The Role Of Mass Transit In Brooklyn's Renaissance

[thelakelander]

I'm responding on my phone so my response won't be to detailed. I'm convinced that the skyway can serve as a circulator without accessing the stadium. You can serve that area just as well with the streetcar (also a circulator) that's already a part of the mobility plan, JTA master plan, and TPO LRTP. I simply don't see the value in paying more for nostalgia.

[thelakelander]

By the same token, with a streetcar going through Brooklyn to Five Points, I'm still not sold that it makes sense to extend the Skyway south of Forest, even though that was the original plan. We evolve organically, so a plan that may have made sense in 1970 doesn't necessarily make it the best solution in 2012.

[Spence]

Somewhat agree.

A ground level, Again "no-frills" transfer station to street car (bus for immediacy) at both the Operation/Maintenance facility in Brooklyn
AND the Parador partners garage
Seem to be the most feasible ways to extend the useful life of the monorail while connecting the dots to the Arena/Stadium and Five Points areas.

I hope the appropriate decking and overhang heights can be figured for permanence at both locations so that these transfer stations can be built to last.

[thelakelander]

Anytime you guys want to get together in person to discuss the reality of budgets, funding mechanisms, and land use/transportation policy, let me know. I've seen nothing here presented that the most logical solution for the stadium district is to fund an expensive extension of the skyway in that direction. I've also seen nothing to suggest that the Skyway can't be effective without a +$30 million extension in that particular direction. I'd rather see funds spent on solutions that can serve just as well for a significantly lower cost to the taxpayer.

[thelakelander]

Let me respond to a few things.

And it would be a mistake to simply view the Skyway as a surrogate trolley system or bus replacement system (although it can be used in this way).

Nobody has done this.  However, it would be a mistake to not put the skyway within the context of an overall city plan.  When you do this, with an open mind, you won't come to the conclusion of the skyway "must" be extended to the stadium hell or high water.

An offground skyway transit system isnt really a circulator. The skyway sytems had a different kind of purpose and function that will make sense once again, even after we lean on it as trolley system surrogate.

Nobody ever mentioned anything being a surrogate.  A streetcar is simply another mode in an overall regional transit network.  No mode, not even the Skyway, can be a success on its own.  We've got to get past that train of thought for true success.

For the benefit of our readers who may not be up to snuff on the various forms of mass transit, the grade of a transit technology has nothing to do with whether it is a circulator or not.  In general, a circulator is a transit system less than 3 miles in length that connects urban destinations in a high density setting.  The Skyway, streetcars, PRTs (personal rapid transit) rubber wheeled trolleys, etc. are all examples of circulators.

Here is a link for further clarification: http://www.apta.com/resources/hottopics/circulators/Pages/default.aspx

But if you crossed the street and made a station built into FSCJ Campus (and maybe stretched it over to Shands, Built a line straight into the structure of Baptist Hospital Extended it to the Stadium, and on Riverside avenue, bulit it into the development structures including the BlueCross BlueShield building, then you would have a set of functioning connections that would allow the system to work as intended.

Possibly, if you modify land use policy to force a certain outcome.  However, when looking at things from a regional perspective and not a "make the skyway work as originally intended" perspective, there maybe options to achieve success that may not follow a plan from the 1970s.  For example, if you have an urban commuter rail or LRT line between downtown and the airport, utilizing the S-Line, there's really no need to extend the Skyway to Shands.  Why, because when you start looking at things from a regional perspective, you'll see Shands would be served by several other modes (BRT, urban commuter rail, streetcar, local bus, bikeways, etc.).  So instead of forcing the Skyway into a destination already served, take that $30 million and get the Skyway to San Marco, BRT to the Beach or commuter rail to St. Augustine.  No need to burn your transit stash in one specific corridor, simply because the skyway was originally supposed to connect with Shands in 1971.

We have to find a better way to ease traffic congestion than demolishing all possible end point buildings.

I agree, but we should not be demolishing buildings for any mode of mass transit.

Im going to go out on a limb here, and predict massive densification of the areas between Springfield and Five Points over the next fifteen years----with or without good leadership.

