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

[Ocklawaha]

For the sake of argument, getting the Skyway east of Main would do wonders for it's ridership. Forget the stadium for a minute and think of Newnan Street with streetcar below and Skyway above then toss in buses. You could create a lot of synergy in a location like that. Add one new sparkling Convention Center and the east side of downtown would take off like Moody's goose. With just that addition and Atlantic Avenue I think we could consider the Skyway a well connected PART of the overall system. As it is right now, UFGator is right, it's pretty hard to make a case for including it in streetcar planning except for a single possible interchange point at the 'Jacksonville Terminal' (P.O. to the us washed masses).

Also mentioned was how silly it would be not to build the streetcar on East Bay because of cutting down the auto lanes at game time. Flip this over, and you'll be questioning how to operate a bidirectional streetcar service down east Bay with the street at near gridlock. Unless it had exclusive lanes both ways, you'd foul the schedule from King Street to Randolph. I'd hate to see a complaint down the road that the streetcar ran on schedule except for 11 home Jag games, 13 Suns games, 3 concerts and a fair week.

One possibility that hasn't been discussed though is directional running on single track, up Newnan, East on Beaver, South on Randolph, West on Bay back to Newnan.

OCKLAWAHA

[iMarvin]

I would also like to know where the streetcar was supposed to go over the river. If we build the streetcar going over the river, the skyway would get even less riders.

We can't just design the streetcar system from the get-go around not rocking the skyway's boat, or else you wind up with two incomplete failed systems instead of one. The streetcar needs to be its own thing, the skyway is a just red herring in this process and shouldn't get in the way of sound planning, or even warrant consideration when designing the streetcar routes. The streetcar needs to do what it needs to do to be successful, the skyway really ought to be left out of it. The only way to utilize it is by cannibalizing the streetcar's potential to force people onto it, at which point nobody will use it since nobody in their right mind is going to make 6 transfers to go a couple miles. We really need to design this to be successful on its own, leave the skyway out of it.

So you think we should forget about the skyway, build a streetcar that goes everywhere, let the skyway rot for 25 YEARS, then tear it down (since by then it would be a waste if no one was riding it)?

I think we should forget about the skyway when designing the streetcar, yes. It's not wise to saddle one with the other's problems, or to try and force unnatural synergies that result in a number of transfers that make gaining ridership impossible, much less not allow the streetcar to go to obvious destinations in order to avoid competing with the skyway. That's all silly and will result in two incomplete and failed systems instead of one.

OK, so do you think that the skyway will ever have a good number of riders if we pretend that it's not there when we build the streetcar? The streetcar is not feasible for crossing the river. The skyway is. An extension to San Marco is needed, IMO (along with the sports complex). But if we let the ridership stay the same, I'm almost 100% positive that this thing will get torn down in 2036. That would basically de-connect the Southbank and San Marco from Downtown. Or we could spend $100 million on building a bridge for a streetcar so it can be convenient with a minimum number of transfers? The only way the Southbank will be connected to the rest of the urban core is the skyway. We should get it to go other places also.

1:) The streetcar is perfectly able to cross the river, as I've demonstrated.

2:) No new bridge would be necessary, only adding rails to an existing bridge that's actually pretty well suited for it.

3:) The streetcar will be a failure if you force people to make 4-6 transfers to go a few miles. Forgetting crossing the river for the sake of argument, it should at a minimum definitely also serve the Bay Street entertainment district and the sports district, both of which people have been arguing on this thread that the streetcar shouldn't do for the sole purpose of forcing people to use the skyway. The point of the streetcar isn't to force people to use the skyway. That's liable to result in two failures instead of just the one we already have.

1) How much money do you think it would cost?

2) I'm not so sure about that. As downtown grows, that bridge will get used more. I think it's better to leave it alone and add an extra lane for it, but then the price would be outrageous.

3) You don't think King St and Five Points is enough entertainment along the streetcar route? Bay St should be skyway territory. The streetcar route already has everything you said you wanted: residential, commercial, and entertainment.

[iMarvin]

For the sake of argument, getting the Skyway east of Main would do wonders for it's ridership. Forget the stadium for a minute and think of Newnan Street with streetcar below and Skyway above then toss in buses. You could create a lot of synergy in a location like that. Add one new sparkling Convention Center and the east side of downtown would take off like Moody's goose. With just that addition and Atlantic Avenue I think we could consider the Skyway a well connected PART of the overall system. As it is right now, UFGator is right, it's pretty hard to make a case for including it in streetcar planning except for a single possible interchange point at the 'Jacksonville Terminal' (P.O. to the us washed masses).

