Rick Mullaney Unveils Plan for Jacksonville

[Ocklawaha]

I agree with stjr on this point too, as far as I'm concerned the Skyway is a downtown connector only. This is exactly why we need to push it to at least 3 dense residential districts.

This is also why extending it into San Marco is doubly important. The Skyway is the only reasonable mass transit mode that can reach the neighborhood without delays caused by the FEC RY which cuts off that section from the rest of the city. For less then a mile, about 1/6 of the cost of a roadway-streetcar overpass, the Skyway can reach Atlantic Avenue.

Ock, we agree on the need for mass transit to service "dense residential districts".  But, where we differ is I don't see a single proposed Skyway expansion here actually doing this.  Terminating the Skyway at I-95 in Riverside, intersecting Atlantic Blvd. at the FEC RR, running to the Arena/Stadium, and/or stretching toward Shands hardly constitute penetrating service into residential neighborhoods.

It does not have to actually penetrate the residential area, simply reach one. Of course we've never seen it carry these people because they quit building it before they ever reached those final phases of construction.
Thus so far, we are the only North American City that understands "the sound of one hand clapping..."

And, I don't think any dense residential district, particularly the various historic style districts (San Marco, Riverside/Avondale, and Springield) the Skyway would encounter should this ever be attempted, would actually want this concrete elephantine monstrosity thumping down on their neighborhoods.  On the other hand, streetcars would not only be welcome but would be far more effective at providing a flexible and user-friendly service in a residential setting.

Riverside/Avondale, and Springfield are not good candidates for the Skyway to pass through. Riverside/Avondale because of the layout of both the I-95 freeway, and the dense 5-Points area presents too many road blocks besides the historic integrity of the area. The Skyway currently has right-of-way through Brooklyn to the empty lot just south of Forest which would at least put it in front of two major employers and the TU. If that was a success and there was any chance of saving Annie Lytle school by making an inter-modal Skyway-bus facility out of it, then and only then would I go past that line. Springfield offers several major medical destinations with another major one in the works, the Skyway as originally planned would skirt the park system to the west and would not interfere with the historic fabric of the neighborhood. As for San Marco, streetcars would not be any more successful then the bus or cars are today, and thus would not be welcome as the railroad presents a huge wall and there is no cheaper solution to bridging it with transit then the Skyway.

As we write these posts two major forces are pushing for the Skyway to reach, 1. San Marco at Atlantic, 2. Stadium. This is over and above the mobility plan marking the San Marco line as an early build. Would it ever go beyond San Marco, Shand's, Stadium or anywhere else? I don't think there's a chance in hell.

All of this returns us to some fatal flaws I feel the Skyway mode of transit and any proposed expansions have.  Even expanded, it's just more of the same problems it has now.  And, if expansion can't fix it, as I believe, AND it's a failure as it is now, let's give up and move on to something that can really make a difference!

The only problems the Skyway has right now, is a lack of reaching anything meaningful in the downtown core, and the resulting lack of passengers. Just look at what JTA ignored... Built to San Marco Station, but there is no easy access to ANY of the surrounding buildings, and if you work at Baptist or Aetna your just SOL. Cross the river and is that a station for either the TU or CSX? They did manage to reach BELL SOUTH (ATT) and are cited as the reason the Omni and Wachovia located where they did, but again, there is no connection to any of those buildings. BOA? again a complete miss, ditto the Modis Building, Hyatt, CofC, Landing, State Office Building. The nearest thing they have to a connected station is that its possible to walk from Hemming Plaza to City Hall under the track without getting wet... But then they missed FBC. All of these were simply STUPID MISTAKES, hell they managed to miss city hall and the entire county complex when it was built, and they've only recently got the city people within a block of a station.

Your problems with the Skyway as a mode seem mostly a matter of personal preference. Believe me that vast majority of America still believe that "someday monorails will criss-cross the country..." (FACT: modern monorails are nearly as old as the modern railroad - if they had so many advantages over traditional rail as the true believers suggest then we wouldn't have had a golden spike, rather it would have been the golden beam). Never the less, monorail dazzles the crowds, it gives Jacksonville visitors a "WOW FACTOR", and I've yet to hear one suggest anything but, "why don't they expand this!" Spend some time looking at this site, you can even apply for free membership but it does take approval - http://www.monorails.org/ or http://www.flickr.com/groups/monorails/ or http://www.monorailex.com/band.html/index.html or http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/ As you can see, there are many who come JUST TO RIDE THE MONORAIL, and I bet JTA doesn't have a clue how many. Of course you don't invest 30 million on WOW factors, but the fact remains either as transit, tourist attraction, or utility, many people prefer monorails.

