewed as one-seat rides, two-seat rides, etc...and data shows that there is virtually no dimunition in ridership with two-seat rides (one transfer) when the waiting time is minimal.
Quote from: tufsu1 on August 27, 2011, 11:27:54 PM
...and data shows that there is virtually no dimunition in ridership with two-seat rides (one transfer) when the waiting time is minimal.
ChrisWUFGator has set a high bar today for references.
Have you got one that backs this claim?
Quote from: tufsu1 on August 27, 2011, 11:27:54 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 27, 2011, 06:31:50 PM
I wish JTA would be eliminated altogether and replaced with something under the direct control of our city government, rather than being this hybrid state/city agency where everyone is obligated to foot bill but nobody has any control over what they do.
actually the trend seems to be for regional transit agencies...look for legislation on that during the 2012 Legislative session
btw, Chris...can you please explain your "6 transfer" thing?
My issue is you seem to be implying that the 6 transfers occur on a round trip....that's just now how the transit world works....trips are one-way, as most people make multiple trips with different origins and destinations.
In transit speak, trips are viewed as one-seat rides, two-seat rides, etc...and data shows that there is virtually no dimunition in ridership with two-seat rides (one transfer) when the waiting time is minimal.
I don't care what your industry term is, I wouldn't take 6 planes to get to California and back, let alone to San Marco and back.
Call it what you want, people aren't going to go for it.
Quote from: Dashing Dan on August 27, 2011, 11:31:34 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on August 27, 2011, 11:27:54 PM
...and data shows that there is virtually no dimunition in ridership with two-seat rides (one transfer) when the waiting time is minimal.
ChrisWUFGator has set a high bar today for references.
Have you got one that backs this claim?
I'd be interested to see this too.
Ocklawaha pretty much wrote the book on light rail, and he seems to think shorthaul intracity passengers begin to drop off after 1 transfer. If Tufsu disagrees, perhaps we could look at his figures? As I pointed out 10 pages ago, very little about what people will put up with in large cities applies here, where the system needs a level of convenience that enables it compete with the automobile. We don't have $400/mo garage fees and traffic that takes 2 hours to go 10 miles. This thing can't be a JTA bus on tracks with any reasonable expectation of success. It has to compete on cost and convenience.
Even with the Skyway, I don't see why anyone in the core would have to make 4 to 6 transfers for any single trip (I'm under the assumption that the entire transit network would be redesigned as new modes role online, including how the skyway operates). Even in the a far flung spot like Cecil, access to the Southbank would only require 3 transfers (bus, commuter rail, skyway (on southbank instead of JRTC). However, the majority of typical transit trips aren't originating in a place like that.
Also, here are some peer cities with multimodal transportation systems where transferring is necessary to access "some" destinations.
Salt Lake City (LRT, commuter rail, local bus and soon streetcar)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Transit_Authority
Charlotte (LRT, Heritage streetcar, local bus and soon modern streetcar, BRT and DMU commuter rail)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx_Rapid_Transit_Services
Tacoma (modern streetcar, commuter rail, Amtrak corridor service, local bus)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Link
Portland (LRT, modern streetcar, vintage streetcar, DMU commuter rail, Amtrak corridor, and local bus)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TriMet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_Streetcar
However, I do agree with Chris that no mode should be designed to simply make the Skyway work. A transit network in any community should be designed based on the environment of context within specific neighborhoods and areas of town. Thus, right off the bat, a good system should include multiple forms of mobility.
Whatever the basis for their decision, Nashville MTA quit running PCT trolleys over the transfer issue.
On the other hand they have a very slick operation for connecting buses with commuter trains.
It's also possible that Nashville's commuter rail line ends up like Syracuse's, due to low ridership. In regards to transferring, I can't think of one major or second tier metro with any type of transit system where transferring isn't required to get to anywhere in the core city or burbs. The key is to make it as seamless as possible.
I haven't checked lately but the last time I did, ridership was up significantly on "The Music City Star."
The Nashville MTA has a policy of keeping transfers to a minimum. Within that policy I think they do a good job of facilitating transfers.
Yes, the 32-mile Music City Star is up to 1,000 riders a day. Roughly 2,000 less riders than the 2.5 mile Jax Skyway gets today.