That's not really going out on a limb.  That's simply following the nationwide trends of downtown redevelopment and the benefit of density changes as a result of the mobility plan's land use policies.  We'd pretty much have to really screw things up to not see some decent movement back into the downtown core and immediate surrounding neighborhoods.

Designing for a future in which the skyway serves a second, more powerful purpose after a run as a simple circulator system makes a lot more sense than just waiting for the time to come.

My professional advice would be to look at things from an overall transit perspective and not a "making the skyway work like it was originally intended" perspective.  if we do that, we'll end up with a workable overall transit system that effectively serves a New Town, Springfield or Murray Hill just as much as downtown.  In doing so, what's best for the Skyway as a part of that network will come to light.

Land prices and construction projects have been driven radically down.  This is the time to spend on all transit and infrastructure projects.

Ideally, that sounds great but that's not the world we live in and it won't be anytime soon.  We can't even maintain the grass on the side of our highways, parks, or keep our public schools open.  We can't even approve economic incentive deals in a timely manner.  We still don't know where the money will come from to dredge the river for an expanded port.  There's no money for a multi-billion dollar expansion of city wide transit and infrastructure projects.  Things will be done incrementally.  Thus, you have to prioritize certain corridors over others.  That's just the reality of the world we live in.

[thelakelander]

Anytime you guys want to get together in person to discuss the reality of budgets, funding mechanisms, and land use/transportation policy, let me know. I've seen nothing here presented that the most logical solution for the stadium district is to fund an expensive extension of the skyway in that direction. I've also seen nothing to suggest that the Skyway can't be effective without a +$30 million extension in that particular direction. I'd rather see funds spent on solutions that can serve just as well for a significantly lower cost to the taxpayer.

meh.  it will triple in cost later.

It won't cost you triple if you don't do it because it's not needed.  However, you will pay at least triple in immediate capital costs to get to the stadium over a streetcar because you "want" it.

And the problem that Ive noticed with all of the conversation about transit in this town is a basic unwillingness to discuss intentionality with transportation.

The skyway system, using an appropriately scaled platforming system certainly will not cost 30 million.

I generate numbers on stuff like this for a living. I'm pretty sure you'll have a hard time getting an elevated mile long extension of the Skyway under $30 million and I'm being generous. That would include an appropriately scaled platforming system. With that said, at $30 million per mile, that would be significantly cheaper than the +$100 million per mile spent on the existing system.  However, that's still three times as much as a no-frills streetcar line similar to what Little Rock constructed.  At the end of a day, I'd choose a three mile streetcar.  Those two extra miles at the same cost could easily serve a Springfield or Eastside as well as the stadium.

I came across this realization the other day when in a separate conversation, I was trying to figure out why every current plan has such a duplication of routes.

Get rid of those forced JTA BRT lines and you'll quickly discover there's little duplication in the fixed transit corridors.

Fixed, ground level rail lines have an economic benefit, for example, that wasnt traditionally discussed in connection with transit until about the time we started discussing it on these forums and the community at large.

No argument here. I agree 100%.

Of course, the mechanics of its retail stimulative effects (fixed stops= plannable traffic clusters and walking traffic that are more beneficial to a potential merchant, layover times between headways guarantee a steady stream of customers, etc..) were being discussed in a very few other places, but we were definitely on the forefront of that discussion even nationally.

While we've elevated that discussion locally, it was already taking place nationally. 

But there are also sidereal benefits to skyway system, and even moving sidewalks.

In doing a little bit of research, and of course remembering conversations from a couple of decades ago, it turns out that the duplication of routes doesnt really have any negative benefits as long as you are using the different types of transit correctly to maximize their built in qualities.

Take away or modify BRT and that duplication goes way.

In a hyper dense environment, the skyway could easily run at full capacity over streets that are crowded with both fixed trolley/streetcar lines, buses, and cars, without creating a net negative.

By the time Jax is hyper dense the lifespan of the Skyway will have passed.  Nevertheless, LA's LRT system moves over 200,000 people a day with an at-grade LRT system just fine.  Portland moves over 130,000 a day.  I doubt Jax will even reach either city's density in our lifetimes. 

But if you are attempting to use all forms of transit simultaneously as simple 'circulator systems', then you end up making them compete against each other.

Such is the case in this discussion.

