Looks likle JTA's lined up money to start getting ready for the robobuses.
https://floridapolitics.com/archives/336518-jacksonville-feds-finalize-funding-for-autonomous-vehicle-system
The accord allows JTA to begin using $12.5 million in discretionary grant funds to start the transition of the existing Skyway Express rail people mover into a public autonomous vehicle system. The JTA will begin planning and requests for proposals for contractors by the end of this year and start work on the system in 2021.
<snip>
The conversion of the rail system for the people mover will involve removing a concrete "track" or tongue in the middle of the raised platforms and turning the pathway into what essentially will become an elevated roadway.
Pretty sure it will take more than $62 million to convert the 2.5 miles of dual skyway decks and more than 12 to 15 driverless minivans will be needed. No need for pedestrian signals on grade separated infrastructure. This sounds like running autonomous vehicles at grade on Bay Street to the stadium.
12 vehicles filled to capacity means you could move a maximum of 120 passengers at once. God forbid if someone rolled in there with a wheelchair or bike. One articulated city bus can carry up to 200 passengers. This isn't reliable mass transit to support a vibrant urban environment. At best, it's a demonstration project to explore the pros and cons of integrating various technologies into a real life urban environment.
Aren't they extending the skyway to Brooklyn?
^Yes, that's separate from this.
Title for this project should be: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." (George Santayana)
We are about to waste more taxpayer dollars on another doomed-to-fail "pie-in'the-sky," politically sexy, ego boosting project to salvage/save face regarding the total failure of the Skyway to achieve its mission.
Just one example is that the low passenger capacity is also a big problem with the Skyway. Consultants prostituting their traffic projections to justify the project for their paying client, JTA, will be another repeated mistake. Accepting up-front Federal dollars for construction and then saddling local taxpayers with years of subsequent operating losses will be another. Examples among many of not learning from the past.
Admitting failure and starting over just isn't something Jax leaders honorably do. JTA should learn from Jeff Bezos: It's alright to fail, learn from it, and try to not repeat the same mistake. Bad enough that JTA failed with the Skyway, But compounding that disaster is JTA's weakness to not learn from, and not repeat, these poorly concieved projects. The autonomous vehicles appear to be much like the Skyway vehicles with only a different "track" and appearance. They are no faster, carry no more people, or will greatly widen the unappealing route network. Add, that this is also, initially, going down Bay Street to the Stadium, gives me the idea this might be another bone being thrown toward Mr. Kahn's interests. But, here we go again...
To put the odds of success in perspective, consider that Google, Tesla, Uber and others have spent billions of dollars and years of time plus run millions of miles trying to perfect autonomous vehicles and are still at it. So, I am at a loss as to how JTA is going to leap frog their efforts with this project. Wonder what happens after the first accident?
Quote from: thelakelander on May 30, 2020, 02:30:54 PM
Pretty sure it will take more than $62 million to convert the 2.5 miles of dual skyway decks and more than 12 to 15 driverless minivans will be needed. No need for pedestrian signals on grade separated infrastructure. This sounds like running autonomous vehicles at grade on Bay Street to the stadium.
Correct.
$44 million to build a 3-mile loop at grade between Julia Street/Central Station and TIAA Bank Field.
~$20 million for the "proof of concept" test track between the JRTC and Jefferson Station.
Full conversion is estimated to cost $350 to $400 million by JTA.
Do you feel like you've been bamboozled yet? When this started, this was supposed to dramactically be cheaper than all other options under consideration. Now we're up to $20 million to convert four blocks of infrastructure. That's light rail from scratch type numbers. The price will increase as more unknown factors are identified. The one saving grace may be that technology changes so fast, what's planned with the skyway will become less logical as time goes on.
Quote from: Ken_FSU on May 30, 2020, 06:33:08 PM
Full conversion is estimated to cost $350 to $400 million by JTA.
So double the amount that it cost to build the skyway but with less capacity. Only in Jax can something so silly be taken so seriously.
Do these still only move at like 7 mph? Why does our city embrace such awful plans with such gusto, but totally fail at maintaining or incrementally improving the systems we already have. Across the board we would rather shoot for the moon than maintain what exists. JEA, JTA, COJ, The Port Authority, etc..
This has to be the worst idea Ive ever heard. I thought we were looking for effective mass transportation that integrates nearby communities and links underprivileged areas (i.e. no cars) to jobs and services.
I feel like somebody's parents are out of town and left their kid (JTA) with a credit card.
Worst idea ever. SMH ???
Quote from: Captain Zissou on June 01, 2020, 09:16:24 AM
Do these still only move at like 7 mph? Why does our city embrace such awful plans with such gusto, but totally fail at maintaining or incrementally improving the systems we already have. Across the board we would rather shoot for the moon than maintain what exists. JEA, JTA, COJ, The Port Authority, etc..
Up to 11mph or so, as long as you sit down and buckle your seatbelt. Staff reacts to boards and most board members are politically appointed. A downfall of that is that many may be great people, but necessarily experts at the details. That makes it easier for the "sexy" George Jetson type things to gain steam instead of placing top priority on how to accomplish and excel at the basics. Nevertheless, there's nothing wrong with demos. The problem arises when you start overselling them as some sort of transformational gamechanger or solution to our basic end user mobility needs.
Quote from: icarus on June 01, 2020, 09:45:08 AM
This has to be the worst idea Ive ever heard. I thought we were looking for effective mass transportation that integrates nearby communities and links underprivileged areas (i.e. no cars) to jobs and services.
Things started that way. Somewhere along the way, it turned to forcing AVs as the desired solution, even if things like cost, capacity, land use integration, dedicated ROW, etc. haven't been sufficiently vetted.
Quote from: Ken_FSU on May 30, 2020, 06:33:08 PM
Full conversion is estimated to cost $350 to $400 million by JTA.
Oh, good lord. And chances are that number won't be accurate. So half a billion dollars to fill downtown with little pods that barely outrun someone who's good at running, hold fewer people than the existing system, and haven't actually been proven to work at this scale. My God.
It really boggles the mind. Even with all the talk here, I don't get how they could have screwed this up this badly. How is it that this entire agency is just barreling ahead with this on our dime, reason be damned? Whose bright idea even was this? When was the meeting where someone stood up and said, "let's do robot clown cars" and everyone started clapping?
The idea of putting small AVs on fixed Skyway infrastructure is already obsolete on arrival. Minus the technology aspect, you essentially have a taxi, Uber or Lyft situation at hand. You can get around with these now. Whether the service is driverless or not really doesn't matter. Your service of limiting them to fixed guideway makes you a loser right off the start. The best benefit of fixed and dedicated infrastructure is the ability to build density around stations and efficiently move large masses of people between them. Right now, we're proposing less capacity than what's already in place and not agressively coordinating and working to densify the 1/4 walkshed around all existing Skyway stations.