Anyway, no one is talking about making transfers for the sake of making additional transfers. I don't think anyone here has argued that. However, that doesn't mean you shouldn't design specific lines to best fit the context and community it is intended to serve. If a certain corridor calls for streetcar instead of local bus, skyway or commuter rail, so be it. ON the opposite end, if your main priority in designing your transit system is to avoid transfers the end result will be pretty screwed up.
Yeah but the Music City Star will be considered successful if it draws 1,500 daily riders.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/2030-COJ-Multimodal/Adopted-2035-Urban-Core/1222131109_SWYDj-L.jpg)
http://www.northfloridatpo.com/images/uploads/general/LRTP_summbrochure.pdf
The map above illustrates where proposed 2035 Long Range Transportation transit projects cross in the urban core.
Green = commuter rail
Blue = BRT
Orange = Streetcar
When speaking of transferring on future corridors, can we at least use this as a reference? Throughout the thread, it seems that many are talking from lines in their head that aren't planned at this point. Not that there is anything wrong with that but it does make the transfer talk similar to nailing jello on a wall.
Quote from: Dashing Dan on August 28, 2011, 09:31:34 AM
Yeah but the Music City Star will be considered successful if it draws 1,500 daily riders.
Although, this is really irrelevant to the discussion at hand, the Music City Star has been in operation for a few years now. Was there a date that came along with the 1,500 daily riders? For example, if it gets 1,500 in 2025 instead of 2012 or 2015, will it still be considered a success?
Regarding the LRTP map, it would have been nice to at least show the skyway's path to illustrate how it relates to some of these proposals (such as BRT).
Quote from: thelakelander on August 28, 2011, 09:39:04 AM
Quote from: Dashing Dan on August 28, 2011, 09:31:34 AM
Yeah but the Music City Star will be considered successful if it draws 1,500 daily riders.
Although, this is really irrelevant to the discussion at hand, the Music City Star has been in operation for a few years now. Was there a date that came along with the 1,500 daily riders? For example, if it gets 1,500 in 2025 instead of 2012 or 2015, will it still be considered a success?
I'm not sure about this but my understanding is that they need 1,500 riders in order to be considered viable on a year-to-year basis; in other words, to avoid being shut down. So I'd say that 1,500 goal is closer to 2012 or 2015.
But I also believe that their current ridership is more than 1,000 a day, and that 1,500 is attainable in the short term.
Ok. The number I quoted was from the first quarter 2011, so hopefully they'll meet their goal soon. What are they doing to increase ridership?
Quote from: thelakelander on August 28, 2011, 08:05:53 AMIn regards to transferring, I can't think of one major or second tier metro with any type of transit system where transferring isn't required to get to anywhere in the core city or burbs. The key is to make it as seamless as possible.
This is what I've been saying. If JTA does some rescheduling so that buses, skyway, and/or streetcar meet up at connection stops, transfering will be easy and painless.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 28, 2011, 09:35:26 AM
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/2030-COJ-Multimodal/Adopted-2035-Urban-Core/1222131109_SWYDj-L.jpg)
http://www.northfloridatpo.com/images/uploads/general/LRTP_summbrochure.pdf
The map above illustrates where proposed 2035 Long Range Transportation transit projects cross in the urban core.
Green = commuter rail
Blue = BRT
Orange = Streetcar
When speaking of transferring on future corridors, can we at least use this as a reference? Throughout the thread, it seems that many are talking from lines in their head that aren't planned at this point. Not that there is anything wrong with that but it does make the transfer talk similar to nailing jello on a wall.
This is exactly what I have been using. Instead of having the streetcar turn on Bay St, have the skyway continue down Bay St. Have a connection at Newnan and you've connected everything that's planned on that map, but with a different mode. That, IMO, isn't forcing people to ride the system. I also don't see how that one leg would make the streetcar an incomplete system. This improves ridership for the skyway, the streetcar is already going to get good ridership. And then you use the suggestions NRW has made (stopping the buses at certain skyway stations) and you bring up ridership even more and in return the O&M cost lower and you receive all the other benefits that come with higher ridership.
Doesn't every one know the skyway is a failure b/c is was never completed as it should have been? To keep having these discussion is ridiculous as if people will now start ridding it. This city is unbelievable. Calgon take me away.
Let me throw this out there....
