Skyway Could Be Torn Down.....In 2036!

[ChriswUfGator]

The skyway's benefit is that it crosses the river, connecting the Southbank and potentially San Marco. On the other hand, adding another river crossing and elevating a streetcar over the FEC to get to San Marco would be cost prohibitive.

That's not really the point, Lake. You've got people arguing that the streetcar shouldn't go downtown, or to the sports district, Bay Street, etc., in order to force people to use the skyway. That logic will result in two failed systems instead of one. A transfer should be required only when absolutely necessary, you have to maximize the convenience factor and connect residential with commercial, etc., or else this is going to be one more thing everybody will ride once or twice as a novelty and then forget about because it takes three times as long to use it as it does to not use it. This is really basic 21st century transportation planning here. This isn't a toy or a novelty, you actually want people to use this thing for transportation.

[dougskiles]

There was nothing sinister about the reporter being out there late on a Friday.  The timing of the Ch. 4 story was set by the timing of the T-U story, which was set by a news event.

I would agree, except that I was there at 10:30 am when the news camera and reporter were there doing the interview.  The station and trains were busy.  It was a different reporter that I talked to and she commented to me that she was surprised at how many people were on it.  I guess that wasn't the story the editors wanted so they sent someone else out to ride it later.

I was happy to get the opportunity to talk about the expansion.  How lucky was that?

The skyway's benefit is that it crosses the river, connecting the Southbank and potentially San Marco. On the other hand, adding another river crossing and elevating a streetcar over the FEC to get to San Marco would be cost prohibitive.

My feeling exactly.  The only extension on the north part of the skyway system that would make any sense to me would be from FSCJ to Shands.  You would have two main lines serving urban core:

1. Skyway from San Marco through DT to Springfield would be the North/South route
2. Streetcar from Riverside through DT to Sports Complex would be the East/West route

Transfers would occur at Central Station on Bay Street.  This would not be uncommon for any subway system when you often have to transfer once when changing directions.

Another huge benefit for the streetcar on Bay Street to the Sports Complex is that it will be much better for the businesses and a sense of pedestrian scale.  The Skyway doesn't do much for the businesses below, except to provide some shade.

[Ocklawaha]

I agree with the bottom portion. The need for transit in surrounding neighborhoods is there. What I'm saying is that a streetcar going to Bay St, IMO, would not make much sense if we have the skyway right on Bay St. There's about 4 more potential stops on Bay St with the skyway. A streetcar is great for Riverside and Springfield, and when we're thinking about expanding the skyway, there's really only two places it can go: San Marco and the Sports Complex. The streetcar shouldn't do all the work.

The streetcar route isn't really on Bay Street, its on Water/Independence between Newnan and Lee. As far as East Bay is concerned I'd seriously skip it with the streetcar and use a northerly access along a Beaver Street alignment, basically Newnan to Beaver and hence east to Randolph. This sets up a future expansion of LRT/Rapid Streetcar straight up the old railroad right of way between Eastside and Springfield and on to Gateway Plaza. Access to this same abandoned rail line from Bay Street would be unlikely as it would need to run through the middle of Maxwell House.

As for the Skyway, with very little effort it could easily go to the farmers market/Woodstock, Shand's/VA Clinic and Riverside. You'll recall that Riverside was the last destination that JTA advertised they were planning on going with it. It was supposed to serve Brooklyn Park and end near Blue Cross, the failure of the development killed that extension. JTA needs to focus on established neighborhoods and get the Skyway AND Streetcar to those destinations. If a stadium extension was ever built (And I think it should) it needs to tap the Eastside neighborhoods.

Single transfers, especially across-the-platform transfers would be fine, beyond that you lose ridership.

OCKLAWAHA

[peestandingup]

The skyway's benefit is that it crosses the river, connecting the Southbank and potentially San Marco. On the other hand, adding another river crossing and elevating a streetcar over the FEC to get to San Marco would be cost prohibitive.

Streetcars cross rivers all the time. We can't lay tracks on the Acosta Bridge or use the railroad bridge that runs parallel to it??

[Jdog]

A study I read this morning estimated that travellers believe transfers take up to three times longer than what they take in reality.  Also, convenience isn't just a question of time it also comprises things like restroom facilities, retail, etc. at the transfer station.  Perceptions of safety was also important in evaluating transfer "penalties."  While transferring from something like commuter rail or commuter bus to the Skyway for distributing purposes could be necessary, I think you want as few transfers as possible intra- and inter-system.  IMHO.

..."across the platform transfers"...very helpful.   

[RockStar]

Turn it into a roller coaster....add a loop and a few corkscrews over the river...

