Riverside skyway station

[Charles Hunter]

Even better ... let the Brooklyn Park people build it along with their development.  That way it 'fits' their site better, and neither project gets in the way of the other during construction.

[heights unknown]

It is better to just build the Stations first, so development will eventually get there. Building the development then building a Station to serve it is just backwards. That Brooklyn Park place is eventually going to get done. Makes sense for JTA to beat them in projects.

Howso?  I disagree.  There is no guarantee that "build it and they will come" will happen; this has been proven time and again in Jax.  If the people are not already there and around that area, or development in that area is not there or does not justify a Station, that does not say that people will be attracted to that area because of the Station; I say build and construct, and then if the interest (residential/People) is high and justifies the Station, then build it.  No sense in wasting money.

Even though this was decades ago, the Skyway was built with the "build it and they will come (ride)" theory; and it didn't work.  We are still struggling to entice a generous ridership to the Skyway.  Another reason I say this is you have to have or see "the need" for the Station before building; not build it without the need and hope that development, people, etc. will come.

Heights Unknown

[Doctor_K]

Even though this was decades ago, the Skyway was built with the "build it and they will come (ride)" theory; and it didn't work. 

But wasn't that because the layout and subsequent stations were not placed in very many strategic locations, which would encourage ridership?  It *has* been called the 'Skyway from nowhere to nowhere' throughout the years. 

I'd think that if the Skyway was extended to actual, tangible destinations - the Sports District, towards this new Brooklyn Park development, and down into that proposed Jackson Square (I think that's the name?) area down Philips Highway - that the ridership would drastically increase thanks to honest-to-goodness 'destinations'?  Plenty of more-knowledgeable posters here have said as much before.

If this new Skyway station was planned and placed specifically near/next to a planned project, would that not be a different strategy than what happened initially with the Skyway (or at least, what's resulted)?  IMO, this looks more like forward thinking than a lot of what we've seen.

[JeffreyS]

Even though this was decades ago, the Skyway was built with the "build it and they will come (ride)" theory; and it didn't work.  We are still struggling to entice a generous ridership to the Skyway.  Another reason I say this is you have to have or see "the need" for the Station before building; not build it without the need and hope that development, people, etc. will come.

Heights Unknown

This argument was true for many years in Jax. however it looks like the developments are finally coming Three highrise residential units built in direct proximity to the skyway others stalled due to national issues.  It should always be a balence of current need and effort to make your communty what tyou want it to be.
The main problem with the skyway is that it was a half*** job. Built as planned it would have been successful.(IMO)

[Coolyfett]

It is better to just build the Stations first, so development will eventually get there. Building the development then building a Station to serve it is just backwards. That Brooklyn Park place is eventually going to get done. Makes sense for JTA to beat them in projects.

Howso?  I disagree.  There is no guarantee that "build it and they will come" will happen; this has been proven time and again in Jax.  If the people are not already there and around that area, or development in that area is not there or does not justify a Station, that does not say that people will be attracted to that area because of the Station; I say build and construct, and then if the interest (residential/People) is high and justifies the Station, then build it.  No sense in wasting money.

Even though this was decades ago, the Skyway was built with the "build it and they will come (ride)" theory; and it didn't work.  We are still struggling to entice a generous ridership to the Skyway.  Another reason I say this is you have to have or see "the need" for the Station before building; not build it without the need and hope that development, people, etc. will come.

Heights Unknown

"shaking head".....dude they never finished it. Downtown of any city is the place to be or will be so within 20 years. YES there will be some ghost town stations AT FIRST, but eventually when the track connects to other places those new stations will bring riders in. 

The Skyway is lame for a few reasons. Its didn't go where people were already at. Riverside/5points, Springfield/8th Street & San Marco Square. The terminals are garbage. Rosa Parks, Convention Center & Kings Ave were lame stations for a looooooooonnnng time. All the good stuff is in the middle. Hemming Plaza - San Marco - Riverplace. People live and hang out in those areas. King Ave may change when all the development is finished over there. Thats 4 out of 8 good stations, with only 1 terminal (Kings Ave) being maybe interesting.

Who wants to drive? Especially downtown.

Get the Skyway to Riverside/5points, Springfield/8th Street & San Marco Square and watch. They can end the construction there. And they don't even have to do it ALL AT ONCE. Just pick a leg and start. 1 station every 4 years.....its better than just stopping all together like JTA did.

Heights...if you lived in any of those 3 areas wouldn't you want access? Are you enjoying the new gas prices? I'm not saying build it and they will ride. I saying BUILD IT WHERE PEOPLE ARE. Once they do that, if it still sux after the fact then hey no more darts at JTA.

[Charles Hunter]

From an old-timer - when the Skyway was built, there was supposed to be a large multi-use development (office, residences, hotels) on the waste-land next to Jefferson Station.  Pretty much like what has recently been proposed (but with taller office buildings, I think - hey, it was the 70s, all the office buildings that never were were tall). 