OCKLAWAHA

[stjr]

Of course you don't invest 30 million on WOW factors, but the fact remains either as transit, tourist attraction, or utility, many people prefer monorails.

What people "prefer" or are "wowed" by and what they are willing pay for are often very different.  I am sure if you ask, the masses will tell you they prefer a Mercedes "S" or BMW 750 and would be wowed by a Maserati or whatever.  But, I don't see the masses paying for them.

Also, many may prefer MULTIPLE options.  Until you EDUCATE them to the costs/benefits of those options and then ask WHICH of those options they prefer RELATIVE to the other options, you really can't rank the solutions.  I would suggest that when this process is followed properly, the Skyway doesn't come out on top.

[tufsu1]

well here's an idea...what if the Skyway were extended to the edge of a neighborhood like Riverside and then one could transfer to a streetcar....or better yet, maybe there's a way to transition the Skyway infrastructure to accomodate streetcars.

See Mr. Mullaney (and stjr)...trying to make the skyway more successful is good policy....giving up on it is not!

[Miss Fixit]

well here's an idea...what if the Skyway were extended to the edge of a neighborhood like Riverside and then one could transfer to a streetcar....or better yet, maybe there's a way to transition the Skyway infrastructure to accomodate streetcars.

See Mr. Mullaney (and stjr)...trying to make the skyway more successful is good policy....giving up on it is not!

I think that's what Ock is suggesting for San Marco - extend the skyway to just past the FEC crossing and then transfer to street cars at that point.  Skyway to BCBS or Fidelity with transfer to streetcar might work for Riverside.

[thelakelander]

Miss Fixit, streetcars in San Marco will be an issue because of the St. Johns River and FEC crossing.  Ock is suggesting extending the skyway over the FEC (in San Marco's case, this is the cheapest option to deal with the FEC issue) and then having a bus/commuter rail transfer facility at its terminal point.

Btw Stjr, extending the skyway to Atlantic would be an example of hitting a core neighborhood near its heart.  An short extension crossing the FEC would be the skyway within walking distance of San Marco Square, Hendricks Avenue and the densest section of the neighborhood via Lasalle Street and Landon Avenue.

As far as the skyway to BCBS, unless privately funded, why bother?  It would seem that we can pick up Brooklyn with the same streetcar line that would serve Riverside.  Extending the skyway to Forest looks like an expensive  duplication of transit services to me.  Extending the skyway that distance is roughly about the same length as extending it to Landon in San Marco.  If we have money to toss around and a streetcar to Riverside is going to be constructed anyway, forget about extending the skyway to I-95 and use that money to get it over the FEC and into San Marco.

[Ocklawaha]

Of course you don't invest 30 million on WOW factors, but the fact remains either as transit, tourist attraction, or utility, many people prefer monorails.

What people "prefer" or are "wowed" by and what they are willing pay for are often very different.  I am sure if you ask, the masses will tell you they prefer a Mercedes "S" or BMW 750 and would be wowed by a Maserati or whatever.  But, I don't see the masses paying for them.

Also, many may prefer MULTIPLE options.  Until you EDUCATE them to the costs/benefits of those options and then ask WHICH of those options they prefer RELATIVE to the other options, you really can't rank the solutions.  I would suggest that when this process is followed properly, the Skyway doesn't come out on top.

Remember I said they are wowed by the Skyway but, "of course you don't invest 30 million on WOW factors, but the fact remains either as transit, tourist attraction, or utility, many people prefer monorails."

We won't know until we try it with at least one line into a contributor neighborhood, San Marco should provide us with a firm answer.

I am proposing Skyway for Riverside Avenue, but with a few strings...

1. NOTHING happens until we see what happens in San Marco.

2. Even with extreme acceptance by San Marco, I still wouldn't move down Riverside until we see a "Brooklyn   
    Park," like development of the area.

