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

[Dashing Dan]

From my understanding, the Acosta bridge has a 6% grade, while most streetcars can handle 9% and stay well within their design specs. Not sure what the problem would be?

Yes, the Acosta Bridge is 6% and the skyway can just about handle those grades. 

For normal trains the standard limit is 2.2%.

If you know of design specs for a streetcar that could handle a 9% grade, then I withdraw my comments about it being impossible for a streetcar to use the Acosta Bridge. 

But I still think that the skyway would work out better for the Acosta, mainly because it's already there.

[dougskiles]

But I still think that the skyway would work out better for the Acosta, mainly because it's already there.

And the skyway is perfectly setup to cross the FEC tracks in San Marco whereas a streetcar is not.  We already have an elevated system that can cross the tracks.  For people commuting downtown from/to San Marco, the #1 pain in the rear is getting stopped by the train.  Provide a viable alternative by extending the skyway further south will generate more riders simply as a way to avoid sitting for 20 minutes staring at a stopped train on the tracks.

And how is walking down the stairs at Central Station to get on a streetcar different than getting off one streetcar line to get on another streetcar line?

[ChriswUfGator]

I know the difference between a cablecar and a streetcar. From my understanding, the Acosta bridge has a 6% grade, while most streetcars can handle 9% and stay well within their design specs. Not sure what the problem would be?

Yes, the Acosta Bridge is 6% and the skyway can just about handle those grades.  For normal trains the standard limit is 2.2%.

If you know of design specs for a streetcar that could handle a 9% grade, then I withdraw my comments about it being impossible for a streetcar to use the Acosta Bridge. 

But I still think that the skyway would work out better for the Acosta, mainly because it's already there.

Pretty much any given streetcar will do 6% and can more than handle the Acosta with plenty of margin left over. I would give you an example, except pretty much all of them do it, I mean, pick any given model. Ask Ock what hardware is intended for the jax system and we can see what it will handle. The only reason San Fran had to go with cable cars is some of their their grades are 21%, obviously a streetcar wouldn't do that. But 6% is not a big issue.

[iMarvin]

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.

The problem is that this fails to acknowledge the obvious third possibility. Which is that designing the streetcar system to force people to use the skyway only results in the creation of two incomplete systems instead of one, with the very real risk that nobody will ride either one.  This isn't 1895 anymore, people have other options, so saying "people will have to get used to making a bunch of connections" is hogwash. That's exactly why most people don't ride JTA buses. If you want ridership, it has to 1:) Be convenient, timely, and reliable, and 2:) Connect residential areas with commercial areas with entertainment areas.

What you're talking about doing is limiting it to being a residential-to-residential link to avoid competing with the skyway. I'll say this one last time; you are only going to wind up with two failed incomplete systems instead of one, and that will blow our last chance at real mass transit in this city. The skyway is a red herring, do not sacrifice the sound planning of the streetcar system in order to artificially force people to use a separate failed and incomplete system. It's likely you'll screw both.

I'm not saying go straight from St. Vincents to Shands. The streetcar is going to on streets that have commercial and it's going to go downtown (that's as commercial as it gets). I've seen the plans for the streetcar and I know the route. The part of the streetcar that I don't like is that they want it to go to the sports complex. It doesn't make any sense. Why not just let the streetcar continue north to Shands and let the skyway continue east to the sports complex?

[ChriswUfGator]

From my understanding, the Acosta bridge has a 6% grade, while most streetcars can handle 9% and stay well within their design specs. Not sure what the problem would be?

Yes, the Acosta Bridge is 6% and the skyway can just about handle those grades. 

For normal trains the standard limit is 2.2%.

If you know of design specs for a streetcar that could handle a 9% grade, then I withdraw my comments about it being impossible for a streetcar to use the Acosta Bridge. 