I really do think you're somewhat confused by some of the transit terminology.  As laid out in the city's various transportation plans, none of the fixed transit systems compete against each other.  The major issue is the BRT corridors which parallel rail lines and the Skyway.

I realized that I havent ever heard a single discussion about the built in benefits of an elevated system in connection with utilizing the skyway.

There are plenty of other examples of course.  From how the Els function in Chicago, and the Subway in New York to the elevated walkways converted from the elevated trains in Chelsea.

You shouldn't compare a 2.5 mile downtown circulator in a second rate city with heavy rail systems in two of the three largest cities in the US.  Jax isn't ready for a heavy rail system.  Forcing one here would make us the laughing stock of the US.

And I think that if we are going to intelligently discuss the skyway, we are going to have to keep its primary design function in mind, even as we use it for a simple circulator in the meantime.

It's primary role is a downtown circulator.  You can't turn it into a Chicago EL, BART, NYC Subway, or even a Miami Metrorail.  Those are completely different animals.  At best, you hope to make it as successful as Miami's Metromover.

[Ocklawaha]

Ock...once again I ask this...knowing you won't get both, would you rather see the skyway extended to the stadium area or a streetcar route to the area?

The skyway.  The area has been so demolished that there isn't the need for a daily high usage transit line out there.

Well TU, I come down on the Skyway's side on this one, shock as that might be to some.

My reasons are somewhat inclusive of what Stephen has posted, but I think there is a couple of larger questions that the Skyway alone can answer.

If we went to the populace tomorrow to ask for funding to complete the Skyway or build a streetcar we'd probably be shot. No wonder, those fools that wouldn't listen to reason and started building the Skyway while doing their damnedest to erase every shard of evidence, building or streetcar remaining in the city, have ZERO credibility with the average citizen.  JTA made huge promises and launched a campaign of terror on fixed rail, then when the Skyway started to sputter they simply walked away and quit. At least this is what happened in the eyes of the citizenry.

I think to be fully functional it doesn't have to go to 'the stadium,' merely a destination station somewhere around Bay and Washington Streets. It MUST go to San Marco at Atlantic, and should go to 1st Street at Hogan and Forest. This would restore the faith of the citizens who put so much hope into the virtually abandoned little trains.

Virtually abandoned? How long did the banner stretch across Bay Street proclaiming "I'm going to the Gator Bowl?" Just look at the condition of the system, the lack of the center cars, the elevators that smell like piss, escalators that are broken more often then not, empty information booths, bolted down rest rooms, complete lack of JTA human presence anywhere substituting a Wal-Mart intercom in place of a roving assistant.

Fair free the people have proved that they will use the system, how much more could they use it if it actually connected all 5 directions of the core; North, East, West, South and Southwest?  Not unlike The Landing parking lot deal, the city has not kept it's bargain with the citizens and it has done irreparable damage to mass transit in Jacksonville.

There are a couple of other reasons too: ONE: I've got a hunch that changing the way we build the Skyway would result in a massive reduction in construction costs.  TWO: Sending a streetcar down Bay Street whilst dealing with game day traffic is a suicide wish as far as public trust.

Streetcar is MUCH better suited to private right-of-way and for that reason I wouldn't take it to Shand's or the stadium. I would jog on Beaver and head straight north to Gateway on the abandoned F&J railroad route, crossing under the Skyway at Newnan. Streetcar would shine on that open stretch of track like a mini-metro and it would awaken all of East Jacksonville, Springfield and Brentwood and Gateway to new TOD investment.  Streetcar could anchor those communities with LaVilla, Durkeeville, Brooklyn, 5-Points and Riverside.

I want to invite my engineer friends and perhaps a representative or two from the industry to go over the Skyway with me and see what we can come up with.  As you know I was able to get a fairly firm quote on streetcar track for $4 million a mile, with another million or so for overhead, signaling and minimal stations.

I think Stephen and I speak for the whole of Jacksonville when we say Bay Street belongs to the Skyway.   

[thelakelander]

Lake, how would you describe the function of an elevated transit system.

I'm not sure of what your shooting for here. You could have an elevated streetcar, LRT, heavy rail, commuter rail, BRT, or Skyway.  You differentiate systems based on technology used not elevation. Most systems tend to have a mix of grades depending on the corridors served.  However, you'll rarely find extensive heavy rail systems elevated or underground outside of the largest urban cities in this country. 