3. As TUFSU said, I would want a transfer TOD at the corner of Riverside and Forest.

4. Reuse of fire station 5 as a preservation-transfer-TOD project - something we should be doing now.

5. I would allow for a new Skyway Station at the Riverside Maintenance facility as soon as any development
    shows a sign of life in the area. That is probably the lowest budget improvement to the system, but it would 
    be useless unless more residential-office-retail opened in the area. shows a sign of life in the area. That is
    probably the lowest budget improvement to the system, but it would be useless unless more residential-
    office-retail opened in the area.

This section of Riverside Avenue is not a good choice for streetcar as the viaduct would be a no-build. Park-Lee Street viaduct is coming down (and might not be replaced - as I hear it now), leaving the Myrtle Avenue Subway tunnel as the best AND HISTORIC route between Bay and Riverside-Avondale. Forest already has what could be transit lanes near the center of the road.

[thelakelander]

I am proposing Skyway for Riverside Avenue, but with a few strings...

1. NOTHING happens until we see what happens in San Marco.

So a streetcar line to Riverside from DT would already be in place.

2. Even with extreme acceptance by San Marco, I still wouldn't move down Riverside until we see a "Brooklyn  
   Park," like development of the area.

3. As TUFSU said, I would want a transfer TOD at the corner of Riverside and Forest.

4. Reuse of fire station 5 as a preservation-transfer-TOD project - something we should be doing now.

Unfortunately, by the time dirt is turned on any of these mass transit projects, that fire station will most likely be long gone.  

5. I would allow for a new Skyway Station at the Riverside Maintenance facility as soon as any development
   shows a sign of life in the area. That is probably the lowest budget improvement to the system, but it would be useless unless more residential-office-retail opened in the area.

Agree 100%.

This section of Riverside Avenue is not a good choice for streetcar as the viaduct would be a no-build. Park-Lee Street viaduct is coming down (and might not be replaced - as I hear it now), leaving the Myrtle Avenue Subway tunnel as the best AND HISTORIC route between Bay and Riverside-Avondale. Forest already has what could be transit lanes near the center of the road.

This is where the debate enters the picture.  I believe the viaduct isn't a major issue in the grand scheme of things.  This is a city that puts up $100 million interchanges and $40 million overpasses with no problem.  Getting a 60' wide bridge over a couple of railroad tracks is peanuts when it comes to road and highway construction in this town.  Park is a major collector that directly ties DT with Blanding.  If the current bridge is demolished because of trains needing clearance below it, it will be replaced, streetcars or not.  If so, that replacement can have streetcar tracks built into it.  Also, while the Myrtle Avenue route is historic, you're limiting TOD because the stetch between Forsyth and Forest is dominated by non-developable property (I-95 ramps, McCoys Creek, etc.).  On the other hand, Park splits the entire neighborhood in half, meaning every square inch of Brooklyn is within a 1/4 radius of the corridor.  Cut it down Price or Dora to access Riverside Avenue and you'll hit all of Brooklyn and everything along Riverside Avenue.  In the meantime, if Brooklyn Park is eventually developed, they can pay for their own at grade skyway station along Leila Street or tie in directly to a streetcar line down Park (a more pedestrian friendly corridor) since the property has two blocks of Park Street frontage.

[peestandingup]

Of course you don't invest 30 million on WOW factors, but the fact remains either as transit, tourist attraction, or utility, many people prefer monorails.

What people "prefer" or are "wowed" by and what they are willing pay for are often very different.  I am sure if you ask, the masses will tell you they prefer a Mercedes "S" or BMW 750 and would be wowed by a Maserati or whatever.  But, I don't see the masses paying for them.

Also, many may prefer MULTIPLE options.  Until you EDUCATE them to the costs/benefits of those options and then ask WHICH of those options they prefer RELATIVE to the other options, you really can't rank the solutions.  I would suggest that when this process is followed properly, the Skyway doesn't come out on top.

Remember I said they are wowed by the Skyway but, "of course you don't invest 30 million on WOW factors, but the fact remains either as transit, tourist attraction, or utility, many people prefer monorails."

We won't know until we try it with at least one line into a contributor neighborhood, San Marco should provide us with a firm answer.

I am proposing Skyway for Riverside Avenue, but with a few strings...

1. NOTHING happens until we see what happens in San Marco.

2. Even with extreme acceptance by San Marco, I still wouldn't move down Riverside until we see a "Brooklyn   
    Park," like development of the area.

I could probably make a pretty good guess what would happen in San Marco: Nothing. What reason would anyone in San Marco want to take the Skyway into downtown that doesn't go anywhere else?

