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

[ChriswUfGator]

The only one without an escalator is Jefferson Station, but I wouldn't expect you to know that.  They do have a working elevator.  You know, ADA and all.

My apologies, I confused Jefferson with the convention center station since they're both next to the convention center.

And I know it has no escalator, I was trying to tell Stephen that originally. You'd think he'd have believed me without you having had to confirm it, he certainly knows me well enough to know I wouldn't take the stairs in 100 degree Florida weather unless I had to. Lol

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Honestly, the only reason that I know this is because I get off of the WS-2 at Jefferson Station in the mornings.

Why in the hell would you do that?  I'm glad you asked.  Because, fucking Kent Stover, if I ride the bus through the DT loop, I have to wait another 10 minutes to catch my next bus (fortunately is either the L8 or L7, other wise, my 10 minute wait would be about an hour - digressing) BUT!!!!!  If I get off at the skyway station, catch the next train and ride the skyway to Rosa Park - it saves me at least 10  minutes of driving around.  Yes it's another transfer.  Yes, I've convinced a few people to get off with me and have honestly saved some of them 30-40 minutes on their morning commute (due to transfers of the CT2 & CT4).  No, I prefer to make a transfer that requires me to cross a street (not really a busy one) walk through an unmaintained parking lot, up a set of stairs if it means me saving half an hour.

Or, genius, you could drop off everyone there, save everyone time, increase your ridership, decrease your busses headways, etc. etc. etc.

[iMarvin]

Since when are 4-6 transfers going to take a total of 5 minutes? On the skyway, it's more like 5 minutes apiece, longer if you have to climb stairs or use an elevator or get change, assuming arguendo any of those items was actually functioning when you try to use them. This is not a long-haul system. How many people do you think are going to go through that to go a couple miles vs. just driving straight to where you're going in a couple minutes in the car?

If JTA does rescheduling to get everything right, 4-6 transfers could easily be done in 5 minutes, EASILY. Sadly, Stephen has pointed out something:

But the whole question of any thing working is rendered moot as long as the supremely incompetence management over at the JTA is calling the shots.

If JTA could just think and try to coordinate, transfers would painless, on buses, the skyway, and streetcars.

I think you have a lot of misplaced faith in JTA, and really ought to read some of the JTA articles before making your mind up.

The main thing this streetcar system has going for it is that it's possibly going to be a separate agency so JTA won't be able to screw it up. The last thing you want to do is remove that distinct advantage. Not to mention, as I think you are starting to understand now, a system that takes 6 transfers to go a few miles won't attract riders.

I could possibly. JTA doesn't make the smartest decisions, in fact they make some dumb ones, but I believe that rescheduling is so easy, it can't be messed up. If they actually had routes and times that made sense - is this not easy? - transfers are easy, EVERYTHING is easy if they had routes and times that made sense.

I don't know who would operate the streetcar but, whoever does should make try to coordinate it with the skyway so that transfers are painless. And I do understand (I actually never did) that 6 transfers is too much, but one way. 3 transfers one way might be too much for some, but it's not unreasonable.

[thelakelander]

Wow, this has been a busy thread today.  Earlier, I was at a little league football game so I couldn't keep up with the posts. Anyway, I'll pick a chose a few comments to respond too.

The Acosta was supposed to be a freeway. What it wound up being is a mostly empty under-used bridge.

Regardless of traffic count (which happens to be higher than the road we want to turn into the Outer Beltway), it is a freeway.  Its designed and operates as a limited access facility.

Seems like the perfect asset for the streetcar, frankly. All the other bridges have enough traffic that running a streetcar woukd probably impede traffic flow, you don't have that problem on the Acosta because there is generally no traffic to speak of.

Maybe I missed it within this thread, but where exactly are you trying to stretch a streetcar line too?  San Marco, STJC, Avenues? Once the overall goal is established, then the true pros and cons of an extra bridge crossing or retrofit will come to light.

Further, it already directly connects to Riverside Ave, the proposed route, and has entrance/exit ramps that are 3 lanes wide but only have a single lane painted onto them. Perfect.

