JTA Board Approves Resolution to Modernize Skyway
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Culture/Jazzfest-2011/i-rZxGLV4/0/L/DSC02507-L.jpg)
Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2015-dec-jta-board-approves-resolution-to-modernize-skyway
This is great news! Now I just hope they don't squat on expansion for the next 20 years.
Quote from: camarocane on December 10, 2015, 04:41:56 PM
This is great news! Now I just hope they don't squat on expansion for the next 20 years.
They have one year to formulate a modernization and expansion plan.
Copying this here, as it bears repeating in the context of JTA studying expansion options:
Quote from: thelakelander on December 10, 2015, 05:03:26 PM
...
Anyway, when it comes to funding capital improvements, one option I'd suggest is the "bundling" of funding options. For example, the mobility plan will be updated sometime soon. Perhaps, the Skyway could be included as a transportation element as opposed to a road or the streetcar lines in the current plan? If Khan hasn't already taken all the bed tax money, perhaps some could be utilized on the segment to expand the Skyway to the Sports District? By piecemealing potential funding sources and opportunities, it may be easier than most think to come up with a viable plan to fund various expansion concepts.
This was the best option on the table. I think it is positive. What would a more modern car/ technology look like? Would such cars have the same cost and problems as the existing cars?
^It depends. If they try to go with SDI's proprietary people mover, it would probably look similar to their vehicles in Indianapolis:
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1019063667_ozN8x-S.jpg)
If they go with a Bombardier APM, then you could be looking at an Innovia 300:
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ3-3q_MLIppuBbol4Zv9Mw55f3GZD-feZj5m7ChnCw5fiqykPg)
However, the center beam would have to be removed to accommodate Bombardier's APM. Go with a different technology that moves away from the higher costing APM, then you'll find yourself with a ton of commonly used options. However, going a different route would mean more in-depth analysis on what the existing infrastructure can and can't support, would need to be done.
Well, I certainly hope there are modern options that increase capacity for use by stadium crowds if they do extend in that direction, and I hope the new technology does not become obsolete. Obviously conversion to streetcar was the way to go here if it was feasible, but they didnt really study that at all.
I've still got my fingers crossed that this can work out for the best.
If they somehow decided to get rid of the Commodore Point Expressway, could they reuse the bridge supports for a new guideway to expand to the sports district? Or at least the ROW?
Good news. Now lets see how creative JTA can be.
Brad Thoburn was quoted in the Resident saying that the present cars are obsolete. No one is making them any longer and in fact JTA has used some of the old broken cars for parts for the existing ones. So the writing is on the wall, they need to get new cars. Maybe they can put Chuck and Eddie's pictures on them too, get the damn attorneys to pay for 'em.
I wonder if any of this will incorporate Streetcar. I know that the folks of San Marco (assuming the extension would go out there) will likely be diametrically opposed to an elevated route above Hendricks. Connecting the current Kings Ave Station to the square or even down to University via Trolly would likely be the best bet.
I doubt Riverside would have an issue with an elevated route heading into Five Points or to Stockton St, so I can see an actual Skyway extension to that neighborhood.
An elevated route will never make it to Riverside. If new cars are APM, expansion will be limited. If something that can operate at grade, without blocking streets, you could literally expand anywhere you want to go.
Quote from: E_Dubya on December 11, 2015, 11:17:58 AM
I wonder if any of this will incorporate Streetcar. I know that the folks of San Marco (assuming the extension would go out there) will likely be diametrically opposed to an elevated route above Hendricks. Connecting the current Kings Ave Station to the square or even down to University via Trolly would likely be the best bet.
I doubt Riverside would have an issue with an elevated route heading into Five Points or to Stockton St, so I can see an actual Skyway extension to that neighborhood.