You'd have a much better chance of success if you connected the parts of the core that people actually wanted to go. And that probably wouldn't include the Skyway simply because it's too expensive to build out. You could probably build a proper light rail system to connect the entire core (that could later be further extended into the 'burbs) for what you could just to extend the Skyway to a couple places. Am I wrong??

[thelakelander]

Yes, you're wrong.  The significant expenses for the skyway have already been paid by the federal government.  With any other system, you're going to have to figure out how to cross the river, invest in new vehicles to carry passengers and construct an expensive O&M facility.  Plus, if we're talking about a 1/2 mile extension into San Marco, the majority of that half mile could be built at ground level since there aren't any streets to cross between Kings Avenue and Atlantic Blvd.  Out of all potential skyway extensions discussed in this thread, one into San Marco would be the cheapest because of the option to run significant sections at grade.  It would also make the most sense, since there is no other viable affordable option for a grade separated crossing between San Marco and DT.  However, I will say that an extension into San Marco makes more sense with additional transit tying in other areas of the system.  At that point, you'll have a well integrated mass transit system where people in the core can take advantage of the skyway to access destinations throughout the city.

[thelakelander]

Great point on the Springfield/San Marco Square connection.  Whenever we have this discussion about transit or downtown in general, the converstation tends to focus too much on DT, as if it were an isolated gated community in Baker County.  When we talk transit and connectivity, the benefit applies to every community along the corridor.  So when you have connectivity between your urban neighborhoods, the entire inner city starts to become a walkable environment.  You might not be able to afford something in DT or Riverside but you can get a cool loft in the Springfield Warehouse District or renovate a bungalow in Durkeeville and still access Five Points, San Marco Square, DT and other destinations without the use of a car.

[Ocklawaha]

I am proposing Skyway for Riverside Avenue, but with a few strings...

1. NOTHING happens until we see what happens in San Marco.

So a streetcar line to Riverside from DT would already be in place.

Likely so, the Skyway would provide a shortcut up and over as well as serve Riverside Avenue which could see the most major development frontage.

2. Even with extreme acceptance by San Marco, I still wouldn't move down Riverside until we see a "Brooklyn  
   Park," like development of the area.

3. As TUFSU said, I would want a transfer TOD at the corner of Riverside and Forest.

4. Reuse of fire station 5 as a preservation-transfer-TOD project - something we should be doing now.

Unfortunately, by the time dirt is turned on any of these mass transit projects, that fire station will most likely be long gone.

That is why I bring this up, Fire Station 5 could be saved, the city owns the land, we just need the okay of JTA to create a station... streetcar-bus or streetcar-Skyway or bus-Skyway or all of the above, wouldn't matter to me, it is possible.

5. I would allow for a new Skyway Station at the Riverside Maintenance facility as soon as any development
   shows a sign of life in the area. That is probably the lowest budget improvement to the system, but it would be useless unless more residential-office-retail opened in the area.

Agree 100%.

JTA is currently camping out on the blueprints, which is probably a good idea.

This section of Riverside Avenue is not a good choice for streetcar as the viaduct would be a no-build. Park-Lee Street viaduct is coming down (and might not be replaced - as I hear it now), leaving the Myrtle Avenue Subway tunnel as the best AND HISTORIC route between Bay and Riverside-Avondale. Forest already has what could be transit lanes near the center of the road.

This is where the debate enters the picture.  I believe the viaduct isn't a major issue in the grand scheme of things.  This is a city that puts up $100 million interchanges and $40 million overpasses with no problem.  Getting a 60' wide bridge over a couple of railroad tracks is peanuts when it comes to road and highway construction in this town.  Park is a major collector that directly ties DT with Blanding.  If the current bridge is demolished because of trains needing clearance below it, it will be replaced, streetcars or not.  If so, that replacement can have streetcar tracks built into it.  Also, while the Myrtle Avenue route is historic, you're limiting TOD because the stetch between Forsyth and Forest is dominated by non-developable property (I-95 ramps, McCoys Creek, etc.).  On the other hand, Park splits the entire neighborhood in half, meaning every square inch of Brooklyn is within a 1/4 radius of the corridor.  Cut it down Price or Dora to access Riverside Avenue and you'll hit all of Brooklyn and everything along Riverside Avenue.  In the meantime, if Brooklyn Park is eventually developed, they can pay for their own at grade skyway station along Leila Street or tie in directly to a streetcar line down Park (a more pedestrian friendly corridor) since the property has two blocks of Park Street frontage.