We don't need JTA or any public entity in the business of trying to figure out the AV world. The private sector will figure it out. No matter how much money we light on fire, we're not going to out Uber...Uber or be better than Tesla, trying to be Tesla. Take that out of the equation and we're back to making sure we resolve the most important issues regarding transit and being end user friendly. Designing for adaquate capacity, making sure transit is coordinated with surrounding land uses, having rolling stock that can carry multiple bikes, mass crowds, reliable service, decent frequencies and taking people to were they want to go. If we place a higher priority on resolving those basics, without preselecting the rolling stock, I'd think we'd end up with a dramatically different plan.
So how do we make JTA do that?
Getting JTA to go a different route, means changing the board to direct staff to go in a different direction. Since the board is politically appointed, it means getting someone elected in office, willing to put change agents in place.
That feeds into one of the 2 main problems with mass transit.
Organizations evolve to focus on and serve what feeds them. That's how they survive. 95% of JTA's transit funding, what JTA needs to survive, is money given directly to them by politicians. Just by that setup, they're always going to be focused on what the politicians are looking for.
That is to say, the politicians are the customer.
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on June 03, 2020, 12:08:34 PM
That feeds into one of the 2 main problems with mass transit.
Organizations evolve to focus on and serve what feeds them. That's how they survive. 95% of JTA's transit funding, what JTA needs to survive, is money given directly to them by politicians. Just by that setup, they're always going to be focused on what the politicians are looking for.
That is to say, the politicians are the customer.
Speaking of transit funding.... came across this yesterday:
Transportation Per Person, Per Square Mile*
Jacksonville/Duval <$1
Orlando/Orange $3
Tampa/Hillsborough $3
Miami/Dade $18
* per capita spending
Via the JU Public Policy Institute.
Quote from: Bill Hoff on June 04, 2020, 02:47:49 PM
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on June 03, 2020, 12:08:34 PM
That feeds into one of the 2 main problems with mass transit.
Organizations evolve to focus on and serve what feeds them. That's how they survive. 95% of JTA's transit funding, what JTA needs to survive, is money given directly to them by politicians. Just by that setup, they're always going to be focused on what the politicians are looking for.
That is to say, the politicians are the customer.
Speaking of transit funding.... came across this yesterday:
Transportation Per Person, Per Square Mile*
Jacksonville/Duval <$1
Orlando/Orange $3
Tampa/Hillsborough $3
Miami/Dade $18
* per capita spending
Via the JU Public Policy Institute.
Bill -
Do you have a link you could share?
Quote from: Bill Hoff on June 04, 2020, 02:47:49 PM
Speaking of transit funding.... came across this yesterday:
Transportation Per Person, Per Square Mile*
Jacksonville/Duval <$1
Orlando/Orange $3
Tampa/Hillsborough $3
Miami/Dade $18
* per capita spending
Via the JU Public Policy Institute.
Jax is low on per capita spending on transportation, education and parks, among other items (maybe social services?). We are also low on taxes. I would like to know what Jax's per capita spend is on handouts/incentives to developer projects. We are probably near the top on that list.
And we wonder why there is civil unrest?
Quote from: Bill Hoff on June 04, 2020, 02:47:49 PM
Speaking of transit funding.... came across this yesterday:
Transportation Per Person, Per Square Mile*
Jacksonville/Duval <$1
Orlando/Orange $3
Tampa/Hillsborough $3
Miami/Dade $18
* per capita spending
Via the JU Public Policy Institute.
They're doing the same thing people do with LA. LA County's got 10 million people. But it's a huge county, like 90 miles North - South, like 5 times the land of Duval County.
Anyway, they take the LA population and divide it by the size of the county. They then declare it to have a low density. But if you look at the urbanized part of the county, the urban-urban part south of the san briel mountains, it's the metro in the US. IIRC that holds true when including Orange County, too.
When talking about transit, we shouldn't be measuring all of Duval for $ per square mile. it shouldn't limited the urban-urban areas. Hell, I'm not sure what the fart dollars per sqare mile means.
Does Chipotle judge their success on how much they spend per square mile?
They really should be looking at something like the number of trips per vehicle route miles. The same with the cost.
If you look at total costs - operating, maint + capital - for the main 4 ( technically when you say Miami,there's a ton of transit operators like the city of Hallandale, etc ) PER passenger mile, it'll give you a better idea of what's going on.
Miami - $1.38
Tampa - $1.31
Orlando- $1.70
Jacksonville - $2.03
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/jta-jacksonville-regional-transportation-center-was-years-bold-accomplishment
Quote
More than 800,000 people used the Skyway and the ferry logged 423,000 customers, Ford said.
Quote
Ford said JTA will further develop and expand the Ultimate Urban Circulator autonomous vehicle program, aided by a $12.5 million federal transportation grant, Ford said.
If the 800,000 skyway trips are over the course of a year, that's a little more than 2,100 trips a day. That's more than a 50% drop in recent years and the lowest ridership in more than a decade. Not good at all.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 24, 2020, 10:49:20 PM
If the 800,000 skyway trips are over the course of a year, that's a little more than 2,100 trips a day. That's more than a 50% drop in recent years and the lowest ridership in more than a decade. Not good at all.
Lake, are your really surprised by this? This is the 30+ year history of the Skyway. And, today it's free so they can't even give sufficient numbers of rides away (and, I note, that's with the increase in Downtown living many said would drive increased use).
This article [ https://www.jacksonville.com/article/20100905/NEWS/801245281 (https://www.jacksonville.com/article/20100905/NEWS/801245281)] from 2010 is a nice recap of the Skyway's disappointing history and consistent string of dashed expectations since the day it opened over 30 years ago. Interesting that hope sprung eternal then just as some are doing today (reminds me of being a Jag's fan ;D) and the same ol' well-worn and desperate arguments to keep it going are still being proffered. It's a fool's gold.
The article notes that in 2010, the Skyway was a financial failure (and that was before it was free) even by mass transit standards. Surely, it isn't doing any better today. And, now you can add however much is the new investment to convert it to autonomous vehicles (which will also likely incur equal or greater operating losses compared to the current system) and the write-off of abandoning the existing track, cars and operating system. Can you provide those numbers for discussion?
QuoteThe system that was built for $183 million, more than half from the federal government, needs $14 million to operate each year - $1.5 million of that from Washington for maintenance alone.
