Rick Mullaney Unveils Plan for Jacksonville

[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.

Yes, but we're not just talking about San Marco are we.

I was.  The skyway should only be extended where it would be cheaper than constructing another mode, imo.  In San Marco's case, a skyway extension is logical.  Into Riverside and Springfield, a streetcar makes more sense.

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.

The skyway really doesn't cost $74 mill/mile.  That number covered two systems, a major river crossing and a modern O&M facility.  Quite a pretty penny for a 2.5 mile system.  Those big ticket expenses are things an extension would not involve.  Thus, a short skyway extension could probably be built for well under $20 mill/mile.  So when we talk connectivity, we should include the skyway as a part of an overall network.

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.

The skyway was intended and is a downtown circulator.  For it to be effective, you have to have regional modes feed it with riders.  Until that happens, it will struggle.  Miami's Metromover is a great example of what the skyway can become when feed with other modes of transit.  In Miami's case, you have heavy rail, commuter rail and BRT feeding it.  In Jax, we continue to starve ours.

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.

Call me optimistic but I believe we can have a streetcar into Riverside up and running in five years.

[Wacca Pilatka]

Call me optimistic but I believe we can have a streetcar into Riverside up and running in five years.

That sure is an encouraging thought.

[RockStar]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF_yLodI1CQ

Enough said. LOL

[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.

I was.  The skyway should only be extended where it would be cheaper than constructing another mode, imo.  In San Marco's case, a skyway extension is logical.  Into Riverside and Springfield, a streetcar makes more sense.

Yeah, but do you really expect people to hop between a mishmash of transit solutions for such a small area (like not even 2 miles)?? That would basically mean people riding a streetcar in Riverside couldn't get over to San Marco without going up to downtown first, then catching the Skyway down into San Marco. Is that what you're saying??

Sorry, I don't see how that's helping anyone. These core areas aren't exactly a hotbed of huge urban activity by themselves. They're basically downtown adjacent bedroom communities with a lot of housing stock with historic fabric. Your best bet would be to tie them all together so that whole area feels bigger. And you don't need a couple different systems to do that either. Why??

You need solutions for a singular system (streetcar, light rail, whatever) that can be extended properly. Now, if the Skyway can't do that (and it obviously can't), then I don't think it needs to continue. But I don't think it should be killed without a better plan in place (which is why I pointed that out in the very first post of this thread).

So you've got two problems. You can't keep it going because they won't/can't extend it to make it useful. But you also can't kill it either because that would be a big blow to public transit for the city (because you just know they don't have a better solution). So I dunno. It's kinda screwed either way. Which is why I stated that that thing's done more harm than good (maybe by design?). Who knows.

But like I said, its probably pointless to talk about (lets not forget where we are). And obviously the candidate who made the comment is too chicken shit to get on a public forum & talk about it, so he'd rather throw us a canned response that was probably written by some staffer he gave his login credentials to. He can't take 5 minutes to post on an internet site?? C mon. My point is, they're going to do whatever they wanna do. And us sitting here arguing about it like our opinions mean anything to them is probably just a waste of bandwidth.

[tufsu1]

You need solutions for a singular system (streetcar, light rail, whatever) that can be extended properly. Now, if the Skyway can't do that (and it obviously can't), then I don't think it needs to continue. But I don't think it should be killed without a better plan in place (which is why I pointed that out in the very first post of this thread).

why does one need a singular system?

lots of successful transit systems include two-seat and three-seat trips (transit speak for transfers)....for example, DC is now building a streetcar system to complement its Metro and MetroBus lines.....and Miami uses the Metromover to connect MetroRail riders with destinations in downtown and Brickell.

[thelakelander]

Yeah, but do you really expect people to hop between a mishmash of transit solutions for such a small area (like not even 2 miles)?? That would basically mean people riding a streetcar in Riverside couldn't get over to San Marco without going up to downtown first, then catching the Skyway down into San Marco. Is that what you're saying??

Yes.  That's how transit works in most cities.  With transit, one mode fits all does not work.  The most successful system have modes that best fit the particular neighborhood or environment they serve.  As long as times are properly coordinated, transferring is not a big issue.

Sorry, I don't see how that's helping anyone. These core areas aren't exactly a hotbed of huge urban activity by themselves. They're basically downtown adjacent bedroom communities with a lot of housing stock with historic fabric. Your best bet would be to tie them all together so that whole area feels bigger. And you don't need a couple different systems to do that either. Why??