But I still think that the skyway would work out better for the Acosta, mainly because it's already there.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/101222_redhook_sc_casestudies.pdf

http://www.tacomatomorrow.com/2011/08/new-stadium-way-designed-to-support.html

http://www.seattlestreetcar.org/about/docs/sepa/First%20Hill%20Streetcar%20SEPA%20Checklist.pdf

http://www.cityofsalem.net/Departments/UrbanDevelopment/DepartmentProjects/UnionStreetRailroadBridge/Documents/prelim/design_criteria_memo_final.pdf

http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/05/12/united-streetcar-10t-3/

How many examples do you want?

[iMarvin]

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.

You can't be talking about me. I never said that. ONE transfer is NOT a big deal. People hop on a stop in Riverside, ride it to Newnan, get off, and hop on the skyway to the sports complex. That may sound like a lot of steps, but that isn't a hassle for anyone.

[ChriswUfGator]

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.

The problem is that this fails to acknowledge the obvious third possibility. Which is that designing the streetcar system to force people to use the skyway only results in the creation of two incomplete systems instead of one, with the very real risk that nobody will ride either one.  This isn't 1895 anymore, people have other options, so saying "people will have to get used to making a bunch of connections" is hogwash. That's exactly why most people don't ride JTA buses. If you want ridership, it has to 1:) Be convenient, timely, and reliable, and 2:) Connect residential areas with commercial areas with entertainment areas.

What you're talking about doing is limiting it to being a residential-to-residential link to avoid competing with the skyway. I'll say this one last time; you are only going to wind up with two failed incomplete systems instead of one, and that will blow our last chance at real mass transit in this city. The skyway is a red herring, do not sacrifice the sound planning of the streetcar system in order to artificially force people to use a separate failed and incomplete system. It's likely you'll screw both.

I'm not saying go straight from St. Vincents to Shands. The streetcar is going to on streets that have commercial and it's going to go downtown (that's as commercial as it gets). I've seen the plans for the streetcar and I know the route. The part of the streetcar that I don't like is that they want it to go to the sports complex. It doesn't make any sense. Why not just let the streetcar continue north to Shands and let the skyway continue east to the sports complex?

Why can't the streetcar do both? The sports complex is an obvious destination, intentionally ignoring it because the skyway already serves it makes for unnecessary transfers and two incomplete systems. Let's at least have one complete system, what happens to the skyway happens to it, but I suspect the streetcar will be around a lot longer than the skyway moving forward, so we really ought to make it go where people go. It couod then head North up Florida Avenue to serve the Eastside.

[iMarvin]

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

I mean E. Bay St.

Riverside extension - I would love to see a skyway extension down Riverside Ave. Between that, San Marco, and the Sports Complex, I think the skyway could have a pretty decent ridership. Not a complete system, IMO, but it hits destinations.

About the transfers - Yeah, I don't see the big deal with transfers. I mean ONE transfer is not an issue. People do it all over the world.

[iMarvin]

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.

The streetcar would just continue north and the streetcar would continue east. It wouldn't stop and then turn around.

[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.

You can't be talking about me. I never said that. ONE transfer is NOT a big deal. People hop on a stop in Riverside, ride it to Newnan, get off, and hop on the skyway to the sports complex. That may sound like a lot of steps, but that isn't a hassle for anyone.

I'm responding to several different people in this thread, not just you. There are multiple opinions stated above, that it shouldn't go to Bay Street, shouldn't go to the sports complex, shouldn't cross the river, etc., primarily because the skyway is there. I think this needlessly hamstrings the streetcar system, if we're already pre-determining where it won't go just because the skyway is there. And nobidy is talking about 1 connection, that is fine. The skyway requires multiple connections just on its lines to get anywhere, plus however many the streetcar system woukd require, you're talking about way more than 1 connection.

[iMarvin]

as one of the few actual transit users in this forum, I can tell you that I personally do not mind a transfer, and I do not know anyone who does.  If you need to get someplace, you will go the way that gets you there.  Switching from Trolley to skyway to bus is no big deal, and people do similar transfers every day in cities across the world.

Exactly. A transfer is not a problem. No one will get upset because they have to get off and walk up some stairs (or take the elevator).