In 2009, it generated only $431,000 in revenue, less than a 4 percent return. Most public transit systems lose money, but by comparison JTA's bus system made back more than 20 percent - $6.2 million - of its $30.2 million cost in 2009.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on June 25, 2020, 01:17:03 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 24, 2020, 10:49:20 PM
If the 800,000 skyway trips are over the course of a year, that's a little more than 2,100 trips a day. That's more than a 50% drop in recent years and the lowest ridership in more than a decade. Not good at all.
Lake, are your really surprised by this? This is the 30+ year history of the Skyway. And, today it's free so they can't even give sufficient numbers of rides away (and, I note, that's with the increase in Downtown living many said would drive increased use).
I'm actually not surprised. But it has less to do with the Skyway or infrastructure itself and more to do with how we run things into failure. We don't operate the thing on most weekends, we closed the LaVilla line just as soon as people started living next to it, we're five years late with attempting a no-frills stop at Brooklyn, we don't program or lease out excess space on the ground level of the stations, we still have not coordinated downtown land use and development policy around the existing skyway stops, we're still building parking garages and allowing demos for surface parking crazy and we don't operate the Skyway as a transit spine. You can't really talk about something being a failure when you've done nothing over the last 30 years but set it up to fail.
QuoteThis article [ https://www.jacksonville.com/article/20100905/NEWS/801245281 (https://www.jacksonville.com/article/20100905/NEWS/801245281)] from 2010 is a nice recap of the Skyway's disappointing history and consistent string of dashed expectations since the day it opened over 30 years ago. Interesting that hope sprung eternal then just as some are doing today (reminds me of being a Jag's fan ;D) and the same ol' well-worn and desperate arguments to keep it going are still being proffered. It's a fool's gold.
I think you're focusing too much on the Skyway itself when I'd argue it isn't the problem. It's a result of a true problem. That problem is until we change the way we do things, true Downtown revitalization itself is fool's gold. The Skyway and much of everything else will suffer until we stop the foolishness.
QuoteThe article notes that in 2010, the Skyway was a financial failure (and that was before it was free) even by mass transit standards. Surely, it isn't doing any better today. And, now you can add however much is the new investment to convert it to autonomous vehicles (which will also likely incur equal or greater operating losses compared to the current system) and the write-off of abandoning the existing track, cars and operating system. Can you provide those numbers for discussion?
I find a lot of fault with the article but there are things that can be easily done to make the system and a lot of other things in downtown more effective and financially sustainable. With that said, the U2C is simply more madness.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 24, 2020, 10:49:20 PM
If the 800,000 skyway trips are over the course of a year, that's a little more than 2,100 trips a day. That's more than a 50% drop in recent years and the lowest ridership in more than a decade. Not good at all.
Transit ridership across the country has been declining. The closure of the Jefferson St and Convention Center stations surely also had an impact.
True but not 50% pre-covid. Much of the Skyway's issues have always been self inflicted and not taking advantage of obvious opportunities.
Also, the skyway doesn't run on the weekends. So the trips per day are really around 3100.
But it does run during special events and those days are likely higher than the average weekday numbers. So it would definitely be below 3100.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 25, 2020, 08:52:53 AM
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on June 25, 2020, 01:17:03 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 24, 2020, 10:49:20 PM
If the 800,000 skyway trips are over the course of a year, that's a little more than 2,100 trips a day. That's more than a 50% drop in recent years and the lowest ridership in more than a decade. Not good at all.
Lake, are your really surprised by this? This is the 30+ year history of the Skyway. And, today it's free so they can't even give sufficient numbers of rides away (and, I note, that's with the increase in Downtown living many said would drive increased use).
I'm actually not surprised. But it has less to do with the Skyway or infrastructure itself and more to do with how we run things into failure. We don't operate the thing on most weekends, we closed the LaVilla line just as soon as people started living next to it, we're five years late with attempting a no-frills stop at Brooklyn, we don't program or lease out excess space on the ground level of the stations, we still have not coordinated downtown land use and development policy around the existing skyway stops, we're still building parking garages and allowing demos for surface parking crazy and we don't operate the Skyway as a transit spine. You can't really talk about something being a failure when you've done nothing over the last 30 years but set it up to fail.
QuoteThis article [ https://www.jacksonville.com/article/20100905/NEWS/801245281 (https://www.jacksonville.com/article/20100905/NEWS/801245281)] from 2010 is a nice recap of the Skyway's disappointing history and consistent string of dashed expectations since the day it opened over 30 years ago. Interesting that hope sprung eternal then just as some are doing today (reminds me of being a Jag's fan ;D) and the same ol' well-worn and desperate arguments to keep it going are still being proffered. It's a fool's gold.
I think you're focusing too much on the Skyway itself when I'd argue it isn't the problem. It's a result of a true problem. That problem is until we change the way we do things, true Downtown revitalization itself is fool's gold. The Skyway and much of everything else will suffer until we stop the foolishness.
QuoteThe article notes that in 2010, the Skyway was a financial failure (and that was before it was free) even by mass transit standards. Surely, it isn't doing any better today. And, now you can add however much is the new investment to convert it to autonomous vehicles (which will also likely incur equal or greater operating losses compared to the current system) and the write-off of abandoning the existing track, cars and operating system. Can you provide those numbers for discussion?
I find a lot of fault with the article but there are things that can be easily done to make the system and a lot of other things in downtown more effective and financially sustainable. With that said, the U2C is simply more madness.
Right, it's not like urban circulators are inherently flawed. It's that Jacksonville has spent decades incompetently managing urban transit & especially urban development.
Looking at the station placements it's really saddening how many surface lots are immediately next to them. Every single station on the South bank is flanked by a massive surface parking lot... On the North bank 3/5 stations are flanked by surface parking lots.
If we took mass transit seriously, we would provide incentive to building hubs of density around each station. The more dense your building, the more incentive you get. Each station should be flanked by mid/high rise housing, hotel and multi-use mid/high rise buildings. Large garages with street level restuarant/retail should be at each terminus.
Doing this would maximize the usage of the skyway by diversifying the structures around each station. It would also help keep traffic out of the core.
I know it's a hot topic for debate, but the system should be progressively expanded towards the Sports District. Start off by building off the available extension slot on Bay Street to the lot where the Landing used to be. It would be expensive, but it would put The Times Union Center, Vystar, and Wells Fargo buildings all in a transit spot. It would also give someone a reason to develop something really nice where the Landing used to be.
The next leg would go to the former courthouse land. This would be a prime location for the Hyatt and Berkman residents. It would encourage travelers to use the Hyatt, boost the value of the lots around the Hyatt and give reason to complete Berkman II.
The final leg would be the longest and most expensive, but by this point we would have created enough density around each station to justify it. Here we would run track all the way to Lot X. There should be expansion slots just after Catherine street and at the terminus, just in case future developments allow for further expansion.