Extending the skyway to Jacksonville's Sporting Grounds - from what I've read on this site, the skyway is a laughing point from other transportation people. It's a CF that has done nothing to help the city from a transportation standpoint. IF (that's a big if BTW) we extend the skyway to the sporting complexes - not only would we come closer to completing the original proposed system, but think of the visibility it would get nationally for 12 weeks out of the year. People will still use it for other events than football, but when the Jags are on - we're hitting national markets in a big way. Think blimp shot from the north with the skyway shuttling people back and forth in the background. How much would advertisers pay to have their logo on the train during the NFL season? $500k per car?
Now that's just football. The Suns are a contender each year for AA ball. The Sharks are a contender each year for the AFL. We have other teams that are well known locally and around the country. There are several events/concerts held each year at the arena. We might actually get some legitimate uses from Met Park.
I understand the costs for extending the line are extreme - especially when compared to the cost of streetcar, but in the long run 10-20 years, we could actually turn the 'pelican' that's been hanging around our neck for so long into a boon for the city.
An extension to the stadium does everything that you've asked. It connects residential (southbank towers, northbank towers and possibly more from TOD), employment and entertainment (bay street district, sporting complex, city park).
Dont for get we have the Sharks now playing at the Arena.
Quote from: Keith-N-Jax on August 28, 2011, 12:15:36 PM
Doesn't every one know the skyway is a failure b/c is was never completed as it should have been? To keep having these discussion is ridiculous as if people will now start ridding it. This city is unbelievable. Calgon take me away.
You don't think people will start riding it if the buses stop at the stations? Or if it gets extened to the sports complex? Or San Marco? Or if new developments are clustered around them? I think any of those can make people start riding it.
I don't think you can plan it (or any mode) in a vacuum. There are plenty of mass transit systems that serve professional sports facilities across the country, so whether it's a skyway, streetcar or LRT, I don't think you would see a difference in advertising potential. What should be considered is fiscal costs and ROI. If the skyway rates best out of all modes evaluated, then it should be the selected mode. If it doesn't, it shouldn't be forced because of sentimental value.
In the world of NRW,
First,
Quoteif the buses stop at the stations
Will lead to,
Quoteit gets extened to the sports complex
Which in turn causes,
Quotenew developments are clustered around them
And end the end,
Quotepeople start riding it
Quote from: thelakelander on August 28, 2011, 01:02:59 PM
What should be considered is fiscal costs and ROI.
What's the time period that you start judging your ROI?
And wouldn't the O&M be similar between the skyway and streetcar?
It's the costs to build the infrastructure that is the fly in the ointment.
And yes, I think wrapped trains would generate a lot more advertising potential than trolley signs.
Quote from: iMarvin on August 28, 2011, 11:05:46 AM
This is what I've been saying. If JTA does some rescheduling so that buses, skyway, and/or streetcar meet up at connection stops, transfering will be easy and painless.
I agree. I think JTAs entire transit network should be revamped ASAP.
^^ Right even if Buses stop at stations it really still doesnt go anywhere it needs to. I just wish the talk would stop until something actually being done. WE all know JTA, COJ,etc can talk and run studies.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 28, 2011, 12:12:05 AM
Quote from: Dashing Dan on August 27, 2011, 11:31:34 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on August 27, 2011, 11:27:54 PM
...and data shows that there is virtually no dimunition in ridership with two-seat rides (one transfer) when the waiting time is minimal.
ChrisWUFGator has set a high bar today for references.
Have you got one that backs this claim?
I'd be interested to see this too.
Ocklawaha pretty much wrote the book on light rail, and he seems to think shorthaul intracity passengers begin to drop off after 1 transfer.
agreed...a 2-seat ride is one transfer...anything more than that and ridership potential drops significantly.
btw....most transit syetsms (big city and cmall) are primarily comprised of what are called captive riders...choice riders rarely make up more than 1/3 of passengers....so trying to compete with the automobile for speed/time is not so important.
So the big thing needed for transit to be successful in Jax. is for it to be a major money saver over the automobile, which requires the price of gas and/or parking to be higher.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 28, 2011, 01:08:56 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 28, 2011, 11:05:46 AM
This is what I've been saying. If JTA does some rescheduling so that buses, skyway, and/or streetcar meet up at connection stops, transfering will be easy and painless.
I agree. I think JTAs entire transit network should be revamped ASAP.
Definitely. I just don't see JTA doing it.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 28, 2011, 10:15:35 AM
Ok. The number I quoted was from the first quarter 2011, so hopefully they'll meet their goal soon. What are they doing to increase ridership?