[iMarvin]

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.

Why do you want the streetcar to do everything? The skyway is going to be here for at least  more years. Money's already been spent. We might as well try to make it work. If we get the streetcar to go everywhere, then we will just continue to lose $4 million every year. 

[iMarvin]

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.

The problem is that this fails to acknowledge the obvious third possibility. Which is that designing the streetcar system to force people to use the skyway only results in the creation of two incomplete systems instead of one, with the very real risk that nobody will ride either one.  This isn't 1895 anymore, people have other options, so saying "people will have to get used to making a bunch of connections" is hogwash. That's exactly why most people don't ride JTA buses. If you want ridership, it has to 1:) Be convenient, timely, and reliable, and 2:) Connect residential areas with commercial areas with entertainment areas.

What you're talking about doing is limiting it to being a residential-to-residential link to avoid competing with the skyway. I'll say this one last time; you are only going to wind up with two failed incomplete systems instead of one, and that will blow our last chance at real mass transit in this city. The skyway is a red herring, do not sacrifice the sound planning of the streetcar system in order to artificially force people to use a separate failed and incomplete system. It's likely you'll screw both.

I'm not saying go straight from St. Vincents to Shands. The streetcar is going to on streets that have commercial and it's going to go downtown (that's as commercial as it gets). I've seen the plans for the streetcar and I know the route. The part of the streetcar that I don't like is that they want it to go to the sports complex. It doesn't make any sense. Why not just let the streetcar continue north to Shands and let the skyway continue east to the sports complex?

Why can't the streetcar do both? The sports complex is an obvious destination, intentionally ignoring it because the skyway already serves it makes for unnecessary transfers and two incomplete systems. Let's at least have one complete system, what happens to the skyway happens to it, but I suspect the streetcar will be around a lot longer than the skyway moving forward, so we really ought to make it go where people go. It couod then head North up Florida Avenue to serve the Eastside.

Because it doesn't need to. You are correct, the sports complex is an obvious destination. The skyway is already on Bay St, just extend and it serves the entertainment district, the shipyards, randolph blvd, and then the stadium. Those 4 stops could really help the skyway. The streetcar is going to go plenty of places, it will be fine without a sports complex line.

[ChriswUfGator]

as one of the few actual transit users in this forum, I can tell you that I personally do not mind a transfer, and I do not know anyone who does.  If you need to get someplace, you will go the way that gets you there.  Switching from Trolley to skyway to bus is no big deal, and people do similar transfers every day in cities across the world.

Exactly. A transfer is not a problem. No one will get upset because they have to get off and walk up some stairs (or take the elevator).

How many times?

How many additional transfers do you think we're really talking about here? Have you ridden the skyway? How many transfers, as an example, does it take to get from the convention center to the prudential building and back? Or Rosa Parks? You're adding like 3 additional transfers each leg, plus waiting on trains, etc., plus however many transfers you made before you got to the skyway, plus the transfer from the streetcar to the skyway and from the skyway back to the streetcar. When we're talking about a relatively small system that goes a relatively short distance, you quickly reach the point where it takes long enough that people just drive.

[iMarvin]

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.

You can't be talking about me. I never said that. ONE transfer is NOT a big deal. People hop on a stop in Riverside, ride it to Newnan, get off, and hop on the skyway to the sports complex. That may sound like a lot of steps, but that isn't a hassle for anyone.

I'm responding to several different people in this thread, not just you. There are multiple opinions stated above, that it shouldn't go to Bay Street, shouldn't go to the sports complex, shouldn't cross the river, etc., primarily because the skyway is there. I think this needlessly hamstrings the streetcar system, if we're already pre-determining where it won't go just because the skyway is there. And nobidy is talking about 1 connection, that is fine. The skyway requires multiple connections just on its lines to get anywhere, plus however many the streetcar system woukd require, you're talking about way more than 1 connection.

The skyway only requires 1 transfer, but that's only if you're coming/going from/to Jefferson or Convention Center. If not, it requires none.