Quote from: jaxjaguar on June 25, 2020, 04:15:21 PM
Looking at the station placements it's really saddening how many surface lots are immediately next to them. Every single station on the South bank is flanked by a massive surface parking lot... On the North bank 3/5 stations are flanked by surface parking lots.
If we took mass transit seriously, we would provide incentive to building hubs of density around each station. The more dense your building, the more incentive you get. Each station should be flanked by mid/high rise housing, hotel and multi-use mid/high rise buildings. Large garages with street level restuarant/retail should be at each terminus.
Doing this would maximize the usage of the skyway by diversifying the structures around each station. It would also help keep traffic out of the core.
I know it's a hot topic for debate, but the system should be progressively expanded towards the Sports District. Start off by building off the available extension slot on Bay Street to the lot where the Landing used to be. It would be expensive, but it would put The Times Union Center, Vystar, and Wells Fargo buildings all in a transit spot. It would also give someone a reason to develop something really nice where the Landing used to be.
The next leg would go to the former courthouse land. This would be a prime location for the Hyatt and Berkman residents. It would encourage travelers to use the Hyatt, boost the value of the lots around the Hyatt and give reason to complete Berkman II.
The final leg would be the longest and most expensive, but by this point we would have created enough density around each station to justify it. Here we would run track all the way to Lot X. There should be expansion slots just after Catherine street and at the terminus, just in case future developments allow for further expansion.
This is great, I totally agree. The challenge is the failure in leadership at COJ and JTA that instead mean that we're just now getting the ball rolling on TOD at Rosa Parks, and instead of finding a real fixed transit solution from a more reliable manufacturer and leveraging our existing assets, we're betting the farm on AVs and repeating our own mistakes from 40 years ago.
Quote from: jaxjaguar on June 25, 2020, 04:15:21 PM
Looking at the station placements it's really saddening how many surface lots are immediately next to them. Every single station on the South bank is flanked by a massive surface parking lot... On the North bank 3/5 stations are flanked by surface parking lots.
If we took mass transit seriously, we would provide incentive to building hubs of density around each station. The more dense your building, the more incentive you get. Each station should be flanked by mid/high rise housing, hotel and multi-use mid/high rise buildings. Large garages with street level restuarant/retail should be at each terminus.
Doing this would maximize the usage of the skyway by diversifying the structures around each station. It would also help keep traffic out of the core.
I know it's a hot topic for debate, but the system should be progressively expanded towards the Sports District. Start off by building off the available extension slot on Bay Street to the lot where the Landing used to be. It would be expensive, but it would put The Times Union Center, Vystar, and Wells Fargo buildings all in a transit spot. It would also give someone a reason to develop something really nice where the Landing used to be.
The next leg would go to the former courthouse land. This would be a prime location for the Hyatt and Berkman residents. It would encourage travelers to use the Hyatt, boost the value of the lots around the Hyatt and give reason to complete Berkman II.
The final leg would be the longest and most expensive, but by this point we would have created enough density around each station to justify it. Here we would run track all the way to Lot X. There should be expansion slots just after Catherine street and at the terminus, just in case future developments allow for further expansion.
Jaxjaguar, as noted, in theory this is all great. In the reality of Jacksonville, it isn't. And while there are many here saying that leadership is the biggest problem with the Skyway (which I totally agree), it's not all of it. The Skyway just isn't people friendly. It carries few people, its slow, it's elevated creating a psychological block (like the Intracoastal is to Beach residents 8) ), it's expensive, it's inflexible and it is not the best solution when measured on many levels against other mass transit options.
FYI, the station on the Omni block was actually contested by the developer of that block. That's right. He didn't want to give up his land by eminent domain for the Skyway because he saw no value to his property from it. And, he was right. When the Skyway got built, many shops, some in business for nearly a hundred years, along streets it went down closed up for good. And, nothing has really come back to replace them. So, if the Skyway appealed to the private sector that much, we would already have developers self-motivated to do what you advocate for and what is around the Skyway would already be increasing ridership. None of that appears to be happening other than by random happenstance at best.
The arguments for building and keeping the Skyway have been recycled since it was conceived over 40 years ago. Not one of them has stood the test of time for any excuse you want to pick. And, nothing is on the horizon to indicate it will be any different for the next 40 years. The real debate should be, if we have $xx million to spend on sustaining the Skyway, could we spend that same money on another option and get a lot more bang for the buck. That's what the private sector would do. And, if I suspect, the better answer is the latter, we would move on. But, no one is seriously looking at other options. We just go into the default mode of we have to keep the Skyway running, come hell or high water, and invest good money after bad. That's my beef.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 24, 2020, 10:49:20 PM
If the 800,000 skyway trips are over the course of a year, that's a little more than 2,100 trips a day. That's more than a 50% drop in recent years and the lowest ridership in more than a decade. Not good at all.
keep in mind parts of the system have been closed for the last two years
^Oh yeah, I'm aware.
Quote from: jaxjaguar on June 25, 2020, 04:15:21 PM
Looking at the station placements it's really saddening how many surface lots are immediately next to them. Every single station on the South bank is flanked by a massive surface parking lot... On the North bank 3/5 stations are flanked by surface parking lots.
If we took mass transit seriously, we would provide incentive to building hubs of density around each station. The more dense your building, the more incentive you get. Each station should be flanked by mid/high rise housing, hotel and multi-use mid/high rise buildings. Large garages with street level restuarant/retail should be at each terminus.
Doing this would maximize the usage of the skyway by diversifying the structures around each station. It would also help keep traffic out of the core.
I know it's a hot topic for debate, but the system should be progressively expanded towards the Sports District. Start off by building off the available extension slot on Bay Street to the lot where the Landing used to be. It would be expensive, but it would put The Times Union Center, Vystar, and Wells Fargo buildings all in a transit spot. It would also give someone a reason to develop something really nice where the Landing used to be.
The next leg would go to the former courthouse land. This would be a prime location for the Hyatt and Berkman residents. It would encourage travelers to use the Hyatt, boost the value of the lots around the Hyatt and give reason to complete Berkman II.
The final leg would be the longest and most expensive, but by this point we would have created enough density around each station to justify it. Here we would run track all the way to Lot X. There should be expansion slots just after Catherine street and at the terminus, just in case future developments allow for further expansion.
My thoughts haven't changed from a decade ago.
1. The DIA and JTA should have a coordinated development strategy to cluster infill and adaptive reuse within the walkshed off every existing Skyway station. This should have been done years ago when the real estate market was booming. Now we may have to realistically wait another decade to reap the benefits of such coordination.
2. Open a no frills Brooklyn station. Just get it done. Not having direct access to the only booming area within the DIA's boundaries has been a big miss. Luckily moves are finally being made after declarations that it wasn't feasible and that it would be too expensive.