TOD at outlying stations, a new station with a park and ride lot along a major perpindicular highway, marketing, etc
According to this article the Music City Star had a record month in June 2011, with nearly 27,000 riders, or about 1,285 riders per weekday.
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110824/WILSON/308190095/Music-City-Star-seeks-more-funding (http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110824/WILSON/308190095/Music-City-Star-seeks-more-funding)
I almost forgot - the Nashville mayor and the MPO are heavily committed to regional public transportation.
Quote from: iMarvin on August 28, 2011, 01:24:10 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 28, 2011, 01:08:56 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 28, 2011, 11:05:46 AM
This is what I've been saying. If JTA does some rescheduling so that buses, skyway, and/or streetcar meet up at connection stops, transfering will be easy and painless.
I agree. I think JTAs entire transit network should be revamped ASAP.
Definitely. I just don't see JTA doing it.
Which is why this discussion is probably a waste of time & in reality is just a handful of guys arguing on a message board.
You can't do transit in Jacksonville without JTA touching it in some way, and everything they touch turns to crap. And I haven't heard anything about restructuring them, so that there crapfest that is public transit in Jax will likely continue for decades.
The gas tax is about to expire. There will be major changes that JTA won't be able to avoid.
Quote from: peestandingup on August 28, 2011, 01:53:03 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 28, 2011, 01:24:10 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 28, 2011, 01:08:56 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 28, 2011, 11:05:46 AM
This is what I've been saying. If JTA does some rescheduling so that buses, skyway, and/or streetcar meet up at connection stops, transfering will be easy and painless.
I agree. I think JTAs entire transit network should be revamped ASAP.
Definitely. I just don't see JTA doing it.
Which is why this discussion is probably a waste of time & in reality is just a handful of guys arguing on a message board.
You can't do transit in Jacksonville without JTA touching it in some way, and everything they touch turns to crap. And I haven't heard anything about restructuring them, so that there crapfest that is public transit in Jax will likely continue for decades.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 28, 2011, 01:58:48 PM
The gas tax is about to expire. There will be major changes that JTA won't be able to avoid.
The gas tax is definitely going to affect JTA. They would be wise to prepare for it. Cut costs, increase revenue, try to do more with less. If they keep things going like they are now, that gas tax won't be renewed.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 28, 2011, 01:08:14 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 28, 2011, 01:02:59 PM
What should be considered is fiscal costs and ROI.
What's the time period that you start judging your ROI?
I'd probably start right off the bat by identifying my overall goal and then evaluating each mode on it's potential to get me there. That means capital costs, annual O&M costs, economic development potential, ridership capacity, etc. will all play roles that will be judged from study time to a natural life horizon.
QuoteAnd wouldn't the O&M be similar between the skyway and streetcar?
A streetcar's annual O&M would be lower.
QuoteIt's the costs to build the infrastructure that is the fly in the ointment.
True. Spending $30 to $40 million/mile for a skyway extension verses $5 to $10 million/mile for a streetcar extension is certainly an area of concern. However, the visual impact of an elevated structure running down East Bay's historic buildings would also be a concern. If I'm going to drop the extra millions into something that has less capacity, it better bring me some economic benefits that make the extra costs worth it.
QuoteAnd yes, I think wrapped trains would generate a lot more advertising potential than trolley signs.
Trolleys and LRT vehicles are typically much larger than skyway vehicles and can operate on the same track infrastructure. If you want to ad wrap cars, you're better off wrapping them.
(http://images.wikia.com/psychology/images/0/05/Wrap_advertising_light_rail.jpg)
(http://transit.toronto.on.ca/images/streetcar-4002-52.jpg)
Quote from: iMarvin on August 28, 2011, 02:14:38 PM
The gas tax is definitely going to affect JTA. They would be wise to prepare for it. Cut costs, increase revenue, try to do more with less. If they keep things going like they are now, that gas tax won't be renewed.
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.
Quote from: tufsu1 on August 28, 2011, 01:19:14 PM
btw....most transit systems (big city and small) are primarily comprised of what are called captive riders...choice riders rarely make up more than 1/3 of passengers....
So the big thing needed for transit to be successful in Jax. is for it to be a major money saver over the automobile, which requires the price of gas and/or parking to be higher.
So unless we make driving much more expensive than it already is now, transit is just for people who will be forced to accept whatever services we choose to make available to them?
Spare me from this!