OCKLAWAHA

So you think an extension to Newnan to connect with the streetcar (and let the streetcar go the sports complex) and buses make sense?

[ChriswUfGator]

For the sake of argument, getting the Skyway east of Main would do wonders for it's ridership. Forget the stadium for a minute and think of Newnan Street with streetcar below and Skyway above then toss in buses. You could create a lot of synergy in a location like that. Add one new sparkling Convention Center and the east side of downtown would take off like Moody's goose. With just that addition and Atlantic Avenue I think we could consider the Skyway a well connected PART of the overall system. As it is right now, UFGator is right, it's pretty hard to make a case for including it in streetcar planning except for a single possible interchange point at the 'Jacksonville Terminal' (P.O. to the us washed masses).

Also mentioned was how silly it would be not to build the streetcar on East Bay because of cutting down the auto lanes at game time. Flip this over, and you'll be questioning how to operate a bidirectional streetcar service down east Bay with the street at near gridlock. Unless it had exclusive lanes both ways, you'd foul the schedule from King Street to Randolph. I'd hate to see a complaint down the road that the streetcar ran on schedule except for 11 home Jag games, 13 Suns games, 3 concerts and a fair week.

One possibility that hasn't been discussed though is directional running on single track, up Newnan, East on Beaver, South on Randolph, West on Bay back to Newnan.

OCKLAWAHA

The only one of those that would really pose that problem would be the Jags games, because of the way JSO handles traffic that does result in gridlock. I don't think the Suns or the fair would pose any real problem, I've been in and around there many times for both and it's not that big of a deal traffic-wise, there are certainly more people around but it's nothing like the mess after a Jags game. I know you're the expert on this, and you definitely have a valid concern. I would just question whether we really want to make these kinds of planning decisions based on a football game 11 days out of a 365 day year. It seems to me the other 354 days, the utility would far outweigh the hassle on the 11 days when the Jags have home games.

[iMarvin]

One possibility that hasn't been discussed though is directional running on single track, up Newnan, East on Beaver, South on Randolph, West on Bay back to Newnan.[/b]

OCKLAWAHA

I just noticed that Beaver is not complete. A bridge would have to be built over Hogan's Creek for that to work. You could use Duval but that is westbound one-way street.

[Ocklawaha]

One possibility that hasn't been discussed though is directional running on single track, up Newnan, East on Beaver, South on Randolph, West on Bay back to Newnan.[/b]

OCKLAWAHA

I just noticed that Beaver is not complete. A bridge would have to be built over Hogan's Creek for that to work. You could use Duval but that is westbound one-way street.

About like this Marvin, remember the streetcar doesn't need a street...it's a type of train.

OCKLAWAHA

[Dashing Dan]

I've worn myself out trying to keep up with all of this today.

Now all I want is to wait for the next PCT to come by and take me home.

[Ocklawaha]

Dan, will that involve a transfer?

OCKLAWAHA 

[Dashing Dan]

No transfer  ... just a 1/2 mile walk from my office on Forsyth St. to The Landing, and then waiting for a "trolley" that has a 65 minute headway on Saturdays. 

But it does drop me off at my back door in Avondale. 

The P4 is actually a better choice for me.

[iMarvin]

One possibility that hasn't been discussed though is directional running on single track, up Newnan, East on Beaver, South on Randolph, West on Bay back to Newnan.[/b]

OCKLAWAHA

I just noticed that Beaver is not complete. A bridge would have to be built over Hogan's Creek for that to work. You could use Duval but that is westbound one-way street.

About like this Marvin, remember the streetcar doesn't need a street...it's a type of train.

OCKLAWAHA

Lol, silly me. That's not expensive at all.

[Dashing Dan]

The way that the system is set up right now, transfers just don't make sense.  The headways are too long and you can't tell enough from the schedules to know when the buses are supposed to arrive at transfer points. 

Transfers would be less of a pain if you could look at a smartphone and know the bus locations in real time.  Other systems already have this capability, but the JTA is behind the curve.

Walking downtown is awful in the summer so I've been doing a lot of driving to and from downtown lately, with the parking tickets to show for it.

[ChriswUfGator]

1:) The streetcar is perfectly able to cross the river, as I've demonstrated.

2:) No new bridge would be necessary, only adding rails to an existing bridge that's actually pretty well suited for it.