3. Find a way to run 7 days a week, even if it means running an on-call service of sorts on the weekends. You can't coordinate transit and land use if the transit pick and chooses when it will be made available.
4. Make and run the Skyway like a transit spine. This can be done by eliminating the duplication between bus service and the Skyway.....even with the newer BRT lines. We've eliminated some duplication with the systemwide modification project a few years back (one of the best things JTA has done recently, IMO) but we can trim more downtown.
5. Take advantage of the massive footprint of the existing Skyway stations. They are great opportunities for various types of businesses, could generate some minor rental income and more importantly, offer increased attraction to ride the existing 2.5 mile system.
6. I wouldn't not consider any expansion of infrastructure before handling the five items above. Then before potential expansion, we'd need to really figure out what the hell we're doing and expecting with AVs.
7. To better get a read on their acceptance and operations, I'd shift to a real life demonstration by running a pilot program between the JRTC (or Jefferson Station) to Five Points via Park Street. We need an easy straight shot with a viable seven day/week destination at the end point. Using Park Street to connect Five Points to Downtown is the easiest. Based on how this plays out, it will let you know a lot about how much time, money and effort should be spent in screwing with the Skyway's infrastructure for what could very well likely be another Skywayish gimmick.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on June 25, 2020, 07:31:32 PM
Jaxjaguar, as noted, in theory this is all great. In the reality of Jacksonville, it isn't. And while there are many here saying that leadership is the biggest problem with the Skyway (which I totally agree), it's not all of it. The Skyway just isn't people friendly. It carries few people, its slow, it's elevated creating a psychological block (like the Intracoastal is to Beach residents 8) ), it's expensive, it's inflexible and it is not the best solution when measured on many levels against other mass transit options.
The infrastructure isn't any different from the El in Chicago, the Metromover or Metrorail in Miami, or the Skytrain in Vancouver. There's nothing wrong with being fixed if you have an environment where fixed transit is needed to move a mass amount of people. We once had that but we've blown most of it up since 1970. So what isn't people friendly is actually Downtown. I believe anything you go with will fail until we integrate the transportation aspect with the land use.
By the same token, I do believe it is silly to convert a fixed guideway system into something for AVs that have the capacity of minivans. In this case, you would be better just running the public comparable of Uber on the street. But just acknowledge you won't have a transit system able to move mass amounts of people in a vibrant downtown (maybe we don't really want one and the things that come with it) and accept that the private sector can likely do it better.
QuoteFYI, the station on the Omni block was actually contested by the developer of that block. That's right. He didn't want to give up his land by eminent domain for the Skyway because he saw no value to his property from it. And, he was right. When the Skyway got built, many shops, some in business for nearly a hundred years, along streets it went down closed up for good.
The thing didn't need to run on private ROW. That's a planning failure, not an infrastructure failure. Also, when it was constructed, downtown was in a free fall. Nearly every move we made at that time was both counterproductive fro the infrastructure installed and keeping downtown alive. In other words, I'd argue the economic issue and planning around it was and remains significantly larger than the Skyway infrastructure being a major obstacle.
QuoteAnd, nothing has really come back to replace them. So, if the Skyway appealed to the private sector that much, we would already have developers self-motivated to do what you advocate for and what is around the Skyway would already be increasing ridership. None of that appears to be happening other than by random happenstance at best.
There's no land use policy or strategy in place to draw development within walking distance to Skyway stations. While we have some TAD (Transit Adjacent Development) like Kings Avenue Station and Jefferson Street Station, it will be hard to leverage TOD when the T isn't present and available every day.
QuoteThe arguments for building and keeping the Skyway have been recycled since it was conceived over 40 years ago. Not one of them has stood the test of time for any excuse you want to pick. And, nothing is on the horizon to indicate it will be any different for the next 40 years.
My top five points have never been addressed together in 40 years. But they seem to work just fine in other cities.
^Pretty much. We'll continue having them because nothing has changed. When you think about it, we've been having the same conversation about downtown revitalization since the 1950s.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 25, 2020, 08:12:22 PM
But just acknowledge you won't have a transit system able to move mass amounts of people in a vibrant downtown (maybe we don't really want one and the things that come with it) and accept that the private sector can likely do it better.
Mass transit was appropriate for a day in age - a century ago - when you could have your Ford in any color you wanted just as long as you wanted it in black.
It's 2020. Mass transit went the way of the dodo bird, just like mass factories in the urban core that had 4,000 employees. Those days are long, long, long gone.
Jacksonville doesn't have the density, not residential nor commercial, to half-way support anything like the Skyway. Nothing close to it. You've have to see things downtown grow to 4,5, 10 times to what they are. That ain't gonna happen, not tomorrow, not for generations from now.
It's long past time to tear the damn thing down.
Orlando is a prime example of how good leadership and foresight can completely change a downtown.
They went from having nearly as many vacant buildings and lots as Jacksonville to completely flipping into a dense urban center. They provided heavy incentives for Mid-high rise residences and it shows. There are still some vacant areas, but up until the virus slowed things down there were new projects lined up every other month, because at a certain point the growth starts sustaining itself without the need for as many incentives. It's cheaper to "start the fire now" than to wait 10 more years because inflation will always make things more expensive.
Tearing down the skyway would be admitting defeat and saying, "there's no hope for us to ever have a great urban core"
Orlando, Tampa, Charlotte and Miami are good examples of why this statement doesn't hold up when a community makes good decisions during an economic boom:
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on June 26, 2020, 11:33:57 AM
Mass transit was appropriate for a day in age - a century ago - when you could have your Ford in any color you wanted just as long as you wanted it in black.
It's 2020. Mass transit went the way of the dodo bird, just like mass factories in the urban core that had 4,000 employees. Those days are long, long, long gone.
Jacksonville doesn't have the density, not residential nor commercial, to half-way support anything like the Skyway. Nothing close to it. You've have to see things downtown grow to 4,5, 10 times to what they are. That ain't gonna happen, not tomorrow, not for generations from now.
It's long past time to tear the damn thing down.
Get yourself together and you can have a completely different outcome and environment ten years down the road. Keep tearing stuff down and low quality replacements and you'll find yourself with a downtown in worse condition than it is now.
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on June 26, 2020, 11:33:57 AM
It's 2020. Mass transit went the way of the dodo bird, just like mass factories in the urban core that had 4,000 employees. Those days are long, long, long gone.
LOL, this guy
Is the Skyway currently operating?
Quote from: sanmarcomatt on June 26, 2020, 09:08:12 AM
Is it just me or have the same threads on the skyway for 10 years been just repeated with people using the same complaints and others the same argument that we just can't dump the skyway because of the cost of the "give backs" and oh, what a waste that would be. We just need to take advantage of what we have!