The FEC line through San Marco makes streetcar an impossibility some sort of elevated track has to cross the rail line before it can transition to an at grade system. Some pioneers are trying to start a long term conversation of burying the FEC line from Atlantic to the bridge. Try to drive down Hendricks to work on a weekday and you'll see why this is an idea worth considering.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 11, 2015, 11:29:01 AM
An elevated route will never make it to Riverside. If new cars are APM, expansion will be limited. If something that can operate at grade, without blocking streets, you could literally expand anywhere you want to go.
Absolutely. The question is how much street space it would take up. The widening of Park Street in Brooklyn lends itself to that. The following issue is: do you run the APM West on Forest Street once Park narrows, or you you remove two lanes after the intersection of Forest? Do you widen Edison in order to connect to Stockton, or do you keep the extension minimal? I'll be itnerested to see what, if anything substantial, comes of this. I've learned to keep my hopes in check when it comes to public transit in Jax.
Quote from: Captain Zissou on December 11, 2015, 11:40:06 AM
Quote from: E_Dubya on December 11, 2015, 11:17:58 AM
I wonder if any of this will incorporate Streetcar. I know that the folks of San Marco (assuming the extension would go out there) will likely be diametrically opposed to an elevated route above Hendricks. Connecting the current Kings Ave Station to the square or even down to University via Trolly would likely be the best bet.
I doubt Riverside would have an issue with an elevated route heading into Five Points or to Stockton St, so I can see an actual Skyway extension to that neighborhood.
The FEC line through San Marco makes streetcar an impossibility some sort of elevated track has to cross the rail line before it can transition to an at grade system. Some pioneers are trying to start a long term conversation of burying the FEC line from Atlantic to the bridge. Try to drive down Hendricks to work on a weekday and you'll see why this is an idea worth considering.
That's my evening route home. I forgot the FEC line completely, despite the fact that it catches me just about every day. Thank you for pointing that out!
Getting the skyway to San Marco is easy. An extension would go over the FEC behind the park, Aardwolf and the tennis courts. At that point, you'd drop it to grade and terminate it at Atlantic.
Do you think they will keep it free or begin charging again?
Quote from: jaxlore on December 11, 2015, 10:03:36 AM
Good news. Now lets see how creative JTA can be.
Hopefully not "First Coast Flyer" creative...
Quote from: Captain Zissou on December 11, 2015, 11:40:06 AM
Quote from: E_Dubya on December 11, 2015, 11:17:58 AM
I wonder if any of this will incorporate Streetcar. I know that the folks of San Marco (assuming the extension would go out there) will likely be diametrically opposed to an elevated route above Hendricks. Connecting the current Kings Ave Station to the square or even down to University via Trolly would likely be the best bet.
I doubt Riverside would have an issue with an elevated route heading into Five Points or to Stockton St, so I can see an actual Skyway extension to that neighborhood.
The FEC line through San Marco makes streetcar an impossibility some sort of elevated track has to cross the rail line before it can transition to an at grade system. Some pioneers are trying to start a long term conversation of burying the FEC line from Atlantic to the bridge. Try to drive down Hendricks to work on a weekday and you'll see why this is an idea worth considering.
Although I do think this would be the best alternative, try pulling any crossing permit with FEC (or any railroad)... scoff.
Ock, you around? Any idea what the minumum turning radius would be for a streetcar? APTA states 60' to the CL of the car, could you navigate the streets of San Marco with this standard?
Quote from: BenderRodriguez on December 11, 2015, 01:29:20 PM
Quote from: jaxlore on December 11, 2015, 10:03:36 AM
Good news. Now lets see how creative JTA can be.
Hopefully not "First Coast Flyer" creative...
Speak for yourself. That bright green of the North Line sure does pop. That's progress enough, right?
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 11, 2015, 01:09:21 PM
Do you think they will keep it free or begin charging again?
If they charge, they'll have to pay more for new fare collection equipment.