3:) The streetcar will be a failure if you force people to make 4-6 transfers to go a few miles. Forgetting crossing the river for the sake of argument, it should at a minimum definitely also serve the Bay Street entertainment district and the sports district, both of which people have been arguing on this thread that the streetcar shouldn't do for the sole purpose of forcing people to use the skyway. The point of the streetcar isn't to force people to use the skyway. That's liable to result in two failures instead of just the one we already have.

Sorry, but these are bugaboo points.

Sure we could pretend there isnt one of the worlds great rivers right in the middle of our downtown for the sake of argument.

We could also tunnel under the river for the sake of argument, or pretend that people can breathe underwater for the sake of argument.

Shoot, we could even pretend that star trek's teleporters are up and functional if we wanted to.

But this is a lot of pretending in order to find a situation that it makes sense to ignore the equipment we've already invested in doesnt it?

First we have to ludicrously pretend that anyone would have to make four to six transfers to go a couple of miles.  No one has ever suggested that, nor is it even possible that anyone would.

Second we would have to pretend that we have unlimited funds to build new bridges for transit.

Third we would have to pretend that it would be easier to retrofit an existing bridge and use a combination cablecar/trolley system than it would be to transfer from one system to the next.

Fourth we would have to pretend that literally no phased build out or other options would ever be possible again once we did something.


IM lost.  Why are we pretending all of this?  For what purpose?

The street cars as planned should function independently of the skyway on the side of the river they are planned for.  But the do need a central hub to get over the river and we already have a transit bridge in place.

I certainly would not be averse to building or retrofitting a bridge for trollies, but I also wouldnt mind transferring for a 5 minute trip over the river in order to get onto a regional trolley/train/or bus.

In fact I did that quite often while travelling from my home in sanfranciscos SoMa district to get to Telegraph Avenue in Berkely.  Bus from SoMa to BART station, under the bay and over to Berkely.  Transfer to bus and head on down Telegraph.  The transfers were good for a couple of hours, and I never ever thought twice about them. 

No big deal.  People literally do it ever day in cities across the world.  Same as the subways in New York connecting to train and bus.  I think you have to be an actual transit user to understand this.

What I can't understand is the driver behavior and all the inconveniences that they are willing to deal with.  First they have to sit in traffic.  Then they have to make pit stops in order to wait in line for gas (outside regardless of the weather) then they have to find a place to park---sometimes they additionally have to pay to do so.  Then they still have to walk the same distance as a transit user.  Its way more inconvenient than using mass transit, i think.  But hey.  People do it.

Well, actually, each of those points is valid and I'd suggest you may want to reread the past 5 pages or so on this topic. Or, if I'm supposed to pretend that we don't have a river, are you pretending that rails can't cross water?

You are also, possibly by mistake, possibly not, reframing the issue as one of building a new bridge, when it is simply one of embedding the rails in an existing bridge, as I've stated from the beginning. It may cost money, yes. Most things worth doing generally do.

Regarding the number of transfers, let's do some basic math. At a bare minimum, requiring the skyway to be used in conjunction with the streetcar would require 1 transfer from the streetcar to the skyway, one transfer from the skyway back to the streetcar on the return leg, and about half the time, and definitely if you are crossing the river, will also require an additional a skyway-to-skyway transfer on each leg.

So, unless you're arguing that 2+2 does not = 4, haven't you just added a total of 4 additional transfers on a roundtrip? Plus however many were required on the streetcar system itself. Let's put that number at 1, following Ock's statement that there is a limit of 1 transfer before you start losing passengers. 1 transfer on each leg, which unless you're arguing that 1+1 doesn't = 2, plus the 2-4 additional transfers on the skyway, yields exactly what I depicted; namely 4-6 transfers to go a few miles. So yes, not only was that exactly what was being suggested, that's exactly how it would work in reality. That will pose a problem in attracting ridership.

Additionally, if you read the previous posts in this thread, you'll note the river crossing subject was purely ancillary, though I do believe adding a trolley crossing is a wise choice, if the funds ever become available. The original issue, however, is that several posters claimed or implied that the streetcar should not go to various areas of downtown, or to the sports district, and should instead only connect up with a skyway station because this will finally force people to use the skyway. I responded then, as I am now, that this is a horrible idea because of the added transfers which will decrease ridership, especially on such a short route.

You people are nuts if you think anyone in their right mind won't simply spend 2 minutes in the car instead of having to endure 4-6 transfers only to travel a few miles.

Or are we just designing another JTA-esque system for people who have no other option?

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

You people are nuts if you think anyone in their right mind won't simply spend 2 minutes in the car instead.