I am sure it will different his time.
40 years
I've got the Skyway on the brain right now, and I noticed this post:
Quote from: thelakelander on June 25, 2020, 07:54:25 PM
My thoughts haven't changed from a decade ago.
1. The DIA and JTA should have a coordinated development strategy to cluster infill and adaptive reuse within the walkshed off every existing Skyway station. This should have been done years ago when the real estate market was booming. Now we may have to realistically wait another decade to reap the benefits of such coordination.
2. Open a no frills Brooklyn station. Just get it done. Not having direct access to the only booming area within the DIA's boundaries has been a big miss. Luckily moves are finally being made after declarations that it wasn't feasible and that it would be too expensive.
3. Find a way to run 7 days a week, even if it means running an on-call service of sorts on the weekends. You can't coordinate transit and land use if the transit pick and chooses when it will be made available.
4. Make and run the Skyway like a transit spine. This can be done by eliminating the duplication between bus service and the Skyway.....even with the newer BRT lines. We've eliminated some duplication with the systemwide modification project a few years back (one of the best things JTA has done recently, IMO) but we can trim more downtown.
5. Take advantage of the massive footprint of the existing Skyway stations. They are great opportunities for various types of businesses, could generate some minor rental income and more importantly, offer increased attraction to ride the existing 2.5 mile system.
6. I wouldn't not consider any expansion of infrastructure before handling the five items above. Then before potential expansion, we'd need to really figure out what the hell we're doing and expecting with AVs.
7. To better get a read on their acceptance and operations, I'd shift to a real life demonstration by running a pilot program between the JRTC (or Jefferson Station) to Five Points via Park Street. We need an easy straight shot with a viable seven day/week destination at the end point. Using Park Street to connect Five Points to Downtown is the easiest. Based on how this plays out, it will let you know a lot about how much time, money and effort should be spent in screwing with the Skyway's infrastructure for what could very well likely be another Skywayish gimmick.
The thing I'm wondering is, why isn't this something louder? Why isn't there an "Idiot's Guide To Fixing The Skyway" article? Why isn't that article getting pushed on all the social media networks and whatever news stations will run it? I guess in a broader sense, this site could really do better at telling people how easy these ideas are to implement, and how beneficial they would be. Sure, maybe we can't afford sexy renderings, but surely there's a better strategy to getting more people to see and agree with this stuff.
QuoteI guess in a broader sense, this site could really do better at telling people how easy these ideas are to implement, and how beneficial they would be. Sure, maybe we can't afford sexy renderings, but surely there's a better strategy to getting more people to see and agree with this stuff.
Back in the day, I used to be more active covering transportation planning topics. However, I've worked full time outside of Jacksonville since 2017, which has limited the amount of coverage I can personally provide. Anyway, with COVID and working remotely right now, we're in the process of coordinating an interview with JTA to discuss their various initiatives. Much of what I will target will be things along this line and not typical press release type stuff we tend to get locally.
That's fair. And good to know, some holding them to account would be nice.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on September 13, 2020, 11:55:10 PM
Why isn't there an "Idiot's Guide To Fixing The Skyway" article?
The Skyway isn't broken. It's working as designed.
The - if it only went to <insert place> - rhetoric happens with all of the failed fixed-rail projects. The ( antiquated ) technology is the problem, not the places served.
^The land use is broken. The technology doesn't matter from that perspective. JTA/COJ/DIA/DDRB, etc. need to fix that before spending big money on anything.
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on September 14, 2020, 11:42:19 AM
The Skyway isn't broken. It's working as designed.
The - if it only went to <insert place> - rhetoric happens with all of the failed fixed-rail projects. The ( antiquated ) technology is the problem, not the places served.
The technology wasn't always antiquated and it still didn't deliver (not even close at 10% or less of "expert" consultants' projections for what was phase I and has been repeated over and over). It hasn't delivered since the day it was built, additions were made, it was made free, etc. And, it won't with the "new" technology that is a mere update of the failed technology (low capacity, slow moving, limited access, expensive to operate and maintain, questionable reliability, etc.).
In 20 years, people will still be laughing at this very expensive joke of a project which unfortunately is at the expense of taxpayers. (Not-so-funny, we are willing to buy out the Feds on Metro Park and do the same for the Landing but wouldn't consider cutting our substantial yearly losses by doing so with the Skyway (politics tells me we should be able to wiggle out of this anyway). No ROI analysis would justify keeping this alive. I wish Curry and Co. spent the $39 million to tear down the Hart ramps on tearing this down. It's the only demolition project he would have allowed that I could agree with 8).
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on September 14, 2020, 07:52:57 PM
It's the only demolition project he would have allowed that I could agree with 8).
Wouldn't the city have to pay back the federal money spent if they tear it down or has the time table changed on that front?
Quote from: JeffreyS on September 14, 2020, 11:08:39 PM
Wouldn't the city have to pay back the federal money spent if they tear it down
Yes.
Even if we didn't have to pay the fed back, tearing the skyway down would be the dumbest thing we could possibly do... For the cost to tear it down we could fully fund 2-3 massive residential projects along the skyways route. Obviously we'd never fully fund any projects like that, but when you spread that money out you could partially fund 3-4 residential projects that would boost the number of people downtown by 1500-2500 and still have money left over to do some nice improvement projects for local businesses, landscaping, lighting, etc.
Quote from: jaxjaguar on September 16, 2020, 12:34:22 AM
For the cost to tear it down we could fully fund 2-3 massive residential projects along the skyways route. Obviously we'd never fully fund any projects like that, but when you spread that money out you could partially fund 3-4 residential projects that would boost the number of people downtown by 1500-2500 and still have money left over to do some nice improvement projects for local businesses, landscaping, lighting, etc.
That sounds exactly why this city would end up tearing it down. The political machine that has run the place since after Delaney seems to be allergic to the idea of responsibly spending taxpayer dollars to improve things. It's always Moon or Bust, with emphasis on the Bust.
Given that the apparent land use issue is being made pretty clear here, spending money to end up with nothing, although very in character, doesn't make much sense. If we had that attitude with roads, probably a third of the county would be kicking up dust to get anywhere.
The dumbest thing one could do was building the skyway.
The 2nd dumbest is expanding a colossal failure.
Third dumbest not tearing down the skyway.
Anything done with it is nothing more than throwing good money after bad.
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on September 16, 2020, 12:17:49 PM
The dumbest thing one could do was building the skyway.
The 2nd dumbest is expanding a colossal failure.
Third dumbest not tearing down the skyway.
Anything done with it is nothing more than throwing good money after bad.
bl8jaxnative, we don't agree on many things but we agree 110% on this!