Quote from: camarocane on December 11, 2015, 02:03:55 PM
Quote from: Captain Zissou on December 11, 2015, 11:40:06 AM
Quote from: E_Dubya on December 11, 2015, 11:17:58 AM
I wonder if any of this will incorporate Streetcar. I know that the folks of San Marco (assuming the extension would go out there) will likely be diametrically opposed to an elevated route above Hendricks. Connecting the current Kings Ave Station to the square or even down to University via Trolly would likely be the best bet.
I doubt Riverside would have an issue with an elevated route heading into Five Points or to Stockton St, so I can see an actual Skyway extension to that neighborhood.
The FEC line through San Marco makes streetcar an impossibility some sort of elevated track has to cross the rail line before it can transition to an at grade system. Some pioneers are trying to start a long term conversation of burying the FEC line from Atlantic to the bridge. Try to drive down Hendricks to work on a weekday and you'll see why this is an idea worth considering.
Although I do think this would be the best alternative, try pulling any crossing permit with FEC (or any railroad)... scoff.
Ock, you around? Any idea what the minumum turning radius would be for a streetcar? APTA states 60' to the CL of the car, could you navigate the streets of San Marco with this standard?
Here's a map that includes the Skyway's potential expansion routes:
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/4532831631_QJR5fG7-900x1000.jpg)
If you were to use a streetcar/LRT type vehicle, assume the line would be elevated until crossing the FEC. At that point, you'd drop down to grade with the FEC no longer being an issue.
Quote from: E_Dubya on December 11, 2015, 11:42:05 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on December 11, 2015, 11:29:01 AM
An elevated route will never make it to Riverside. If new cars are APM, expansion will be limited. If something that can operate at grade, without blocking streets, you could literally expand anywhere you want to go.
Absolutely. The question is how much street space it would take up. The widening of Park Street in Brooklyn lends itself to that. The following issue is: do you run the APM West on Forest Street once Park narrows, or you you remove two lanes after the intersection of Forest? Do you widen Edison in order to connect to Stockton, or do you keep the extension minimal? I'll be itnerested to see what, if anything substantial, comes of this. I've learned to keep my hopes in check when it comes to public transit in Jax.
No street in Jax needs to widened for streetcar, BRT, Skyway or any other transit mode. Road diets are your solution here. Just remove a lane or two for cars and dedicate that space to transit and bike. In streets with big grass medians, transit ROW can be incorporated into them. There are examples all over the US on how to deal with this. Here are a few:
Houston - LRT added in roadway median:
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Houston-Oct-2014/i-cVnJ7d4/0/L/DSC_0291-L.jpg)
Cleveland - BRT dedicated lanes replace roadway lanes:
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/593548867_NPEz4-M.jpg)
San Diego - Trolley LRT in suburban roadway median:
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1430047692_vD4kmks-M.jpg)
Quote from: camarocane on December 11, 2015, 02:03:55 PM
Quote from: Captain Zissou on December 11, 2015, 11:40:06 AM
Quote from: E_Dubya on December 11, 2015, 11:17:58 AM
I wonder if any of this will incorporate Streetcar. I know that the folks of San Marco (assuming the extension would go out there) will likely be diametrically opposed to an elevated route above Hendricks. Connecting the current Kings Ave Station to the square or even down to University via Trolly would likely be the best bet.
I doubt Riverside would have an issue with an elevated route heading into Five Points or to Stockton St, so I can see an actual Skyway extension to that neighborhood.
The FEC line through San Marco makes streetcar an impossibility some sort of elevated track has to cross the rail line before it can transition to an at grade system. Some pioneers are trying to start a long term conversation of burying the FEC line from Atlantic to the bridge. Try to drive down Hendricks to work on a weekday and you'll see why this is an idea worth considering.
Although I do think this would be the best alternative, try pulling any crossing permit with FEC (or any railroad)... scoff.
Ock, you around? Any idea what the minumum turning radius would be for a streetcar? APTA states 60' to the CL of the car, could you navigate the streets of San Marco with this standard?