The best bet is to tie them together in the most logical sense.  If it means using different modes, so be it.  In our case, there are significant complications with constructing a single LRT or streetcar system to connect Riverside to San Marco, mainly the FEC and St. Johns River.  We already have a DT circulator, paid by the feds, so we might as well take advantage of it.  Plus, even in the event that it was a single mode, you'll most likely still end up having to transfer.  Nevertheless, when you look at the city as a whole, the plan is to have BRT, streetcar, commuter rail, the skyway and local bus all working together to form a reliable integrated mass transit network that provides decent service for the entire region.

You need solutions for a singular system (streetcar, light rail, whatever) that can be extended properly. Now, if the Skyway can't do that (and it obviously can't), then I don't think it needs to continue. But I don't think it should be killed without a better plan in place (which is why I pointed that out in the very first post of this thread).

The skyway is and was only intended to be a downtown circulator.  That's its role.  What we lack is the other modes originally planned to feed it.  With that said, I'd challenge you to name one major American city with reliable transit that accomplishes it with one single mode.  I've tried and I can't think of one.

So you've got two problems. You can't keep it going because they won't/can't extend it to make it useful. But you also can't kill it either because that would be a big blow to public transit for the city (because you just know they don't have a better solution). So I dunno. It's kinda screwed either way. Which is why I stated that that thing's done more harm than good (maybe by design?). Who knows.

It sort of like investing in a bike that's dirty and missing a tire.  Instead of throwing the entire bike away because you can't ride it, give it a wash and buy a new tire.

So here is a solution for the skyway.  You eliminate duplicate bus service through downtown and force those headed downtown to transfer to the skyway or PCT trolleys.  That cuts down on O&M costs and immediately increases ridership.  At the same time, push for infill development immediately adjacent to stations.  On publicly owned land, this adds to the city's revenue while also increasing built in ridership over time.  In the meantime, you work on getting complementing commuter rail and streetcar corridors up and running.  In the end, they'll all feed riders into one another.  If these things were done 10 to 15 years ago, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.

But like I said, its probably pointless to talk about (lets not forget where we are). And obviously the candidate who made the comment is too chicken shit to get on a public forum & talk about it, so he'd rather throw us a canned response that was probably written by some staffer he gave his login credentials to. He can't take 5 minutes to post on an internet site?? C mon. My point is, they're going to do whatever they wanna do. And us sitting here arguing about it like our opinions mean anything to them is probably just a waste of bandwidth.

Its our city.  We can do a lot more than debate online (many participating here already do).  If we want change, we'll have to drag those who don't, kicking and screaming.  I'm involved with a lot of things that are happening behind the scene.  I'm actually shocked at how much progress has been made since MJ went live in 2006.

[dougskiles]

At the same time, push for infill development immediately adjacent to stations.  On publicly owned land, this adds to the city's revenue while also increasing built in ridership over time. 

Speaking of which, have any studies been done about incorporating ground floor retail inside the San Marco Skyway station?  The structure has a large amount of unused volume and is immediately adjacent to San Marco Boulevard.  The turnstiles could be placed at the upper level and the interior could be filled with rentable space.  You could also have small offices on a second level.  The last time I was there, I counted 50 steps between the ground floor and the intermediate level - which should be about 30-35 feet - easily enough for 2 stories.

I will take some pictures and do some sketches the next time I am there to better illustrate what I am talking about.

[thelakelander]

Yes, the large floor area of those stations give the impression that they could also be potential revenue generators.  I don't believe any studies have been done. 

[peestandingup]

You need solutions for a singular system (streetcar, light rail, whatever) that can be extended properly. Now, if the Skyway can't do that (and it obviously can't), then I don't think it needs to continue. But I don't think it should be killed without a better plan in place (which is why I pointed that out in the very first post of this thread).

why does one need a singular system?

lots of successful transit systems include two-seat and three-seat trips (transit speak for transfers)....for example, DC is now building a streetcar system to complement its Metro and MetroBus lines.....and Miami uses the Metromover to connect MetroRail riders with destinations in downtown and Brickell.

I'm aware. I daily used DC's system for a long time & I know it probably better than anyone on this forum. But the Metro IS their singular main system & the buses (and upcoming streetcars) are only there as secondary systems to pick up the slack to feed you to the Metro. Don't let anyone tell you any different.

And their Metro goes to every major destination in the city (and in the outer city), not stop in downtown then ask people to change to a completely separate system to get to another major destination. Yeah sure, you have to switch lines sometimes. But switching lines is not the same as switching systems, which is basically what you guys are advocating.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I'll never think this is a wise move. I'm pretty sure we could find a way to get a streetcar or light rail across a river so we wouldn't have to force passengers through a bunch of different systems to do it.