If people would add up the annual operating losses plus the continued investment to constantly "update" the system to keep it alive, we could easily justify its closure. For those who think we couldn't weasel out of a penalty to the Feds, this should justify easily paying it based on the ROI. Although, I think political pull should substantially reduce or eliminate said penalty making the decision to kill the Skyway even easier.
My other point is we are paying $39 million to tear down the Hart Ramps, $15 to $20 million to demolish the Landing, millions more to demolish the old City Hall and subsidize the District and Lot J/Shipyards and the ROI on those projects, if any at all, pales compared to the ROI for using said dollars on ensuring the demise of the Skyway.
If people want more dollars for Downtown, stop having them siphoned off by the Skyway. It is also is a black eye with the City populace at large for Downtown, holding back public opinion/support for other "grandiose" Downtown projects.
The DIA isn't spending money on the Skyway, just like it's not paying for the upkeep of the Mathews Bridge, Mayport Ferry or JTA Flyer. If you want Downtown money, take a look at the parking subsidies we're paying MPS. That's more and does come directly out of the downtown budget. Also, the black eye of Downtown isn't a people mover. If that's the case, the same argument would apply to DT Miami and Detroit, where the Skyway siblings operate. The black eye is the emptiness of central business district itself. I get some don't like the Skyway, but let's be real about the true issues dragging Downtown down. Demolishing buildings, blowing DT funds on gimmicks like Lot J, killing things that worked like kids kampus, encouraging surface parking lots, not clustering infill development, not valuing preservation and local unique history, not investing in public amenities like parks, streetscapes, public education, etc. are the things that add up to negatively impact urban vibrancy. Skyway or no Skyway, keep doing these things and the place will still remain empty.
Lake, I fully agree with your take about issues with Downtown.
My point is that apart from these other issues with Downtown, the Skyway is not a viable project on its own merits, regardless of what happens with Downtown. I never said DIA spent money on the Skyway. What I am saying is funds, no matter the source, whether City, State, Feds, JTA, FDOT, USDOT, etc., for these projects detract from spending such funds on things that might benefit Downtown far more.
I get that Miami and Detroit have kept siblings going, but I am not convinced our Skyway is directly comparable due to the set up unique to Jacksonville.
I note that Miami's Metromover is free, connects to two Metrorail stations, has a loop route and may have larger cars. Miami also has a far denser downtown around it that we are nowhere close to. With all that, they get about 30,000 riders a day per the article below. They pay about 4 times our annual subsidy and get 6 times the riders. If that is what Miami gets with all its advantages (free, density, connectivity, larger cars, etc.), we will never get enough riders to justify our investment. I also didn't see mention of spending big bucks to further expand their "popular" system (see second quote below).
The Detroit system charges 75 cents but shares other advantages with Miami including its a loop and denser area. Like Jacksonville, it has a fraction of the potential ridership promised at far greater costs than other modes of transit. A move to expand it was changed to adding a street car line instead. This experience is more similar to Jacksonville than not so Detroit is not an example of success. (FYI, Detroit closed down its system in March until further notice due to lack of ridership, from COVID, I suppose. Can't be too vital based on that.)
MIAMI:
Quote
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2015/09/21/how-the-skyways-counterpart-is-a-big-success-in-a.html (https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2015/09/21/how-the-skyways-counterpart-is-a-big-success-in-a.html)
Our Skyway's cousin is the popular one.
When Jacksonville's people mover got federal funding to construct the initial infrastructure, two other cities were also part of the automated people mover revolution: Detroit and Miami.
For as much as Jacksonville's system has languished, Miami's Metromover has flourished.
"It has its role in Downtown in easing mobility in Downtown Miami," said Karla Damian, a spokeswoman with Miami-Dade Transit.
The service extends 4.4 miles. It travels throughout central Downtown Miami. It includes stops in the financial district, where there are high-end residences and commerce centers, as well as the entertainment district. One stop is just steps away from the arena where the Miami Heat plays.
"People love it," Damian said. "It's widely used. They go from place to place Downtown."
About 30,600 people on average board the Metromover on a weekday, she said. That's a 7 percent increase from last year. In comparison, the Skyway's daily ridership is about 5,000.
And while Miami is a much larger city than Jacksonville, Damian said it's still a significant chunk of people who are using the Metromover. The city's Metrorail, it's heavy rail system, has a ridership of about 70,000. The bulk of mass transit ridership goes to the city's bus system: 200,000 people boarding it per day.
The Metromover also connects to the Metrorail, which Damian said is similar to the heavy rail systems in Washington, D.C., or New York, but is elevated.
The Metromover consists of four large cars, which were last updated a few years ago. Bombardier, the manufacturer of the Skyway, made this version of Miami's vehicles. In 2002, Miami residents voted to have a half-cent tax increase in order to have the Metromover free to the public.
Damian said it costs Miami-Dade Transit about $22.5 million per year to maintain the system (the Jacksonville Transportation Authority budgeted $5.5 million for the Skyway for 2016), but the investment is worthwhile.
"In a sense of mobility, there's a return on investment," she said. "It's easy for people to go from one place to another. It's convenient."
Even with the above, an expansion to South Beach was moving in this direction vs. expanding the Metromover:
Quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metromover (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metromover)
More recently, proposals for a separate, most likely at-grade, light-rail system known as BayLink have been revived.[23][2]
DETROIT:
Quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_People_Mover (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_People_Mover)
....The Mover costs $12 million annually in city and state subsidies to run.[13] The cost-effectiveness of the Mover has drawn criticism.[14] In every year between 1997 and 2006, the cost per passenger mile exceeded $3, and was $4.26 in 2009,[15] compared with Detroit bus routes that operate at $0.82[15] (the New York City Subway operates at $0.30 per passenger mile). The Mackinac Center for Public Policy also charges that the system does not benefit locals, pointing out that fewer than 30% of the riders are Detroit residents and that Saturday ridership (likely out-of-towners) dwarfs that of weekday usage.[13]
The system was designed to move up to 15 million riders a year. In 2008 it served approximately 2 million riders. This meant the system averaged about 7,500 people per day, about 2.5 percent of its daily peak capacity of 288,000.[16][17] In 2006, the Mover filled less than 10 percent of its seats.[13]....
....There have been proposals to extend the People Mover northward to the New Center and neighborhoods not within walking distance of the city's downtown. A proposal was put forward by Marsden Burger, former manager of the People Mover, to double the length of the route by extending the People Mover along Woodward Avenue to West Grand Boulevard and into the New Center area.[24] New stops would have included the Amtrak station, Wayne State University and the cultural center, the Detroit Medical Center, and the Henry Ford Hospital. The plan was proposed at a tentative cost of $150–200 million, and would have been paid for by a combination of public and private financing.[25] It was ultimately decided that the system would instead be connected to New Center by a streetcar line following much of the proposed route....