Also,what would you consider to be the best possible application for a lane multiplying transit system?

What is a lane multiplying transit system?  Give me a little bit more detail on what your envisioning and I'll try relate it to the professional terminology used.

And more to the point, how would you retrofit the streets once such multipliers are necessary?

This is after all, a city at sea level.

If you're worried about flooding from global warming building an elevated rail system across Jax should be the last thing on your mind.  Nevertheless, all you need for a rail based transit system is its own ROW (I'm not of fan of running fixed rail in mixed traffic).  When your ridership grows, couple a few cars together, which would increase the capacity of each train.

We would have needed a lane multiplier transportation system for the same reason that we needed real estate multipliers like the skyscrapers.

It would have had to be an elevated system, because we are at Sea Level.

If you want a city wide elevated transit system, you'll need to demolish the Skyway and start over.  The technology used on the Skyway isn't designed to be anything more than a small urban circulator.  For citywide coverage, you'll need to switch to something like LRT or heavy rail.  Good luck as finding the billions for either.

This is a new dimension to introduce to our conversations, but once again, if we are ever going to properly plan for either the future or properly utilize what infrastructure we have in place, we should be thinking along these lines.

If sea levels rise, which I believe your adding to this discussion, my advice would be to have our ancestors leave town or buy a boat.

[thelakelander]

meh.

Give it a little time and think about it.

The above just doesnt take into account the nature of the elevated lane multipliers or densification.

What is an elevated lane multiplier?  Can you provide a link to an official definition?

[thelakelander]

There are a couple of other reasons too: ONE: I've got a hunch that changing the way we build the Skyway would result in a massive reduction in construction costs.

Compared to the original cost of the Skyway or compared to the capital costs of other modes?

TWO: Sending a streetcar down Bay Street whilst dealing with game day traffic is a suicide wish as far as public trust.

My advice would be to simply take a lane out of Bay and use it as fixed transit ROW, if that's the exact route to be used.  Bay Street isn't that much different in the width of streets Houston's LRT runs down. 



Also, you can change the direction of game day traffic much easier than you can build a streetcar or Skyway extension.  We shouldn't let that be a major influence of planning transit.

Streetcar is MUCH better suited to private right-of-way and for that reason I wouldn't take it to Shand's or the stadium.

Jacksonville owns these streets and the urban core has a gridded street network. There's no reason public ROW can't be used exclusively for transit so that it doesn't mix with cars.  I believe mixing fixed transit with regular street traffic on any Jacksonville street would be a huge mistake.

I want to invite my engineer friends and perhaps a representative or two from the industry to go over the Skyway with me and see what we can come up with.  As you know I was able to get a fairly firm quote on streetcar track for $4 million a mile, with another million or so for overhead, signaling and minimal stations.

I'd love to see what they come up with.  However, when you put together these estimates, they can't just be for the installation of track, overhead, etc.  You've got to factor in every thing it costs to start from their design on paper to their actual operation because John Q. Public is going to have to pay for it.

I think Stephen and I speak for the whole of Jacksonville when we say Bay Street belongs to the Skyway.   

Count me in as the exception. When I started in the transportation planning industry I was a big fan of a Skyway Bay Street extension.  However, at that time, I viewpoint was also on seeing the Skyway completed without really studying all options available to our disposal or understanding the true path of what it takes to get these projects off the ground in our environment.  Now I'm not locked into it anymore for a variety of reasons already explained.

However, getting back to the Skyway and Brooklyn, an extra station at the operations center to tie into Riverside Place and 220 Riverside, makes all the sense in the world.  Here, we have the same issue the Skyway has with San Marco.  A major activity center just outside the Skyway's service area.  The major difference with Brooklyn is that the Skyway is already there.  All it needs is a simple no-frills station.

[thelakelander]

Well this was the point of the old 'skyway systems'.

They were created to provide an answer to the inadequate urban transit ways in the wake of vertical expansion.

Peoplemovers were an urban experiment gone bad.  There's a reason the feds haven't funded anymore outside of Jacksonville, Miami, and Detroit.

