Why Build A Streetcar in Jacksonville?

[Captain Zissou]

I was just asking a question in general, not necessarily to you, but I appreciate that you singled me out and tried to belittle me in your response.  

Believe me, I 'get it'.  I'm well aware that the skyway is losing money and has fallen embarrassingly short of its projected numbers.  I understand that very few people ride it.  I also know that it has many flaws and fails to connect many parts of downtown.  How do I know this? Because I ride it at least once a week.  

I also drive down beach, Atlantic, Baymeadows, and JTB.  These are all tools for getting citizens of Jacksonville from point A to point B.  In that regard, the skyway does a much better job than the other options.  It gets me from point A to point B with minimal interruptions, no traffic, and no frustration.  

Atlantic is constantly congested, has poorly run intersections every half mile, has required countless expansions and improvement, and will require repairs and additions until the end of time.  Just because Atlantic doesn't have the 'operating cost' you describe (which it really does), you think its a good investment.  

In my opinion, the skyway shows much more potential for improving the lives and livelihood of its surroundings than Atlantic or any of the other mentioned roads. The skyway could be a catalyst for growth in DT and the urban neighborhoods. Unfortunately, the skyway does not yet connect the surrounding residents to the destinations downtown.  Its like building a bridge halfway across the river and wondering why nobody uses it.  It is worth the added investment to allow the skyway to realize its full potential.

My response may not be up to your supreme level of intellect, but at least it allows the brainiacs like you to see how the feeble mind of a plebeian works.

[stjr]

I was just asking a question in general, not necessarily to you, but I appreciate that you singled me out and tried to belittle me in your response.  

Well, Captain, no offense was intended (although it appears you have returned the "favor" anyway), and, obviously, I am not nearly as smart (which I readily concede) as you give me credit for as I am unable to tell when you are speaking in general and when you are replying to my post (the only one that questioned the economic viability of the project which is what I thought you were talking about).  Next time, a clearer assist would be appreciated.  I do stand by my point which, to my clear frustration (as you sensed), seems lost on so many others here.  Maybe I should revert to calling this thing the $ky-high-way (just kidding, Bridge Toll  )

[Jim]

Stjr, if the Skyway doesn't get more than 2,000 riders per day as it is with no connection to he residential neighborhoods...just how many people do you think are going to walk on the dang thing?

While NYC's High Line may have helped revitalized some of the areas, an elevated walkway in place of the Skyway will not have the same affect.

I get that you want the money bleed to stop but you're advocating a system that will greatly drop in utilization, remove a transit option for many, have minimal impact on the investment surrounding it and still require annual funding for upkeep and maintenance.

If it will cost $25 million to convert the Skyway system to an elevated walkway, why not spend that $25 million and extend the thing to a location that will have a massive improvement on ridership levels?

[stjr]

If you so desperately want to see the Skyway demolished, you should become the biggest cheerleader in the world for the streetcar. Because the only way people are going to recognize the Skyway as a "sunk cost" is if there is a viable replacement system. Then people will be willing to eliminate the redundant system (that is, if the Skyway remains an underperformer once there are other rail linkages).

Joe, thank you!  We are 100% on the same page.  I have made this point repeatedly in countless posts over countless threads on this subject right up until today.  Check out my posts.  I LOVE the streetcar.  Bring it on.

[thelakelander]

What Joe is implying is to leave the skyway in place and construct the streetcar system first.  Then if the skyway does not perform, then push for it's elimination.  You seem to be implying to demolish the skyway first and then construct the streetcar.

[stjr]

Stjr, if the Skyway doesn't get more than 2,000 riders per day as it is with no connection to he residential neighborhoods...just how many people do you think are going to walk on the dang thing?

While NYC's High Line may have helped revitalized some of the areas, an elevated walkway in place of the Skyway will not have the same affect.

I get that you want the money bleed to stop but you're advocating a system that will greatly drop in utilization, remove a transit option for many, have minimal impact on the investment surrounding it and still require annual funding for upkeep and maintenance.

If it will cost $25 million to convert the Skyway system to an elevated walkway, why not spend that $25 million and extend the thing to a location that will have a massive improvement on ridership levels?

Aaah, Jim, to your last comment.... the Skyway was supposed to get some 30,000/day with what ALREADY EXISTS, no further connections necessary.  And, its over 90% short of that!  Therein, is a major fallacy to the expansion argument.  We will just be chasing more rainbows with another expansion.

Jim, to the rest of your post, let's consider some sequencing here.  Ponder this:

1. Approve a proper streetcar plan that includes Downtown, Riverside, Springfield/Shands, LaVilla/Myrtle/Beaver Street, the Stadium area, and San Marco (let's not get into the river crossing right now - that's been hammered well on other threads).

2. Build the entire streetcar system in one continuous construction phase, starting with its core Downtown.

3. Promise taxpayers that as the streetcar system comes on line Downtown, the Skyway will be closed.

4. Once closed, we can determine alternate uses for the Skyway track/ROW.  Maybe property owners along its lines would have some creative "redevelopment" ideas on using it.  Such as a downtown jogging trail free of traffic?  An art festival walkway?  A kiosk lined shopping plaza?  A neat place to have a meal with a view?  Or, all of these and more.  [On the High Line, they are building a water feature and the chaise lounge chairs for sun bathing are already being used!]  Perhaps the Skyway stations that eat into existing city blocks (most of which are devoid presently of buildings) could be incorporated into new buildings on those blocks so that more inter-connective uses could be derived.

We need start taking what we have and making more of it - not necessarily with (just) money, but creativity and vision.  Other cites do it successfully, why not us?