I agree. For transit to work in Jax, it needs to be reliable, efficient and comfortable for riders to use. That applies to all modes. Also, I believe we need to realize that many areas of Jacksonville (we're a county for crying out loud) aren't suitable for mass transit service. I wouldn't mind seeing JTA cut services in some suburban areas in favor of providing better headways in areas that can support frequent mass transit services.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 28, 2011, 05:20:42 PM
True. Spending $30 to $40 million/mile for a skyway extension verses $5 to $10 million/mile for a streetcar extension is certainly an area of concern. However, the visual impact of an elevated structure running down East Bay's historic buildings would also be a concern. If I'm going to drop the extra millions into something that has less capacity, it better bring me some economic benefits that make the extra costs worth it.
Where are you getting this estimate of the cost per mile for a skyway extension? It sounds way too high to me.
Quote from: Dashing Dan on August 28, 2011, 05:32:31 PM
So unless we make driving much more expensive than it already is now, transit is just for people who will be forced to accept whatever services we choose to make available to them?
I didn't say that.....but, even with a robust transit syetm, the reality is Jax. will be lucky to have 30% of transit riders be choice riders.
Out of town advertising in Toronto....
(http://lazyphotog.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/saturdayapril-348-edit.jpg?w=640&h=426)
One would figure this could be done with the skyway right now to generate some extra income to reduce O&M costs.
(http://torontoist.com/20091211ashleymadisonstreetcar.jpg)
This train wrap proposal was rejected by the TTC.
QuoteAshley Madison, the perennially controversial and perpetually amoral dating website for people looking to cheat on their spouses, aimed to wrap one streetcar in a massive end-to-end purple adâ€"â€LIFE IS SHORT. HAVE AN AFFAIR.â€â€"for twenty-eight days starting on January 11, 2010. So the Toronto-based company struck a deal with CBS Outdoor, the ad agency that handles the TTC’s advertising for buys like this, for $12,500, plus $30,000 for production of the wrap by vinyl graphics supplier Autograph Trim. (If the campaign were paying off, a representative of the company told Torontoist this morning, they’d extend it to five cars in February.) One condition in that contract, obtained by Torontoist, states that “The Transit Authority is the sole and final arbiter of creative. If intended creative content is controversial in any way, transit approval must be obtained before proceeding with production.â€
full article: http://beta.torontoist.com/2009/12/ttc_rejects_ashley_madison_ads/
Quote from: tufsu1 on August 28, 2011, 05:43:08 PM
Quote from: Dashing Dan on August 28, 2011, 05:32:31 PM
So unless we make driving much more expensive than it already is now, transit is just for people who will be forced to accept whatever services we choose to make available to them?
I didn't say that.....but, even with a robust transit syetm, the reality is Jax. will be lucky to have 30% of transit riders be choice riders.
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.
Quote from: tufsu1 on August 28, 2011, 05:43:08 PM
Quote from: Dashing Dan on August 28, 2011, 05:32:31 PM
So unless we make driving much more expensive than it already is now, transit is just for people who will be forced to accept whatever services we choose to make available to them?
I didn't say that.....but, even with a robust transit syetm, the reality is Jax. will be lucky to have 30% of transit riders be choice riders.
I think the trick is to make the experience worth the ride in reason and convenience and the people of Jax will be sold. We just have not had a good transit system to convince our citizens otherwise.
Quote from: peestandingup on August 26, 2011, 06:21:11 AM
Thats typical Jacksonville leadership mentality isn't it. Build something half-assed, don't maintain what you do have, then wonder why no one is using it.
+1 - Good Point
I don't think we even need to waste our time selling "the people of Jax" on transit. From my view, the people of Jax are no different than the people of Charlotte, Nashville, Birmingham, Norfolk or any other similar sized peer community. Some will use viable mass transit and some won't, plain and simple. If we can get the basics right, we'll have a ridership base that will utilize it and grow over time as more and more TOD comes online.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 28, 2011, 06:19:00 PM
I don't think we even need to waste our time selling "the people of Jax" on transit. From my view, the people of Jax are no different than the people of Charlotte, Nashville, Birmingham, Norfolk or any other similar sized peer community. Some will use viable mass transit and some won't, plain and simple. If we can get the basics right, we'll have a ridership base that will utilize it and grow over time as more and more TOD comes online.
+1
Quote from: Dashing Dan on August 28, 2011, 05:57:19 PM
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
Why would Streetcar O&M be higher on a daily basis than O&M for the Skyway? Each street car needs an operator, two or three operators (guessing here - even if it 5 or 6) can operate the entire Skyway system.