This is why you can't debate this.  You are a very car-centric person with not even an ounce of willingness to try public transportation.  In the 7-11 post you wished it were a gas station so you didn't have to drive 2 blocks out of your way for gas.  And you keep referrin people back to SD's 30 Days of JTA - while I assume that mostly it's factual, no doubt that it's been a tad embellished for the sake of good story.

No one here is arguing that public transportation is better than driving, just that it's an alternative.  Streetcars are another alternative.  The Skyway is another alternative.  I'm willing to argue you that even if these services got you from doorstep to doorstep in the same amount of time, you'd still be unwilling to reliquish the freedom of the car (ask my wife).  No one is arguing that the system doesn't need to be fixed.  There are a myriad of deficiencies and over-runs and duplications that could/should/need to be corrected, and those of us that use it are keenly aware of them.

I'm just asking you re-read your statements in the perspective of someone who's trying to see the glass half full - it's a flawed system, but if more people would quit beating the dead horse and actually start actually beating the hard-headed owners of the horse for neglect, then maybe something could be done. 

Or maybe we just need 'an accident' [in my most sinister, mafioso tone] to happen to someone in charge of JTA. 

[ChriswUfGator]

I'm not positive so I have to ask - Does the metromover in Miami not have this type of developments near it stations? I know it's not the skyway, but the two are sisters and if we could get downtown going again, I don't see why new residential or mixed-use projects couldn't be built near stations and look just like those pics of San Diego.

The Metromover does have some TOD along its stations in Brickell.  However, its also a part of a system that includes Heavy Rail and commuter rail.  Nevertheless, Miami is still moving forward with streetcar expansion as opposed to extending the metromover.  Considering its the most successful example of an urban people mover in America, that should speak volumes:

http://www.miamigov.com/MiamiStreetcar/pages/

Wow, no info online about the streetcar. Anyways, 30,000 people ride the metromover everyday without using any other mode of transportation. Those people have to come from the condo towers. We might not be able to get 30,000 a day, but we could definitely get 3,500 a day if we rehabbed some of those buildings (and built some) along the skyway route into residential or mixed-use. Btw, 3500 comes from the prediction of 100,000 riders a month. That would be a little over that.

I think you misunderstand the wiki link for metromover.  The 30k figure is for all Metromover ridership.  However, a significant chunk of its 30k daily riders transfer to it from Metrorail.

I didn't misunderstand. I went on wikipedia to look up the ridership. If we get commuter rail, people would transfer to the skyway, but the difference would be that the metromover is a complete skyway, whereas the skyway is not.

Except what you actually said was this;

Anyways, 30,000 people ride the metromover everyday without using any other mode of transportation.

Lake simply pointed out that you'd misunderstood which figures you were citing, since those figures do indeed include a significant number of passengers connecting from other transportation sources, when you said they did not.

[ChriswUfGator]

You people are nuts if you think anyone in their right mind won't simply spend 2 minutes in the car instead.

This is why you can't debate this.  You are a very car-centric person with not even an ounce of willingness to try public transportation.  In the 7-11 post you wished it were a gas station so you didn't have to drive 2 blocks out of your way for gas.  And you keep referrin people back to SD's 30 Days of JTA - while I assume that mostly it's factual, no doubt that it's been a tad embellished for the sake of good story.

No one here is arguing that public transportation is better than driving, just that it's an alternative.  Streetcars are another alternative.  The Skyway is another alternative.  I'm willing to argue you that even if these services got you from doorstep to doorstep in the same amount of time, you'd still be unwilling to reliquish the freedom of the car (ask my wife).  No one is arguing that the system doesn't need to be fixed.  There are a myriad of deficiencies and over-runs and duplications that could/should/need to be corrected, and those of us that use it are keenly aware of them.

I'm just asking you re-read your statements in the perspective of someone who's trying to see the glass half full - it's a flawed system, but if more people would quit beating the dead horse and actually start actually beating the hard-headed owners of the horse for neglect, then maybe something could be done. 

Or maybe we just need 'an accident' [in my most sinister, mafioso tone] to happen to someone in charge of JTA. 

1) I am not a car-centric person, I just live in a city where stowing away on a trash barge is faster and nicer than JTA.

2) In cities where it is done properly, public transit is often much better than driving a car. If it were done properly here, I'd love to use it. But no, admittedly I'm not about to make a half-dozen train changes to go a few miles, and my apologies in advance, but the vast majority of people won't either. Which is why I'm being proactive and pointing out now, ahead of time, that we should avoid creating the same type of systemic deficiencies everyone hates about JTA.