Turning radius: The streetcar MUST have the ability to move through an urban environment with minimal acquisition of land. The wheel-rail relationship is critical so you must plan these curves with the idea of minimizing wheel or rail wear which could in worst circumstances lead to derailments. Old streetcar systems (and San Marco, Springfield, Riverside are full of old streetcar routes just under the modern pavement) would use a curve radius of 40-50 feet centerline radius, Philadelphia uses 35 feet (think PCC Cars). Today, you'd want to use either a heritage type PCC or Tampa style heritage car (the cheap start) or go with modern articulated unit vehicles to prevent corner clips. With the line engineered (and this might include some sway in the track to allow for the classic 'button hook turn') to a modern standard of at least a 66' foot radius your choice of equipment is virtually unlimited. 82' feet if you want to build to Light Rail Standards as Tampa has done so streetcars and LRV's can co-exist on the same track. Anything below 59' feet today really limits your choices of modern streetcars.
A couple more numbers?
Figure engineering Maximum Grades at 6% but streetcars are completely capable of 9%, so a short exception in the area of our bridges is possible if needed.
Maximum speeds for streetcars 35-45 MPH depending on how it's ordered and how it's allowed to operate. Obviously a streetcar on Bay Street in mixed traffic isn't going any faster than a JTA bus or anybody else, but the JTA contention that 12 MPH is ''The Speed" is bunk, that is merely an estimated average in mixed traffic in the urban core and their own buses do no better. Give back that grand median on Pearl or Main Street and the streetcar can race your BRT bus...only it has faster acceleration. A right-of-way parallel to one of our Railroads protected by crossing gates and the same streetcar can become 'Rapid Streetcar' at 45 MPH between stations imitating Light Rail on a budget.
As for at-grade crossings, they CAN BE DONE, but they SHOULD BE AVOIDED.
I never realized how much further the stadium is from where the skyway turns by the landing.
Are the "middle cars" for the existing skyway cars not an option? Too old? Did we ever buy them? The platforms look ready for something bigger, and I remember seeing a middle car somewhere if I recall correctly.
To the best of my knowledge there's never been a "middle car". The current cars are larger than the originals though. The platforms are definitely designed for much larger trains / more trains.
The middle car was never made and the cars we have now, aren't produced anymore. They're relics.
Quote from: Captain Zissou on December 11, 2015, 11:40:06 AM
Quote from: E_Dubya on December 11, 2015, 11:17:58 AM
I wonder if any of this will incorporate Streetcar. I know that the folks of San Marco (assuming the extension would go out there) will likely be diametrically opposed to an elevated route above Hendricks. Connecting the current Kings Ave Station to the square or even down to University via Trolly would likely be the best bet.
I doubt Riverside would have an issue with an elevated route heading into Five Points or to Stockton St, so I can see an actual Skyway extension to that neighborhood.
The FEC line through San Marco makes streetcar an impossibility some sort of elevated track has to cross the rail line before it can transition to an at grade system. Some pioneers are trying to start a long term conversation of burying the FEC line from Atlantic to the bridge. Try to drive down Hendricks to work on a weekday and you'll see why this is an idea worth considering.
Here is what the LA-Port of Long Beach "bury the rail" looks like.
(http://la.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/04/AlamedaCorridor-1024x575.jpg)
The problem with burying the rail here is that you don't have a lot of elevation to work with and combined with a high water table makes maintenance a little dicey. I would hate to think what would happen if there was a hurricane surge up the St Johns, all that water will try to go into the opening.
Obviously with no seal level rise or storm surge issues to face, Reno did something similar through their downtown a few years ago. The ReTRAC project depressed over 2 miles of train track that run directly through Downtown Reno. A 54-foot wide, 33-foot deep train trench was built at the cost of $265 million, creating 120 new acres for future development at ground level. Here's a few images I took during this year's Next City conference:
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Reno/i-b6ZJTLV/0/X2/DSCF6141-L.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Reno/i-57sRmqj/0/X2/DSCF6165-L.jpg)
Around 1928 the City of South Jacksonville filed suit for cause of getting overpasses over those tracks.... Don't hold your breath on a ditch! If the ditch flooded it would sever rail freight service to the massive intermodal facility in Titusville as well as everything from the current FEC drawbridge to West Palm Beach.