You cant really expand the number of lanes through widening them in established cities.  The cost and harm to the urban environment is just too great.

Yet in any densifying system--which had been an ongoing trend since the advent of steel girder construction--- the demands placed on those transit ways continue to increase.

You don't need to expand the lanes in Jacksonville's urban core.  We have a decent grid.  What we don't have is a decent transit system.  We don't have to invest in an citywide elevated system or subway to provide residents with a decent transit system that doesn't require roadway expansion.

But the Feds were willing to fund skyways as 'people movers' because they did the same thing that skyscrapers did for real estate:  i.e. they multiply the amount of available real estate, thereby bringing down the cost of land acquisition and development.  They multiply the number of traffic lanes on any given transit way.  And the new lane is capable of very rapid, mass movement for people needing to travel within the designated domain of influence created by the systems connection.

Isn't the Skyway just a name Jax choose to call it's particular system?  The Skyway isn't a particular mode such as LRT or streetcar.  It was originally a people mover and converted into what's essentially a monorail.

What will they do when confronted with a traffic grid that was inadequate to accomodate the population of the 1960s and 70s, much less our current population?

We can alleviate that congestion by greater options for mobility, like biking and walking (and segways etc).

The establishment of a multimodal street network was a major part of the mobility plan and the context sensitive streets guidelines that the council is currently discussing implementing.  As long as we implement the projects in the LRTP, mobility plan, etc. and follow the land use policies highlighted in the mobility plan, I think we'll be just fine transportation wise.  The key issue is.....for us to follow and implement them.

We can alleviate multiple parking space per car demands by implementing mass transit circulators like street cars and the skyway system (and I have ccome to the conclusion that a sole reliance on peripheral parking schemes creates so much corruption and duplication of services that they simple arent worth it)

But how will we solve these problems long term?

Well in my opinion, the best strategy is to complete a workable skyway system that serves in the present as a streetcar circulator surrogate.  Im not married to any particular shape of that system, but the most logical corridors in need of lane multipliers are Riverside Avenue and the Stadium district.

The stadium transitway is already overwhelmed during games, and when you combine long term planning with the obvious benefits of connecting the 80 thousand patrons back into the downtown economic district, its just an obvious first expansion.

Connecting the stadium customers with Hemming Park, the Omni/Landing and the urban core would bring economic benefits that would help overcome the toxic bubble for small businesses.

You're either putting your thoughts or downtown in box.  The Skyway and streetcar are two small parts of a much larger implementation plan.  Everything from modifying the local bus routes to commuter rail, complete streets roadway widenings and even AAF and Amtrak play a major role.  Neither can work effectively without being fed ridership from these other modes or a significant modification in land use policy.

At least with 220 Riverside and Riverside Place in Brooklyn, there's some decent density coming from the land use side.  Now we've got to best connect to that density with viable transit.  When you evaluate all the options out there, the Skyway makes the most sense due to its existing proximity and the timeline of Brooklyn developments. 

[thelakelander]

No lake.

They werent conceived as just a 'people mover'.  There was a pretty good amount of information about the purpose of the system prior to it being built.

And the grid that we have was wholly inadequate by the 1980s.

From wikipedia:

The JTA Skyway is a people mover in Jacksonville, Florida, in the United States. It is operated by the Jacksonville Transportation Authority. The course of its 2.5-mile (4.0 km) track includes the Acosta Bridge, spanning the St. Johns River, which divides downtown Jacksonville. Each train is automated by ATC (Automatic Train Control), can have two to six cars, and travels at up to 35 mph (56 km/h) per hour. There is currently no fare to ride the Skyway.

The Skyway has evolved after many years of study by both citizens and professional transportation planners. The concept of a downtown peoplemover was originated in the early 1970s as part of a comprehensive mobility plan. The first study was completed by the Florida Department of Transportation and the planning department of the city of Jacksonville. In 1977, these two agencies brought the project to the Jacksonville Transportation Authority (JTA) for continued development and implementation.