The streetcar route would not be on Riverside Avenue in that area.  It would go off Riverside at Forest and over to Park or Myrtle to directly connect into the JRTC.

And the $100mm figure is grossly bloated, wouldn't cost anywhere near that. Portland Oregon laid those tracks I just showed you for less than 1/10th of that.

Comparing the Portland or Little Rock examples to a freeway with a complex set of interchanges on both ends are apples to oranges comparisons.  Retroffiting is going to cost you a ton because you'll have to find a solution that keeps these modes from interacting with each other on the bridge, the two interchanges and design/construct some difficult type of approach to even get the streetcar route onto the structure.

[thelakelander]

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.

My view on the Sports Complex issue is that it isn't served by anything right now.  If the plan calls for the streetcar to go down Newnan to connect DT to Springfield, it makes more sense (both for pedestrian scale context and cost) to extend a streetcar line to the Sports Complex instead of extending an elevated skyway to it (the skyway ends 4 blocks west of where the Newnan St streetcar route would be.  While it does makes sense to take advantage of the existing skyway to access certain locations (like the Southbank), why pay to expand it just for the sake of expanding it when cheaper and more efficient solutions are available?

[ChriswUfGator]

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.

My view on the Sports Complex issue is that it isn't served by anything right now.  If the plan calls for the streetcar to go down Newnan to connect DT to Springfield, it makes more sense (both for pedestrian scale context and cost) to extend a streetcar line to the Sports Complex instead of extending an elevated skyway to it (the skyway ends 4 blocks west of where the Newnan St streetcar route would be.  While it does makes sense to take advantage of the existing skyway to access certain locations (like the Southbank), why pay to expand it just for the sake of expanding it when cheaper and more efficient solutions are available?

Well as it turns out you and I are in complete agreement on this issue then.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

My view on the Sports Complex issue is that it isn't served by anything right now. 

Don't you dare piss on JTA's leg and tell them that it's raining.  The stadium is serviced by dedicated shuttles from lots all over the city every home game.  Why is there any need have a dedicated line, football is only 10 games a year!   

[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.

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?

I read through a few of those references.  One of the links didn't work but for the rest the consensus seems to be 5% might be okay, 6% might also be okay, but that 9% is a stretch.  Even 5% is more than double what I'd expected, so I'll concede the point.  But I still have to wonder why a rubber tired skyway is limited to 6% and a steel wheel on steel rail streetcar is capable of up to 9%.  It just doesn't make sense to me.  Aside from the operations aspect of this there is also a question, at least in my mind, about how you could stand up in a vehicle that was on a 9% grade.  I know that they do it on cable cars in SF, but the incline railways all have angled floors.

[thelakelander]

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).

In San Diego is wasn't that difficult.  Several transfers were made at the same platforms:

Blue Line LRT, Green Line LRT, commuter rail and local bus cross platform transferring at Old Town Transit Center:


Amtrak, commuter rail and Blue Line LRT cross platform transferring in DT San Diego

[iMarvin]

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.

My view on the Sports Complex issue is that it isn't served by anything right now.  If the plan calls for the streetcar to go down Newnan to connect DT to Springfield, it makes more sense (both for pedestrian scale context and cost) to extend a streetcar line to the Sports Complex instead of extending an elevated skyway to it (the skyway ends 4 blocks west of where the Newnan St streetcar route would be.  While it does makes sense to take advantage of the existing skyway to access certain locations (like the Southbank), why pay to expand it just for the sake of expanding it when cheaper and more efficient solutions are available?

How is a streetcar any more efficient and better for pedestrian scale than the skyway?

[Ocklawaha]

JTA doesn't even offer transfers like a REAL transit system would. Even across the platform transfers wouldn't help that streetcar on Bay Street when game traffic is turned loose. An SINGLE exclusive transit lane would just reduce road and streetcar capacity. Even if you could build an exclusive lane, the streetcar would be powerless to assist with stadium traffic unless you had two transit lanes/tracks for bidirectional running. With two lanes we just cut the automobile access along Bay in half. The only logical route to the stadium for streetcar is Beaver Street and/or Monroe Street.  Beaver would include a few blocks of private right of way over Hogans Creek, if it turned south and hooked up with Duval East of the Randolph parking garage for a return loop then we'd only lose one traffic lane prone to stadium rush.