I agree that the route would be shorter and that Park-Lee would be a decent choice, more so if we ONLY get streetcar in Brooklyn, because it would be centered with arterial's on both sides. If we are going to build a Skyway into Brooklyn then the Myrtle Avenue route becomes more attractive as it puts transit on both sides of Park. I do know that for some reason JTA is investigating taking down the viaduct and not replacing it at all.

I disagree that Myrtle isn't developable. Stephendare and I walked all over the section from the subway to Forest, not only doable, but actually has a supply of historic building fabric that would make a great entertainment district.

[thelakelander]

You can walk it (I've walked and biked both) but take a look at an aerial.  The difference in the amount of developable land and impact isn't even close.  I'll try and throw a graphic together illustrating where I'm coming from a little later.  Btw, I don't think JTA can at will alter the urban streetscape without consulting with other agencies like public works.  While JTA builds roads, they don't maintain them.  Severing Park Street would really damage Brooklyn, imo.

[fieldafm]

Yes, you're wrong.  The significant expenses for the skyway have already been paid by the federal government.  With any other system, you're going to have to figure out how to cross the river, invest in new vehicles to carry passengers and construct an expensive O&M facility.  Plus, if we're talking about a 1/2 mile extension into San Marco, the majority of that half mile could be built at ground level since there aren't any streets to cross between Kings Avenue and Atlantic Blvd.  Out of all potential skyway extensions discussed in this thread, one into San Marco would be the cheapest because of the option to run significant sections at grade.  It would also make the most sense, since there is no other viable affordable option for a grade separated crossing between San Marco and DT.  However, I will say that an extension into San Marco makes more sense with additional transit tying in other areas of the system.  At that point, you'll have a well integrated mass transit system where people in the core can take advantage of the skyway to access destinations throughout the city

An inexpensive extension into San Marco would spur TOD along JTA owned land near Kings Ave garage, would tie into the commuter rail, would link downtown with a grocery store(Publix at San Marco, which is delayed not dead), spur additional TOD along Atlantic and tie in a vibrant urban neighborhood with the downtown core under very challenging circumstances for any other mode of fixed transit systems(river and railroad crossing).  This extension would finally make the skyway go somewhere to somewhere.

[peestandingup]

Yes, you're wrong.  The significant expenses for the skyway have already been paid by the federal government.  With any other system, you're going to have to figure out how to cross the river, invest in new vehicles to carry passengers and construct an expensive O&M facility.  Plus, if we're talking about a 1/2 mile extension into San Marco, the majority of that half mile could be built at ground level since there aren't any streets to cross between Kings Avenue and Atlantic Blvd.  Out of all potential skyway extensions discussed in this thread, one into San Marco would be the cheapest because of the option to run significant sections at grade.  It would also make the most sense, since there is no other viable affordable option for a grade separated crossing between San Marco and DT.  However, I will say that an extension into San Marco makes more sense with additional transit tying in other areas of the system.  At that point, you'll have a well integrated mass transit system where people in the core can take advantage of the skyway to access destinations throughout the city.

Yes, but we're not just talking about San Marco are we. Wouldn't the ultimate goal be total connectivity (in the core first, then to the 'burbs)? For $74 Million per mile for the Skyway (or $184 Million for the current 2.5 miles), versus say an original light rail system similar to Charlotte's that was built for $50 Million per mile (or $460 Million for their 9 mile system with room to expand), how do even make those numbers work?? The cost per mile ratio for the Skyway totally sucks & there's really no getting around that no matter how we all sit here & try to spin it.

Look, I'm all for public transportation, but the kind that's actually gonna work for now AND in the future. To me, the Skyway has no future & was a huge mistake because there's no way it can properly be built out. And in a sprawling city like Jax, you're going to need something that works for the core as well as the 'burbs or you've got nothing.

Anyways, I think we're all wasting time with this anyway. We all know deep down that none of this stuff is actually gonna happen (at least not in the coming decade). The Skyway will likely either keep chugging along as is, or be shut down. If I'm wrong, I'll gladly come back here & eat my hat on live webcam.