[stjr]

What Joe is implying is to leave the skyway in place and construct the streetcar system first.  Then if the skyway does not perform, then push for it's elimination.  You seem to be implying to demolish the skyway first and then construct the streetcar.

Lake, just saw this after I posted my response to Jim.   Don't know that we ever discussed explicitly the order of things before, but, as you can see above, I am flexible.  I am looking mainly for the end result.

[thelakelander]

Well we're on the same page then. I also would rather see money invested in streetcars and commuter rail before considering extending the skyway. However, I believe that if this is properly done, you will see a significant increase in skyway ridership as a result.

[Jim]

Aaah, Jim, to your last comment.... the Skyway was supposed to get some 30,000/day with what ALREADY EXISTS, no further connections necessary.  And, its over 90% short of that!  Therein, is a major fallacy to the expansion argument.  We will just be chasing more rainbows with another expansion.

I'm under the impression that the 30k figure was attributed to full build out which includes expansion well beyond where it sits now.

No one would ever give a 30k figure for just the core when barely 2k people live there and around 30k work there.  

And then you point out a streetcar line that would traverse into the very neighborhoods that would make the Skyway successful but don't want to give the Skyway that option?  

Why not a Skyway system with valid extensions and stations with a street car feeder and complementary system fed overall with commuter rail?

[thelakelander]

The initial skyway ridership numbers assumed a ton of things that did not happen.  These include:

1. A route that connected destinations like Shands Jacksonville with DT.  Instead the route was modified to go from no where to no where.

2. That downtown would continue to grow and densify. The exact opposite happened.

3. That parking garages would not be continued to be constructed with nearly every major project in DT.  The exact opposite happened.  We love our garages.  Its 2010 and the Mayor's Office and JEDC still want to build more (see Landing parking issue).

4. That a regional wide rail system would feed it with riders.  Still waiting on that rail system.

After all of this, why expect different results?

[Jim]

I remember the initial advertisements for the JTA in Newsweek and other publications showing a 3 prong approach to mass transit with a big Skyway system, commuter rail and buses.

It was supposed to be a national model system but they only built half the Skyway and none of the commuter rail.

[stjr]

Aaah, Jim, to your last comment.... the Skyway was supposed to get some 30,000/day with what ALREADY EXISTS, no further connections necessary.  And, its over 90% short of that!  Therein, is a major fallacy to the expansion argument.  We will just be chasing more rainbows with another expansion.

I'm under the impression that the 30k figure was attributed to full build out which includes expansion well beyond where it sits now.

No one would ever give a 30k figure for just the core when barely 2k people live there and around 30k work there. 

Sorry, Jim, but the "experts" did just that and those numbers were the premise for building what you see now.  Worse, the Skyway fell short of its phase one numbers by similar percentages and they went on and built phase two anyway on the premise.... you guessed it.... that the phase two expansion would solve all the Skyway's shortfalls.  Of course, despite more assurances from the "experts", nothing changed.  Now, maybe you see better where I am coming from when talk again arises about still more expansion.  For what purpose?  Just to show, for the sake of someone's ego, that after 30 or 40 years and unlimited investment that maybe the Skyway can hit a significant portion of its original phase one and two projections?  Not in my book.

And then you point out a streetcar line that would traverse into the very neighborhoods that would make the Skyway successful but don't want to give the Skyway that option?   

Even Ock will tell you the Skyway really can't cross I-95 into Riverside and the residents there would never accept it running down their streets.  Also, the system isn't designed to run very long distances so going much beyond what I describe is unlikely no matter what.  If we are going to really do things right, I believe the streetcar is the far better solution - for cost, feasibility, acceptance, and, most importantly, ultimate usefulness.

Why not a Skyway system with valid extensions and stations with a street car feeder and complementary system fed overall with commuter rail?

Commuter rail can feed buses, streetcars, pedestrian, and bike modes.  I don't think we need nor can afford to run the Skyway as another parallel mode, as noted, too, by others.  Also, I think it is asking too much of users to transfer from one transit mode to a streetcar or commuter rail and then to the Skyway and then to something else again because the Skyway is so inflexible that it can't stop very close to most destinations.  

[stjr]

The initial skyway ridership numbers assumed a ton of things that did not happen.  These include:

1. A route that connected destinations like Shands Jacksonville with DT.  Instead the route was modified to go from no where to no where.

2. That downtown would continue to grow and densify. The exact opposite happened.

3. That parking garages would not be continued to be constructed with nearly every major project in DT.  The exact opposite happened.  We love our garages.  Its 2010 and the Mayor's Office and JEDC still want to build more (see Landing parking issue).

4. That a regional wide rail system would feed it with riders.  Still waiting on that rail system.

After all of this, why expect different results?

Lake, I don't recall these assumptions being "sold" to the public at the time.  It was sold as a "build it as it is now and they will come" project.  Maybe all those garages, lack of downtown growth and density, failures to get support for more destinations and connections, etc. are the result of the Skyway's disappointments and failures, not the cause of it.  At best, it's "chicken and egg" if there was ever even supposed to be both.

[thelakelander]

My guess is that the skyway had little to do with the city not being able to follow a coordinated DT vision over the last few decades or offices relocating to the Southside.  However, its ultimate success or failure is directly tied to issues like this.

[CS Foltz]

lake ......you do have a point! If the $kyway were one aspect of a coordinated approach to a Downtown revitilization, that would be one thing but in basically a standalone mode with limited acess from start to finish, it is doomed to failure plain and simple! That is $7 Million Dollars a year for what is really a limited type of transportation and the silly thing is on such odd hours and not 24/7 like it should be........oh well wasted effort! $$1.1 Billion Dollars spent on downtown over the last 20 years plus and we get what we deserve!