It's worlds cheaper just to overpass the railroad at the various choke points and streetcar on the Skyway projection or on a surface street would have zero problem getting over the hump.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/4532831631_QJR5fG7-900x1000.jpg)
I'd say from a selling Jacksonville standpoint, whatever technology they decide to go with, if it stays elevated all the way to the Sports District (and streetcar is unique in that it is the only choice that could run on the surface or the elevated structure) it should have a terminal at Everbank Field. That Sports Complex station on the map could be the daily use station but the extra 1,000 feet or so into the stadium would make for TV opportunities unparalleled in the NFL.
The Hart Bridge ramps are wide enough to accommodate both cars and transit, if willing to allow for a road diet. In such a scenario, all you'd need is elevated infrastructure between Hogan and Liberty Streets.
With a potential system like this (that is so many spokes running off of the main line), is an automated system better for proper timing?
The NYC Subway, Chicago's EL, etc. work just fine without automation. So in little ole Jax's case, I doubt this matters. However, you'll never have anything extensive locally with an APM. Not only is it cost prohibitive, neighborhoods like Riverside and Springfield would fight to keep the elevated infrastructure from penetrating their historic boundaries. So go with APM if keeping this thing in DT only. You'll need to explore other options for anything that will actually take people to where they want to go.
NYC and Chicago have long transit spines not a bunch of short little spokes. But anyway the "concern" I expressed I am assuming is not a real concern...just curious. And obviously for the sake of historic neighborhood penetration this would not fly. I guess if JTA moves forward they'll have to compromise on station and rail locations.
Notice the ends of DC's Green, Orange, Blue and Yellow lines. The "spokes" aren't really spokes.
(http://chriswhong.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/washington-dc-metro-map-1.jpg)
Looking at the Skyway, you might have a "yellow" line that runs from Rosa Parks to San Marco and a "blue" line that runs from Rosa Parks to Healthy Town.
Same goes for NYC's Subway:
(https://thoughtcatalog.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/screen-shot-2014-08-06-at-4-48-12-pm.png?w=1200)
Look closely and you'll see several trains sharing the same track and splitting off outside of the core to serve specific parts of the city.
One more example. Miami's Metrorail before the expansion to the airport:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rq6SbC_QO6c/T51B-5McVSI/AAAAAAAAAV4/_PNf8D5N_Gc/s1600/miami_metrorail_290412.gif)
Now there's two lines with the opening of the airport "spoke":
(http://www.miami-airport.com/images/metrorail-lines-500.jpg)
In the (now retired) Mathews Bridge Replacement Plan, there were choices in the proposals to use the old span as a light rail carrier with the new automobile span on each side, or if they should build a single span with a 2 track transit way in the middle.
I would assume that any LRT to EverBank could be extended in the future to cross that new span.
On any modern rail system, including the present automated Skyway, dispatching is largely digital. Automated systems start and stop automatically to provide seamless operations, while maned operations are controlled with trackside lighting. And yes the Skyway has the trackside lighting so it CAN BE operated with operators, there are controls under the panel in the front of each car.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 12, 2015, 04:58:01 PM
Notice the ends of DC's Green, Orange, Blue and Yellow lines. The "spokes" aren't really spokes.
(http://chriswhong.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/washington-dc-metro-map-1.jpg)
You're right they aren't even spokes at all. In all of your examples these last branches make up just a small portion of each line. In the future Skyway map the longest continuous line would be 7 stations long with 8 stations on spokes...that means the main line is not even the majority of the system. Currently, in fact, the longest one is just 5 stations and I'm giving benefit of the doubt that you could eventually ride from Rosa Parks all the way to the San Marco Commuter Rail transfer without changing cars.