[ChriswUfGator]

I agree with the bottom portion. The need for transit in surrounding neighborhoods is there. What I'm saying is that a streetcar going to Bay St, IMO, would not make much sense if we have the skyway right on Bay St. There's about 4 more potential stops on Bay St with the skyway. A streetcar is great for Riverside and Springfield, and when we're thinking about expanding the skyway, there's really only two places it can go: San Marco and the Sports Complex. The streetcar shouldn't do all the work.

The streetcar route isn't really on Bay Street, its on Water/Independence between Newnan and Lee. As far as East Bay is concerned I'd seriously skip it with the streetcar and use a northerly access along a Beaver Street alignment, basically Newnan to Beaver and hence east to Randolph. This sets up a future expansion of LRT/Rapid Streetcar straight up the old railroad right of way between Eastside and Springfield and on to Gateway Plaza. Access to this same abandoned rail line from Bay Street would be unlikely as it would need to run through the middle of Maxwell House.

As for the Skyway, with very little effort it could easily go to the farmers market/Woodstock, Shand's/VA Clinic and Riverside. You'll recall that Riverside was the last destination that JTA advertised they were planning on going with it. It was supposed to serve Brooklyn Park and end near Blue Cross, the failure of the development killed that extension. JTA needs to focus on established neighborhoods and get the Skyway AND Streetcar to those destinations. If a stadium extension was ever built (And I think it should) it needs to tap the Eastside neighborhoods.

Single transfers, especially across-the-platform transfers would be fine, beyond that you lose ridership.

OCKLAWAHA

+1 on single transfers max.

But about East Bay Street, I believe the streetcar must deliberately use that route, perhaps in addition to the one you suggest, in order to serve the growing entertainment district down there. It's the sole, singular, thing generating any activity downtown, we'd be silly not to plant this thing right down the middle and connect that asset with the residential neighborhoods. Especially where the type of business we're talking about combined with the natural desire to want to avoid a DUI presents a unique impetus to ridership.

[ChriswUfGator]

The skyway's benefit is that it crosses the river, connecting the Southbank and potentially San Marco. On the other hand, adding another river crossing and elevating a streetcar over the FEC to get to San Marco would be cost prohibitive.

Streetcars cross rivers all the time. We can't lay tracks on the Acosta Bridge or use the railroad bridge that runs parallel to it??

Of course you could run a streetcar line over an existing bridge, it's just one more thing to pay for though. Which is Lake's point I think. The railroad bridge would be tougher, it's unlikely FEC would allow it, plus depending on what gauge the streetcar system uses it might be incompatible. A lot of the streetcar systems didn't use standard freight gauge track, they didn't have to since there was no interchange required between the two. If Ock is planning on obtainting some actual vintage hardware, then I dunno, you'd have to ask him.

But a lot of the resistance you're seeing in this thread to what is obviously nothing more than accepting reality, is this lingering desire to make something out of the skyway mess. Unfortunately, I think the risks of designing the streetcar around the skyway far exceed the cost of doing what needs to be done to create a self-sufficient system. This is truly our last chance at real mass transit, folks. After the skyway, if this winds up being another expensive novelty the public appetite won't be there to get yet another chance at this apple. It must be done right this time, and we really have no choice but to design a self-sufficient and complete streetcar system so the damn thing actually works, instead of some ill-conceived shotgun wedding between streetcar and skyway that winds up forcing people to make multiple transfers. In doing so, you're relegating both systems to novelties instead of real transportation. The streetcar needs to go where it needs to go to be successful, forget the skyway for now.

I wish the skyway had turned out differently, and I don't think we should tear it down. But these ideas about having a streetcar system force extra transfers to make people utilize the skyway, just so people will ride it, and ignoring obvious streetcar destinations to avoid competing with the skyway, is risky and extremely ill-advised. You run the very real risk of having two incomplete systems, instead of just one. Again, this should be real transportation, not just a novelty, or one of those things you'd like to use but you just don't have the extra hour to waste in the morning.

[Ocklawaha]

Without building a completely new bridge, there is no simple way across the river for a streetcar line. You'd also have to elevate it over the railroad to get into San Marco. The Main Street Bridge would work well IF you could get rid of the freeway ramps and restrict/control boat traffic. These are the principal reasons why the Skyway needs to stay and needs to serve DEEP San Marco and perhaps someday San Jose. Leaving it alone on the north bank and extending the south end would still give many residents a way to work.

Streetcar/LRT will shine best on the north bank and the historic core neighborhoods. The benefit here is if we do it right, a future extension to Orange Park with Light Rail becomes a reality, running from the end of the streetcar line to where ever. The track can be built to handle both streetcars and light rail vehicles.

OCKLAWAHA

[Ocklawaha]

As it stands right now, a Streetcar down Water from Lee to Newnan could effect an easy transfer at the Jacksonville Terminal (JRTC/PO). Unlike JTA'S stupid BRT plan, there isn't another area where the Skyway and Streetcar would compete for traffic.