I'm seeing conflicting arguments here, and I don't know if the same folks are making both sides of it. One one hand, people here have argued to spread out bus departure times, to better provide reasonable headways, instead of having them all bunched up. Then there is the argument to make sure the buses meet at the same time - or within a few minutes - to make transfers easier (shorter waits).
^Charles, based on the O&M costs of recent streetcar projects across the country, the skyway's O&M would be higher. This is most likely due to the funds needed to maintain the automated system, elevated infrastructure and massive stations. Also, as the skyway ages, expect those O&M costs to rise.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 28, 2011, 05:30:48 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 28, 2011, 02:14:38 PM
The gas tax is definitely going to affect JTA. They would be wise to prepare for it. Cut costs, increase revenue, try to do more with less. If they keep things going like they are now, that gas tax won't be renewed.
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.
QuoteQuote from: Charles Hunter on August 28, 2011, 06:34:21 PM
Why would Streetcar O&M be higher on a daily basis than O&M for the Skyway? Each street car needs an operator, two or three operators (guessing here - even if it 5 or 6) can operate the entire Skyway system.
On an hourly or per mile basis, streetcar O&M should be significantly higher than the O&M for the skyway, given that the streetcar costs rise in direct proportion with the number of streetcars in operation (1 operator per streetcar), whereas the number of skyway operators is more or less the same no matter how many skyway vehicles are in operation, or no matter how far they go.
The same for guideway maintenance. With its own guideway there should be less wear and tear than if you had to maintain a streetcar track as part of a normal roadbed.
The cost to build or extend the skyway should be offset by the savings in operations and maintenance costs, or else you don't really have a rationale for building or extending the skyway.
Now that most of the skyway is built, the marginal cost of extending it should be all that you're looking at, not the average cost per mile for the system as a whole. When the skyway was extended to Kings Avenue about 10 - 12 years ago, the cost per mile for that extension was not all that high.
Selected Streetcar Annual O&M Costs:
Portland Streetcar (4 miles) - $4.9 million (FY 2008)
Little Rock River Rail Streetcar (3.4 miles) - $650,000 (2007)**
Tampa TECO Streetcar (2.7 miles) - $2.50 million (FY 2006)**
Kenosha Streetcar (1.9 miles) - $335,000 (FY 2008)**
Memphis Streetcar (7 miles) - $3.9 million (FY 2005)**
**- Heritage/Vintage trolley systems are cheaper to construct and operate than modern streetcars.
http://visioncincinnati.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/streetcar-data-in-other-cities1.pdf
Skyway Annual O&M Costs according to FTU:
JTA Skyway Express (2.5 miles) - $4 million (2011)
http://jacksonville.com/news/florida/2011-08-26/story/skyway-could-be-torn-down-if-ridership-doesnt-improve-next-25-years
I'll dig around and see if I can find some updated O&M numbers on some of the streetcar lines above.
According to this March 2, 2011 document, here are some updated numbers for some streetcar projects mentioned above:
http://ashlandtsp.com/system/datas/110/original/AshlandTSP_StreetcarsWP_030211.pdf
Modern Streetcars
Portlant Streetcar (4 miles) - $5.5 million
Tacoma Link (1.6 miles) - $3.3 million
South Lake Union Streetcar (1.3 miles) - $2.4 million
Heritage Streetcars
Kenosha Streetcar (1.9 miles) - $300,000
Memphis Trolley (7 miles) - $4.1 million
Tampa TECO Line Streetcar (2.7 miles) - $2.4 million
Little Rock River Rail Streetcar (3.4 miles) - $900,000
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.
Quote(http://transit.toronto.on.ca/images/streetcar-4002-52.jpg)
Lake I think you have found something that Jacksonville could get behind. I guess we might need a Bud Light one as well.
Quote from: Dashing Dan on August 28, 2011, 08:37:50 PM
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: iMarvin on August 28, 2011, 07:22:10 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 28, 2011, 05:30:48 PM
Quote from: iMarvin on August 28, 2011, 02:14:38 PM
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.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 28, 2011, 09:01:47 PM
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.
Quote from: tufsu1 on August 28, 2011, 06:33:52 PM
Quote from: Dashing Dan on August 28, 2011, 05:57:19 PM
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
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 28, 2011, 09:01:47 PM
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.