[thelakelander]

You need solutions for a singular system (streetcar, light rail, whatever) that can be extended properly. Now, if the Skyway can't do that (and it obviously can't), then I don't think it needs to continue. But I don't think it should be killed without a better plan in place (which is why I pointed that out in the very first post of this thread).

why does one need a singular system?

lots of successful transit systems include two-seat and three-seat trips (transit speak for transfers)....for example, DC is now building a streetcar system to complement its Metro and MetroBus lines.....and Miami uses the Metromover to connect MetroRail riders with destinations in downtown and Brickell.

I'm aware. I daily used DC's system for a long time & I know it probably better than anyone on this forum. But the Metro IS their singular main system & the buses (and upcoming streetcars) are only there as secondary systems to pick up the slack to feed you to the Metro. Don't let anyone tell you any different.

And their Metro goes to every major destination in the city (and in the outer city), not stop in downtown then ask people to change to a completely separate system to get to another major destination. Yeah sure, you have to switch lines sometimes. But switching lines is not the same as switching systems, which is basically what you guys are advocating.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I'll never think this is a wise move. I'm pretty sure we could find a way to get a streetcar or light rail across a river so we wouldn't have to force passengers through a bunch of different systems to do it.

No single system takes you to anywhere in any of America's cities and especially not in DC.  Speaking of DC, how can you only use the Metro if one of your destinations involves Dulles, Tysons Corner, Old Town Alexandria, Howard U or Georgetown?  All of these places will involve either walking a good distance (more than a 1/4 mile from nearest metro station), catching a bus, cab or ride, in addition to the Metro (assuming it takes you to another destination you desire).

Stay in some particular burbs and work in the city and you could find yourself using MARC or VRE on a regular basis as well.  In addition, even if you can consolidate your lifstyle only to places within walking distance of the Metro, you'll still have to transfer at Metro Center, L'Enfant or Gallery Place/Chinatown, due to the layout of the rail corridors. However, the transfer isn't a big deal due to the frequency of the service.

With that said, you can set up your life and lifestyle in a manner to where you (personally) can use one mode only.  Assuming a multimodal system is developed in Jax, you'll be able to do the same, if willing to conform your travel patterns to that particular system. However, that can't be applied for all of a metropolitan area's residents across the board.  

[tufsu1]

And their Metro goes to every major destination in the city (and in the outer city)

yes...like Georgetown  

as Stephen pointed out, cities like San Fran rely on multiple systems....BART mainly ferries commuters in from the outlying areas...the MUNI system is what folks in SF proper use to get around the city.

And DC isn't much different...while Metro has better coverage in DC than BART does in SF, the idea is still the same...the system is a hybrid of urban subways (think Philly, NY) and commuter rail...the distance between stations is sometimes faiurly significant (even in town) and there is no cross city service (everything goes through downtown)....that is where the bus and future streetcars come in.

[peestandingup]

And their Metro goes to every major destination in the city (and in the outer city)

yes...like Georgetown  

Yeah, and that's by design.  You can thank the snooty Georgetown elite for that one.

[avonjax]

several points to make....
The skyway
First let's just leave a massive structure to decay and rot in our core, like so many of the empty buildings that remain.
Connectivity and luring business back to the core could be a good step in the right direction.
Ignore the anti skyway people who come here. THEY ARE WRONG!! It's too late to change this now so please stop.....
Find a solution to make it work...It can work...look south to Miami.
Stop being so dumb a@# conservative those of you who run this backward city and try to at least stay in the race. We look like a dump compared the the rest of the cities in Florida.. (I'm talking about downtown, so all you people who live in great neighborhoods who are happy as pigs in poop, zip it.) We need the tax base and a better reputation. Whether you believe it or not, people judge Jacksonville by it's downtown. MOST NEVER SEE OUR GREAT NEIGHBORHOODS>
Now to the fun stuff.
Has anyone seen the Mullaney ads? He looks like he just stepped in dog poop and right as the camera rolled he smelled it.
I don't know if I could watch that for 4 years.
I know that's not nice, but needed to inject some humor.
(But I mean it.)

[fsujax]

true. just because less than half of the AT&T tower is utlilized, should we just close it and tear it down? I mean come on. what a stupid platform to have as a mayoral candidate. Obviously, he knows nothing about FTA, FHWA or FRA for that matter. Do what he is saying and kiss anymore federal money for transportation projects good-bye.