OCKLAWAHA

[ChriswUfGator]

Without building a completely new bridge, there is no simple way across the river for a streetcar line. You'd also have to elevate it over the railroad to get into San Marco. The Main Street Bridge would work well IF you could get rid of the freeway ramps and restrict/control boat traffic. These are the principal reasons why the Skyway needs to stay and needs to serve DEEP San Marco and perhaps someday San Jose. Leaving it alone on the north bank and extending the south end would still give many residents a way to work.

Streetcar/LRT will shine best on the north bank and the historic core neighborhoods. The benefit here is if we do it right, a future extension to Orange Park with Light Rail becomes a reality, running from the end of the streetcar line to where ever. The track can be built to handle both streetcars and light rail vehicles.

OCKLAWAHA

The Acosta wound up being so underutilized that you could probably carve out space for a streetcar line and nobody would really notice a missing lane. Or rather than enclosing off the streetcar like the skyway is, just imbed the tracks flush into the concrete of the right lanes on each side and put up flashing "Caution: Watch for Streetcar" signs for motorists.

[ChriswUfGator]

This doesn't have to be expensive or complicated, people...just imbed the tracks in the lanes on the bridge like they do elsewhere;

[Ocklawaha]

Yes it's easily done but you'd have to get rid of the 'freeway' aspect of the Acosta, many times I've seen cars on the bridge going 60-65mph. Unless a 30-40 mph streetcar had an exclusive line using Jersey barriers it would be a no go. Don't forget some of the ramp areas are just two lanes.

OCKLAWAHA

[JeffreyS]

How would a streetcar to the stadium take ridership away from something that isn't there?  A streetcar only takes ridership away if there was a duplicate proposal to build a skyway line down the same corridor.

Btw, from my point of view, I'm not in favor of extending the skyway simply to add riders to that particular mode.  I'm gunning for whatever makes economic and fiscal sense from a holistic view point.  Given the costs, if the streetcar is already running down a corridor like Newnan, its not too far off base to run a line from that point to the stadium district.  However, there's no sense in battling the specifics of that corridor today.  We need to go ahead and get transit extended into some neighborhoods outside of DT first.  At least then, we'll have something that takes some people where they want to go along while feeding riders into the skyway and local bus network.

I agree with the bottom portion. The need for transit in surrounding neighborhoods is there. What I'm saying is that a streetcar going to Bay St, IMO, would not make much sense if we have the skyway right on Bay St. There's about 4 more potential stops on Bay St with the skyway. A streetcar is great for Riverside and Springfield, and when we're thinking about expanding the skyway, there's really only two places it can go: San Marco and the Sports Complex. The streetcar shouldn't do all the work.

You can't just intentionally force people to switch transit modes in order to support a system that otherwise doesn't work on its own, either. You're going to end up with two incomplete / half-functional systems, that create enough inconvenience to make them an unattractive proposition to users. Remember you are competing with the car. Forcing people to get off a streetcar, board the skyway, then get off to board another streetcar, just so that people will ride the skyway, is not going to have good results. We should have a complete and functional streetcar system, not just a feeder for the skyway  and for JTA buses. Your comment indicating it could ever be a meaningful feeder for JTA's buses is a little misplaced, you are talking about two different demographics. People will ride a streetcar, but most don't and won't ride JTA buses. The streetcar should be a self-sufficient system, if it happens to have some ancillary benefit to other modes nearby, great, but don't sacrifice the sound planning of the new system to force people to accomodate failed systems, it's not going to turn out well. The streetcar should go down Bay Street, regardless of whether the skyway is there or not, it should extend all the way to the stadium too.

The skyway is a red herring, leave it out of the streetcar planning. Make a complete streetcar system that's functional, instead of trying to use it to force people to ride the skyway. Introduce enough hassle into it and nobody will use either system.

The skyway will still have the pitiful ridership it has now if we get the streetcar to go everywhere the skyway can go. One extension to San Marco would increase ridership, but the sports complex would be how we get a serious gain. A streetcar from to St. Vincents to Shands is a complete system, IMO. A later extension to Avondale would make much sense, and I think when you have all that, you have a pretty good base for ridership. In an city with real transit, you're going to have to make transfers. That's just how it is. If we build a streetcar line that goes all around the core, then we might as well start tearing down the skyway as soon as the streetcar is finished. No one will ride it if it stays the same.

Have you guys ever been to a city and used transit.  Transfers and multi model operations happen smoothly all the time.  You don't end lines to force people to ride the skyway you do it to take best advantage of the resources you have. You don't end an express bus line just to put people on the skyway just don't duplicate services.  That way your buses will do a better job covering the rest of the area.  You lower the costs of the transit system as a whole.

btw The skyway is already the busiest transit line in the area.

[Ocklawaha]

Arkansas River bridge in Littlerock is similar, but there are NO FREEWAY ramps. We still have the problem of getting the tracks over the FEC.

OCKLAWAHA