Following completion of an 18-month feasibility study, Jacksonville was selected by the federal Urban Mass Transit Administration as one of seven cities to participate in the nationwide Downtown Peoplemover Program. The plan called for the construction of a 2.5-mile (4.0 km) Phase I system (see map of routes and station locations). Other examples of operating downtown people mover systems are the Miami Metromover and the Detroit People Mover.Work on the initial 0.7-mile (1.1 km) Phase I-A segment was begun in 1984. It had only three stations (Terminal, Jefferson and Central). This work was completed in 1989 and two vehicles operating in a double shuttle configuration were placed in service. The technology used was the French MATRA system.

Implementation of the full 2.5-mile (4.0 km) Phase I system began in 1992. Negotiations with MATRA to provide systems for the new extensions were not successful. In October 1994, a new supplierâ€"Bombardier Inc.â€"was awarded the contract for the new extensions as well as the job of replacing the MATRA technology that was operating on Phase I-A. Bombardier is supplying a version of its UM III monorail vehicles which are like those currently in use at the Tampa International Airport in Florida. These new vehicles operate without drivers on a monorail beam, 34 inches (86.4 cm) wide and 28 inches (71.1 cm) deep. These beams rest on a guideway that is 11 feet (3.35 m) wide and is constructed with a 30-inch (76.2) high parapet wall on each side to reduce noise, aid drainage and provide for personnel protection.

All stations are 120 ft (36.6 m) long and designed to accommodate anywhere from a two to a six car train consist. Station platform widths are typically 28 ft (8.5 m) but may be wider at the three multimodal stations ( see the photo of the intermodal Florida Community College at Jackson (FCCJ) station). There are 18 bus bays in this station as it is Jacksonville's major bus transit transfer point. It has won awards for its design and is regarded as a state-of-the-art intermodal transit station. The maximum waiting time for vehicles has been set at 180 seconds or three minutes. The maximum line capacity is 3,600 persons per hour per lane without need to replace system components. As can be observed on the system map, the point of confluence of the primary routes, the Y-junction switch, presents a significant operation constraint on the system limiting the number of trains that can be operated on the system at any one time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JTA_Skyway

Trust me when I tell you that we do not have an adequate or even a decent grid.

The urban core street grid is adequate.  What made it worse at the time was a combination of several things.  These include no fixed transit, no bike infrastructure, toll bridges, two additional drawbridges, and no Dames Point Bridge.  Also, the Arlington/Regency area was the primary suburban retail epicenter of the city at the time. 

[thelakelander]

And Jacksonville, Miami and Detroit are not the only cities that have elevated transit systems in place.

They were just the only ones that tried to implement stand alone systems funded by the Feds.

You're confusing still the technology of people movers with heavy rail systems.  Peoplemovers (at least ours) aren't designed to move nearly as many people as heavy rail.  Also, any type of technology can be elevated.  However, elevation doesn't define the system, the technology used does.  The Skyway, Miami's Metromover, and Detroit's Peoplemover were the only three downtown peoplemovers funded by the UMTA's failed peoplemover program.  Also, the majority of transit systems in the US have been funded with federal dollars.

[thelakelander]

Here are a few scans from the 1970s drawings of the downtown peoplemover, which became known as the JTA Skyway:

[thelakelander]

Im not confused in the slightest.  I was here when all that was happening and wrote about it at the time.

Having Federal funding and complying with a design guideline that was developed by the Feds are two different things.

Ill see if I can find you some of the old literature on the subject tomorrow.

It sounds like it. We've gotten way off track from the original thread topic and you're butchering the terminology of what was actually constructed here (the Skyway) with other systems in larger cities that were designed and actually constructed to serve a completely different role than the Skyway.

It really doesnt matter what the technology is, incidentally.

Trains still performed a valuable and important function when their main technology was a live oxen.

The type of mode (heavy, LRT, streetcar, people mover, bus, etc.) certainly does matter if you've come to the conclusion that investing in something that cost more than other modes of rail, with less capacity is worth investing in. 

This is about capacity and function in reality, and how best to use the asset for the funtion intended while making it serve a useful purpose in the meantime.

If this is truly about capacity and function in reality, then the skyway can't be used like the Chicago EL or NYC Subway.  Elevated or or at grade, it actually functions more like a horizontal elevator moreso than a citywide mass transit spine.   There is a key reason there only ended up being three downtown versions of peoplemover transit systems in the US.