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on September 19, 2020, 04:06:31 PM
Lake, I fully agree with your take about issues with Downtown.
My point is that apart from these other issues with Downtown, the Skyway is not a viable project on its own merits, regardless of what happens with Downtown. I never said DIA spent money on the Skyway. What I am saying is funds, no matter the source, whether City, State, Feds, JTA, FDOT, USDOT, etc., for these projects detract from spending such funds on things that might benefit Downtown far more.
Not exactly. Federal money is just as likely to be spent in LA or DC as it is Jax. Orlando witnessed this when they rejected a proposed LRT system that would have been 75% federally and state funded. The federal portion of that lost money went to Charlotte's initial LRT line. 20 years later, Orlando is still wishing for LRT.
QuoteI get that Miami and Detroit have kept siblings going, but I am not convinced our Skyway is directly comparable due to the set up unique to Jacksonville.
Now you're getting to what I've been trying to say about downtown. The differences between Downtown Miami, Detroit and Jax is leadership around land use, zoning and clustering, complementing uses within a compact setting. Mobility isn't the primary issue with these systems and they certainly aren't prohibiting any type of downtown development in any city.
QuoteI note that Miami's Metromover is free, connects to two Metrorail stations, has a loop route and may have larger cars. Miami also has a far denser downtown around it that we are nowhere close to. With all that, they get about 30,000 riders a day per the article below. They pay about 4 times our annual subsidy and get 6 times the riders. If that is what Miami gets with all its advantages (free, density, connectivity, larger cars, etc.), we will never get enough riders to justify our investment. I also didn't see mention of spending big bucks to further expand their "popular" system (see second quote below).
The people mover is intended to be a downtown circulator that is fed ridership from the larger network. In the case of Miami, it not only built the metromover in the 1980s, it also got metrorail built between Hialeah and Dadeland. Metromover was also built to end at destinations to the north (Omni Mall) and south (Brickell Financial District) of the CBD. Miami also changed its zoning code to a form-based code 20 years ago and pushes transit oriented development around its stations. So what was called metrofail back in the early 1990s is now an important part of its multimodal network because of coordinated land use strategies. Also, public transit doesn't make money. By the same token, neither does I-95, Main Street, the Acosta Bridge, Jax-Baldwin Rail Trail, etc. If you're going to start looking at direct subsidies, you'll need to include the property tax revenue generated from the high density TOD that has been built in the pedestrian walk shed of Miami's Metromover and Metrorail stations. You don't get that type of density without the transportation network in place to support it.
QuoteThe Detroit system charges 75 cents but shares other advantages with Miami including its a loop and denser area. Like Jacksonville, it has a fraction of the potential ridership promised at far greater costs than other modes of transit. A move to expand it was changed to adding a street car line instead. This experience is more similar to Jacksonville than not so Detroit is not an example of success. (FYI, Detroit closed down its system in March until further notice due to lack of ridership, from COVID, I suppose. Can't be too vital based on that.)
I'm not here to defend cooked up consultant ridership numbers from the 1970s. I've always been the person in my field to recommend being honest and transparent with these studies. Agencies should stop telling the public that these projects are going to be transformational and lead to crazy numbers. As for Detroit, the people mover is a one way loop, which can get pretty annoying if you want to go in the opposite direction. Unlike Miami and Jax, Detroit was already 30 years into an economic free fall when the people mover opened. However, they didn't go as crazy as we did with the downtown demos in the 1990s and 2000s. Detroit is still falling in population but downtown has rebounded quite well in the 2000s and the adaptive reuse of long vacant skyscrapers near people mover stations has been an important part of that experience. Brightline also ceased operations to South Florida CBDs due to COVID. With CBDs being impacted most during this pandemic with office workers working from home, I wouldn't use the temporary shut down of the Detroit people mover as proof of it being a complete failure and having no use in that city's renaissance. The reality is, Detroit is still largely an event based downtown and with the casinos limited, sporting events limited and big conventions and trade shows at Cobo Hall ceased at the moment and most of the new downtown housing being along the new streetcar line, there's no reason to run it.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 20, 2020, 09:41:01 AM20 years later, Orlando is still wishing for LRT.
A vocal few due, especially the developers looking to cash in on it at the expense of others. The rest are too busy trying to figure out how to wasting good money on the Sun Rail disaster to comment on LRT.
Quote from: thelakelander on January 27, 1975, 08:22:06 AM
You don't get that type of density without the transportation network in place to support it.
Not only can you but it exists all over. Chicago's Hanson Park or Bellvue, WA are a few example. Downtown Denver has far more people than Miami and no people mover. Movement studies have shwon resident's don't use LRT to get around the area.
White elephants like Miami's people mover correlate with these things; they don't cause them. Nor are they cataylist. They're a leach. Like in Denver, movements that would be made by foot, bus, bike and taxi are pulled into the people mover. It leads to big fancy numbers that tend to be very small compared to total movements in the area. The areas growth drives the ridership; not vice versa.
But that's just my two-bits worth.
You're basically proving my point about the need to integrate land use policy and fixed transit infrastructure investment into a multimodal atmosphere:
Chicago's Hanson Park has at least two Metra stations. In general, Chicago is a very bad example to make against investing in fixed transit systems. Metra isn't making money on running commuter services though.
Denver is one of the most transit friendly up and comers in the country. Downtown Denver has greatly benefited from the coordination of their public investments and land use policies. Again, a poor example when you consider its built around former streetcar lines, a major railroad passenger hub and the amount of LRT, commuter rail, BRT with dedicated ROW that they've invested in over the decades. RTD isn't making money on running LRT, buses and commuter rail though.
As for Bellevue, it's a vertical surburban office park. It doesn't have the density that Miami does and has been continuing the densify. That's an apples and oranges comparison at best.
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on May 30, 2020, 11:12:46 AM
The accord allows JTA to begin using $12.5 million in discretionary grant funds to start the transition of the existing Skyway Express rail people mover into a public autonomous vehicle system. The JTA will begin planning and requests for proposals for contractors by the end of this year and start work on the system in 2021.
We're getting close to the end of the year now. Any idea how far along they've gotten on this boondoggle since then?
Using the Kenosha model, adjusted for inflation, we should be able to build 77 miles of Streetcar for that price. Double the cost and we'd still be north of 30 miles of Rapid-Streetcar (Rapid Streetcar uses streetcar vehicles which are smaller than Light-Rail types, but adopts exclusive lanes and right-of-way to make full use of their 35-45 mph top speeds, aircraft-like acceleration, 50-300+ passenger capacity, but lightly built First Coast Flyer type stations).