I have no experience planning transit (just riding it) so I'm using my own ignorant logic, but to me as a layman it seems that it requires more coordination and precision to have so many cars merging from different lines/spokes/branches, whatever you wanna call it. Whether that higher level of coordination necessitates automation or not I have no clue.
Quote from: Ocklawaha on December 12, 2015, 07:19:52 PM
On any modern rail system, including the present automated Skyway, dispatching is largely digital. Automated systems start and stop automatically to provide seamless operations, while maned operations are controlled with trackside lighting. And yes the Skyway has the trackside lighting so it CAN BE operated with operators, there are controls under the panel in the front of each car.
That makes sense.
Quote from: ProjectMaximus on December 12, 2015, 11:49:46 PM
I have no experience planning transit (just riding it) so I'm using my own ignorant logic, but to me as a layman it seems that it requires more coordination and precision to have so many cars merging from different lines/spokes/branches, whatever you wanna call it. Whether that higher level of coordination necessitates automation or not I have no clue.
I believe the Skyway currently has less than 10 total cars and a few of those don't operate anymore. Take a look at Jax's old streetcar route maps (keep in mind, you won't have something this extensive locally with the current APM)...
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Jacksonville-Streetcar-System/Original-Streetcar-Lines/870229069_PPoFr-L.jpg)
Or Toronto's (North America's largest operating streetcar system)...
(http://i.imgur.com/UjRWGyI.png)
Or CSX's system across the eastern seaboard....
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a3/CSX_Transportation_system_map.svg/2000px-CSX_Transportation_system_map.svg.png)
Nothing that JTA proposals will require a level of coordination or necessitate automation over what's been figured out and operating successfully for over a century.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 12, 2015, 04:09:01 PM
The NYC Subway, Chicago's EL, etc. work just fine without automation. So in little ole Jax's case, I doubt this matters. However, you'll never have anything extensive locally with an APM. Not only is it cost prohibitive, neighborhoods like Riverside and Springfield would fight to keep the elevated infrastructure from penetrating their historic boundaries. So go with APM if keeping this thing in DT only. You'll need to explore other options for anything that will actually take people to where they want to go.
Isn't automatic train operation (ATO) the future for transit? I know that it is widely used on the London Underground (which is the most extensive metro system outside of China) - currently on the Northern, Jubilee and Victoria lines with plans to bring it to the Circle, District, Metroplitan and Hammersmith & City lines. In fact, I think LUL plans on enetually rolling it out across the entire network at some point in the future.
I doubt that Automated People Movers (APMs) are the future of public transit. An APM (what the Skyway currently is) and ATO are two totally separate things. An APM is a type of grade separated public transit system. An ATO is an operational safety enhancement device.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 13, 2015, 07:49:25 AM
I doubt that Automated People Movers (APMs) are the future of public transit. An APM (what the Skyway currently is) and ATO are two totally separate things. An APM is a type of grade separated public transit system. An ATO is an operational safety enhancement device.
Okay - sorry, I seem to have got the wrong end of the stick. I think that was because ProjectMaximus's question (and the resulting posts) made me think of automated traing opertation, not people movers:
With a potential system like this (that is so many spokes running off of the main line), is an automated system better for proper timing?Edit: I think the DLR is more like a people mover and I can't see it being very useful for covering large areas and with large ridership numbers.
The APM technology we have was never intended to be an extensive public transit system. It was intended to be a downtown circulator that would be fed riders from a citywide transit system that was never built. For anything more extensive then the potential routes shown in Ock's post above, you'll need another type of technology.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 13, 2015, 09:19:14 AM
The APM technology we have was never intended to be an extensive public transit system. It was intended to be a downtown circulator that would be fed riders from a citywide transit system that was never built. For anything more extensive then the potential routes shown in Ock's post above, you'll need another type of technology.
Seems like it would be inefficient and would struggle with capacity as ridership increased. I can see it serving downtown well. But I think it would need to connect to more traditional rail or whatever to take people in and out from the suburbs. I also wish it weren't elevated.