The Skyway is superior to the stadium for the same reasons it is to San Marco; 1. It's already poised to go either way. 2. Above the stadium rush. Streetcar however is superior to all of the above between Gateway/Shand's and the Stadium since it would all be on private right of way and it's a hell of a lot cheaper.

OCKLAWAHA

[Ocklawaha]

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).

In San Diego is wasn't that difficult.  Several transfers were made at the same platforms:

Blue Line LRT, Green Line LRT, commuter rail and local bus cross platform transferring at Old Town Transit Center:


Amtrak, commuter rail and Blue Line LRT cross platform transferring in DT San Diego

These 2 photos contain virtually ALL of the reasons why JTA's 'Greyhound Station' plan is completely off the target and why the JRTC plan is so screwed up.

OCKLAWAHA

[JeffreyS]

San Diego has milder weather than Jax.  It probably is more important to limit transfers here but I think some act like a transfer is this monster problem.

I wish the broader conversation in this city was more like on this site.  We talk about what routes and modes are the best where as the bulk of this city just wants to not pay for anything and have parking for their monster truck.

[iMarvin]

My view on the Sports Complex issue is that it isn't served by anything right now. 

Don't you dare piss on JTA's leg and tell them that it's raining.  The stadium is serviced by dedicated shuttles from lots all over the city every home game.  Why is there any need have a dedicated line, football is only 10 games a year!   

JTA needs to put a lot on the NORTHSIDE. Not sure how much space there is, but one on Airport Center Dr would be great. Dunn Ave would also work.

[ChriswUfGator]

Wow, this has been a busy thread today.  Earlier, I was at a little league football game so I couldn't keep up with the posts. Anyway, I'll pick a chose a few comments to respond too.

The Acosta was supposed to be a freeway. What it wound up being is a mostly empty under-used bridge.

Regardless of traffic count (which happens to be higher than the road we want to turn into the Outer Beltway), it is a freeway.  Its designed and operates as a limited access facility.

Seems like the perfect asset for the streetcar, frankly. All the other bridges have enough traffic that running a streetcar woukd probably impede traffic flow, you don't have that problem on the Acosta because there is generally no traffic to speak of.

Maybe I missed it within this thread, but where exactly are you trying to stretch a streetcar line too?  San Marco, STJC, Avenues? Once the overall goal is established, then the true pros and cons of an extra bridge crossing or retrofit will come to light.

Further, it already directly connects to Riverside Ave, the proposed route, and has entrance/exit ramps that are 3 lanes wide but only have a single lane painted onto them. Perfect.

The streetcar route would not be on Riverside Avenue in that area.  It would go off Riverside at Forest and over to Park or Myrtle to directly connect into the JRTC.

And the $100mm figure is grossly bloated, wouldn't cost anywhere near that. Portland Oregon laid those tracks I just showed you for less than 1/10th of that.

Comparing the Portland or Little Rock examples to a freeway with a complex set of interchanges on both ends are apples to oranges comparisons.  Retroffiting is going to cost you a ton because you'll have to find a solution that keeps these modes from interacting with each other on the bridge, the two interchanges and design/construct some difficult type of approach to even get the streetcar route onto the structure.

Well obviously I agree with you about the outer beltway and the traffic count, but the conclusion there is only tbat the outer beltway is a completely unnecessary waste of money, not that the Acosta is running anywhere near its capacity. About the route, it's firmly decided that Park Street is the route? I remember Riverside was a proposed route and I still believe that may be the better choice, given that eventually Riverside Ave will develop commercially. But then again the same thing could be said about Park between 95 and the Terminal, and that has a better shot of developing than Riverside Ave since it already has existing building fabric. So actually now that I think about it that probably is the better route.