If things were different, they wouldn't be the same.  What would ridership been like if that development had happened?

And yes, Springfield, Riverside, San Marco, and Sports Complex legs would be good - the problem would be getting the money.

[Ocklawaha]

Finding the money shouldn't be that hard, there is $100 Million for transit sitting in the bank from the BJP... and it just sits and sits, no one has a plan, better or otherwise. Beyond that, tons of creative things, buy up some small parcels and announce the skyway and new stations X,Y, and Z and watch the values soar. Moreover, there are car sponsors, station sponsors, kiosks, rentals, leases, branding, Skyway-memoribilia...  They keep parroting why they CAN'T do it, but no one has asked any of us to just do it for them... D#(B A@#@s!

OCKLAWAHA

[thelakelander]

I would hope that JTA would not spend any of that $100 million until ALL of their current studies are complete.  Once the commuter rail and streetcar studies are completed, we may find out that the $100 million is better spent elsewhere.

After all, the Skyway will ultimately need another form of mass transit to feed it with riders from the inner core neighborhoods and suburbs.

[Charles Hunter]

Question - is the $100 Million in BJP for transit, for any "rapid transit" use, or just for right-of-way for "rapid transit"?  I also have heard, but do no know where to look to confirm/refute that the BJP referendum prohibits using any of the BJP money for the Skyway.

[thelakelander]

The $100 million is for rapid mass transit ROW.

[Charles Hunter]

Thanks, thelakelander ... had you heard the "Skyway ban" on the money?  Is this true, or an urban legend?
Limiting the money to right-of-way (and perhaps "rapid mass transit") looks like it would limit its availability for downtown streetcars within the street rights of way.  But it should be usable for commuter rail.

[thelakelander]

I remember Mike Miller mentioning the money could not be used for Skyway extension, but I have not seen any documents stating that.  Nevertheless, it shouldn't.  The Skyway is going to remain rarely used until there's a regional transit system that feeds it with ridership on a regular basis (game day does not happen on a regular basis), as originally planned.

On the other hand, that money could be used to secure rail ROW from CSX, FEC or NS for commuter rail.

[Ocklawaha]

We have three very different animals in SKYWAY, COMMUTER RAIL and HERITAGE STREETCAR. I could write a book on ways to fund them and so could Mike Miller with the time he has been exposed to Mass Transit. Any read of ANY industry magazine is chock full of great funding ideas and ways to get around uncle sam. So even if our money is restricted to Commuter Rail (Sorry Mike and COJ but streetcars are A light FORM of Commuter Rail) then we can still fund the Skyway and/or streetcars 1,000,001 different ways. The fact that we do no branding, no sub-leases of station space, no memoribilia, no models, no toys, no shirts, no pizza, no coke, no coffee, NOTHING is done with the skyway... It has the potential to have bigger trains, longer trains, faster service, more through routes, station and hotel services, water interface on Bay st. near Randolph/Shipyards.


Monorail and waterfront ferry/taxi station in Jax? (Sydney)

Imagine a Hogans Creek Skyway-River Taxi transfer Station. Museum of the transport of tomorrow...TODAY in Jacksonville. The way over the FEC in the Southside. An all air route to St. Vincents, Memorial, Shands, VA, or an all air route from Edward Waters, FCCJ, JU.


Where the Skyway, Riverwalk and River Transit all meet by the Shipyards... (Sydney)

The Skyway now has an important role to play in the grand plan of things, which is probably why we ignore it and it's potential. BUCK ROGERS has landed and he lives at Central Station! We just need vision at the top. Yes the Skyway needs to be completed when it feeds Commuter Rail, but then Commuter Rail needs a FINISHED Skyway to feed it from Day ONE.

Ocklawaha

[thelakelander]

Of course there are a thousand ways to fund all of these things.  Its just the $100 million set aside for ROW purchase is not an option to pay for the capital cost of building new lines.  That's why I hope the money is spent to potentially purchase available rail ROW.  If that was done with the CSX A line, the track would already be in place, thus killing two birds with one stone.

However, I agree for the skyway to really serve all of downtown, it will have to be extended to certain areas.  But it may not be best to invest in more expensive additions (unless public/private partnerships can be established) if we can fund a more extensive starter system stretching into the burbs for an affordable cost.  Tying in more residents from the start will make it a lot more easier to get something done in this town, then only throwing money downtown will.

[JeffreyS]

I agree commuter rail at least one leg is where our next step should be. The exception I can think of is skyway though the Brooklyn station should be done and an extension into five points seems like you could get sponsored by the major corporations it would pass in front of (BCBS, Fidelity, Everbank ect.).  The new trolley might prove the value to these corporations.  Of course the JTA seems to ignore  the idea of sponsors.