[thelakelander]

You can walk it (I've walked and biked both) but take a look at an aerial.  The difference in the amount of developable land and impact isn't even close.  I'll try and throw a graphic together illustrating where I'm coming from a little later.  Btw, I don't think JTA can at will alter the urban streetscape without consulting with other agencies like public works.  While JTA builds roads, they don't maintain them. Severing Park Street would really damage Brooklyn, imo.

Here is a quick sketch of those two routes.



Yellow is the TPO LRTP route, using Park Street, while red is the alignment using the historical Myrtle Avenue Subway under the I-95 viaduct.

Under typical circumstances, the majority of transit riders aren't willing to walk over a 1/4 mile to use a streetcar, especially within our climate. Thus, the red overlay represents a 1/4 mile radius around the Myrtle Avenue route, while blue represents the 1/4 mile radius around the Park Street alignment.

With that in mind, we then have to factor in natural and physical barriers that prohibit that 1/4 walkshed.  

1. FEC Tracks

Everything north of the FEC tracks falls within a 1/4 radius of the proposed JTC, downtown streetcar and existing skyway. Because of this, I'm not counting their impact north of the FEC.

2. McCoys Creek/St. Johns River

McCoys Creek is a natural barrier for the Park Street route, so it forms the northern border of this area.  The St. Johns River forms the border for both, where the meet up at Forest & Riverside.

3. Fuller Warren Bridge

I-95 forms the southern barrier for both.


Remaining Property

At this point, when you look at the developable land around the two alignments, I-95 is a significant barrier between Myrtle Avenue and the west side of that alignment's 1/4 radius.  In addition, you have a former incinerator site and low lying wetlands to deal with.  Thus, TOD potential west of Myrtle is limited to the thin strip of land between Myrtle and I-95.  To the east, most of Brooklyn falls within the 1/4 mile walkable radius but a significant chuck is left out to the northeast.  You can pick that up with a skyway extension but that will cost more money.

While it looks like you'll pick up some land south of the I-95/Forest interchange, you really don't because that area has been cut off by the new interchange.  

On the other hand, the Park Street corridor splits the neighborhood almost evenly.  Park Street also has three or four times as much historic (older than 50 years old) building fabric already in place.  This provides both ample infill and redvelopment potential throughout the entire district, even without a skyway complement through the area.  If the viaduct near the Prime Osborn needs to be replaced for better clearance below, then when its built, just make sure streetcar infrastructure is included in it.  If it remains for a while, take out a lane and use it for the streetcar, similar to the Arkansas River crossing in Little Rock.


A potential solution for the Park Street Viaduct, regardless of whether the existing structure is used or a new bridge is constructed.


The First Block

One thing that should be considered is the context of an actual alignment itself, when discussing the possibility of introducing fixed transit and the ability to stimulate development.  Make no doubt about it, Park is the heart of Brooklyn and the remaining abandoned building stock clearly illustrates this.  Directly strengthening the neighborhood's heart will have a much greater impact on the entire area than missing it by a few blocks.  This is also why I say, closing the Park Street viaduct would be bad business, as far as urban development and Brooklyn is concerned.  Turning it's major centralized corridor into a cul-de-sac is good way to snuff out the remaining life left.


Park Street today is lined with existing building fabric on every block through the heart of Brooklyn (3 block in either direction covers neighborhood).


The first block of Park on either side also has small buildings and opportunities for small scale infill.


The combination of new and old allow redevelopment to happen while maintaining the neighborhood's historic vibe.



When speaking in redevelopment/revitalization terms and small business and urban pioneer feasibility, an abundance of existing building stock is critical.




Except for the intersection shown above, the 7 block stretch of Myrtle is either wetland or undeveloped property. When the majority of the corridor is open land, you're forced to rely only on risky new large scale development, which is what we've been doing with DT the last few decades.

With all of this said, I'm just explaining the TOD potential for this stretch of Myrtle and Park, based on the constraints of the surrounding environment.  If the historical component of reusing the Myrtle Avenue Subway is more important, then the corridor should be designed to use it.  If economic development is more important, then Park Street makes better sense.  Other than Park Street being a shorter run, there's really no wrong or right with either option.  Before anything can be done, more studies will have to take place.  Those studies would indicate potential concerns of using the viaduct and subway in greater detail.  Depending on those issues, the remainder really boils down to what the community feels is best (reusing a historic structure or ultimate economic development potential).