Miami's Metromover APM gets over 35k daily riders. It's also free fare. Greater Downtown Miami has 80k residents and a daytime population of 220k. Metromover is also fed riders from Metrorail (Heavy Rail) and Tri Rail (commuter rail).
(http://www.mercedesbenzcorporaterun.com/assets/printable/mia-parking-garage-locations.jpg)
None of us will probably be around the day DT Jax hits 80k residents or a daytime population of 220k. So if the Skyway is to remain an APM, serving as a downtown circulator only, new vehicles carrying more passengers will probably suffice just fine because it won't get anywhere near 30k riders a day.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/632/23722560055_be1b359eaf_b.jpg)
Whatever the technology, this really isn't very hard and digital assistance with signaling makes it elementary.
For the sake of this discussion only, consider the red and black lines operate every 8 minutes, staggered between them on say 16 minute headways you mingle the smaller spurs. In the case of a in-stadium station, that final leg from the 'Sports District Station' to the 'Everbank Field Station' only operates on game or event dates.
With this being the limit of a APM type system, I'd say a spur into the Baptist Medical Complex more important then Healthy Town as we are ignoring 11,000-12,000 employees.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 13, 2015, 07:17:06 AM
Quote from: ProjectMaximus on December 12, 2015, 11:49:46 PM
I have no experience planning transit (just riding it) so I'm using my own ignorant logic, but to me as a layman it seems that it requires more coordination and precision to have so many cars merging from different lines/spokes/branches, whatever you wanna call it. Whether that higher level of coordination necessitates automation or not I have no clue.
I believe the Skyway currently has less than 10 total cars and a few of those don't operate anymore. Take a look at Jax's old streetcar route maps (keep in mind, you won't have something this extensive locally with the current APM)...
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Jacksonville-Streetcar-System/Original-Streetcar-Lines/870229069_PPoFr-L.jpg)
Or Toronto's (North America's largest operating streetcar system)...
(http://i.imgur.com/UjRWGyI.png)
Or CSX's system across the eastern seaboard....
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a3/CSX_Transportation_system_map.svg/2000px-CSX_Transportation_system_map.svg.png)
Nothing that JTA proposals will require a level of coordination or necessitate automation over what's been figured out and operating successfully for over a century.
You're still not understanding me but it's ok cause i guess the potential "problem" isnt really a problem at all lol. But for theory's sake I'll explain once more, the above examples still look like normal transit lines, they just cross every once in awhile. Only a few spurs like what I see with the Skyway. Put another way...in the Skyway you'd have to worry about other cars merging onto the same track every 1.5 stations. In the above examples you have 20 stops or more before you'd have another train potentially merging. Again...I realize my question was stupid cause it's pretty easy for human drivers to coordinate I guess.
Quote from: Ocklawaha on December 13, 2015, 10:52:31 AM
With this being the limit of a APM type system, I'd say a spur into the Baptist Medical Complex more important then Healthy Town as we are ignoring 11,000-12,000 employees.
Or at the very least that connected walkway that you've always suggested!
I understand what you're saying. I'm just not doing a good job of explaining that it isn't a problem. I think Ock's last post does a good job at answering your concern.
Quote from: Ocklawaha on December 13, 2015, 10:52:31 AM
Whatever the technology, this really isn't very hard and digital assistance with signaling makes it elementary.
For the sake of this discussion only, consider the red and black lines operate every 8 minutes, staggered between them on say 16 minute headways you mingle the smaller spurs. In the case of a in-stadium station, that final leg from the 'Sports District Station' to the 'Everbank Field Station' only operates on game or event dates.
With this being the limit of a APM type system, I'd say a spur into the Baptist Medical Complex more important then Healthy Town as we are ignoring 11,000-12,000 employees.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 13, 2015, 01:00:16 PM
I understand what you're saying. I'm just not doing a good job of explaining that it isn't a problem. I think Ock's last post does a good job at answering your concern.
8)