Quote from: tufsu1 on August 28, 2011, 09:59:54 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on August 28, 2011, 06:33:52 PM
Quote from: Dashing Dan on August 28, 2011, 05:57:19 PM
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.
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)
Quote from: tufsu1 on August 28, 2011, 10:23:46 PM
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.
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
Quote from: tufsu1 on August 28, 2011, 10:37:26 PM
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.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 28, 2011, 09:14:52 PM
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?
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.
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/images/skyway/original-route-map.jpg)
Getting Federal permits to go through a park, and adjacent to historical properties (Bethel Church, for example) would probably squash this route for a Skyway extension.
Probably so. Too bad this route lost out to the convention center in the 1980s. If built, the Skyway would be way more successful than it is today. Having a major medical facility like Shands anchoring an end point would have provided a huge boost in consistent daily ridership.
How would the park make it more difficult? And it could be on the opposite side of Hogan Creek from Bethel Baptist Church. I think it could help both the creek and the park by bringing more exposure and infrastructure improvements to the area.
Ultimately, it would be nice to have both the skyway and the streetcar going north into Springfield, but I can understand that if the streetcar happens first then the skyway would never happen. However, it would be helpful to thoroughly evaluate the pros and cons of each before committing.
It would pass right by the historic Bethel Baptist sanctuary off Hogan (its called something else today) and 1st. An alternatives analysis study would have to be done before either could be built (unless we would be willing to commit 100% local funding).
Quote from: dougskiles on August 29, 2011, 06:50:17 AM
How would the park make it more difficult?
Because you would be dealing with Section 4(f)...which would add significant cost and time to the environmental studies....and might lead to the no-build alternative being selected
http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/4f/index.asp
So if it were paid for 100% locally then neither of these issues would be a problem? Assuming the community was in support of it. If I lived in the area, I would find it much less intrusive to the neighborhood to have an elevated system run along the boundary of the park than to have it run through the middle of a historic neighborhood.
But, I see the point that a streetcar would likely be even better as long as the transfer from Skyway to Streetcar is fairly simple.
How far would one have to walk to get from the FSCJ Skyway station to the Streetcar that would potentially run up Main Street and then 8th to Shands? Or would the connection be better made at either Hemming Plaza or Central Station?
Lastly, would the Streetcar have difficulty getting across the Beaver/Union/State street corridor? I assume that there would be some kind of signal timing priority.
The transfer would be made at the JRTC or Central Station. Also, there should be no difficulty in getting a streetcar across Union & State. It could be done with or without signal timing priority. I've seen it work well with both options in peer communities. It really depends on how much money you want to put into your system.
QuoteAlso, there should be no difficulty in getting a streetcar across Union & State.
Of course not, JTA would build an overpass at Main St & Laura St.
Will the FSCJ station still function as a local bus terminal once the JRTC is operational? Or will all of those functions move to JRTC?
Rosa Parks (FSCJ) will still function as a bus/skyway terminal from my understanding.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 29, 2011, 10:44:41 AM
Rosa Parks (FSCJ) will still function as a bus/skyway terminal from my understanding.
And since they'd already be linked via the Skyway, you can bet your bottom dollar that a bus route will also compete.
It's the JTA way.
Quote from: dougskiles on August 29, 2011, 10:15:32 AM
So if it were paid for 100% locally then neither of these issues would be a problem?
correct...capital
AND all operating funds would have to be local
Quote from: Dashing Dan on August 28, 2011, 11:24:10 PM
People deserve to have a decent transit system, whether they are stuck with it or not.
You managed to eloquently sum up in a single short sentence what JTA has been unable to grasp in 2 decades.
The Skyway already has federal funds, so wouldn't any extension have to meet federal rules - no matter the funding source?
Charles, there is always a legal way around the regulatory stranglehold. Past or present when a railroad line wants to expand it is almost always done under a completely new 'independent' corporation. For example the CSX holds paper on the 'Three Rivers Railroad' which is/was to be built from High Springs to the Suwannee American Cement Plant near Branford. Once built, it would then be brought under the CSX banner. I see no reason why in a city that talks public-private partnerships, the same pattern couldn't be followed to get past difficult territory.
North Jacksonville Skyway, Inc. has a ring to it. Trackage rights into Rosa Parks Station and an 'independent' railroad to the new VA and Shand's. If there was just a will, I'm sure there is a way.
OCKLAWAHA