JTA meetings on the future of the Skyway

[jcjohnpaint]

Should be a keyboard macro by this point, but it seems absurd to me to be plotting out routes for any downtown transit solution without a true downtown master plan to anchor said routes in. We badly need a block-by-block roadmap of what we want our downtown to be, including things like use type and funding mechanisms and timelines. We can't make informed decisions about an urban circulator without first soldifying plans for convention center, sports and entertainment complex, the old MOSH site, JWJP (active vs passive) and highest and best use of the mountain of city-owned property and surface lots in the CBD. Until we have that vision fully locked in, we're throwing darts blindfolded with these discussions. Map out the master plan for downtown, and then plan out the routes around it based on feasibility, highest opportunity for ridership, and best chances to spark TOD.

Very well said! 👏 Even if only for avoiding duplicating concepts like everyone having a food hall, putting an elevated trail right over the Emerald trail, etc. yeah, without a masterplan,
We are susceptible to the whims of our politicians. That has delivered failure for 25 years.

[thelakelander]

At the snail's pace this town moves, rehabilitation of existing Skyway vehicles to last another 10-15 years, should be considered a future alternative. Its a routine maintenance item. By the time this town figures something out that makes sense and funds it, it will be 10-15 years into the future.

[marcuscnelson]

One random thought: the description of the Streetcar alternative as "This option supports transit-oriented development opportunities." is a remarkably blatant admission on JTA's part that AVs are incapable of supporting TOD.

What an interesting turnaround after years and millions spent on TOD studies of U2C, apparently for nothing. Obviously the folks here knew that all along but for whatever reason City and JTA officials were in pretty deep denial about that.

We can't make informed decisions about an urban circulator without first soldifying plans for convention center, sports and entertainment complex, the old MOSH site, JWJP (active vs passive) and highest and best use of the mountain of city-owned property and surface lots in the CBD.

Not to get off-topic, but I am somewhat surprised that after three and a half years of the current administration, including all the effort to hand the convention center site to UF, that there has been seemingly no movement at all on actually formally deciding what we will do to have convention center space. It's not going to get any cheaper to keep deferring, especially if the hope is seriously the idea of spending a billion dollars to move the jail in order to then be able to spend another billion dollars on a full-scale brand new facility (which I hope is not the choice).

^ I read the proposed paths for either the AV or street car line as mimicking the Skyway line but at grade.  This infers that doing either would result in abandonment/removal of the Skyway.  No way you would do both.

If JTA is willing to finally concede to the abandonment of the Skyway, let's just start with a totally clean slate and truly master plan a new comprehensive, feasible, efficient, and effective mass transit arrangement for the greater urban core, not just Downtown.  All these "projects of the day" are just wasting millions to billions of dollars on nothing that is sustainable or effective.

They do say on the webpage that those particular alternatives (4, 5, and 6) would entail demolishing the Skyway. If anything though, I would suggest that their quality (or lack thereof) is illustrative of what a bad idea it would be to demolish the Skyway. The streetcar alternative is spending a ton more money on worse capability (and given the unanswered questions about river crossing and other infrastructure, is probably more expensive than shown), the NAVI alternatives would be a disaster for transit use, the trail alternative tries to take pedestrians off the street right when they should be using the Emerald Trail, and there's simply no way you'd be able to build a new elevated system for less than a billion dollars at this point. The potential value of master planning from scratch isn't worth the required cost of getting to scratch. There's a reason cities don't really do that.

[jaxoNOLE]

JTA took all public feedback from the first round surveys and promptly mutilated it into the most ridiculous possible set of options they could muster. But of course, this is consistent with their actions since 2015, when "keep, modernize, and expand" became "replace with highly speculative gamble we will cling to like bad religion, because this is clearly what the people want."

It certainly doesn't help that our local media doesn't seem to see this as the absolute scandal it is. The fact that all options keep BSIC NAVI in business demonstrates how pointless the entire exercise is.

[OspreyGrad]

If the city decides to include a modern streetcar, I would suggest starting with a single line from Kings Street and St Johns Avenue to East Duval Street and A Philip Randolph Boulevard. It would be a distance of approximately 4 miles which would make it about an 8 mile loop. This is about the same length of track as the streetcar line in Charlotte named the Gold Line. I would not demolish the existing Skyway infrastructure. I would modify the existing tracks to allow the use of light rail for higher capacity vehicles.

[thelakelander]

I would avoid a loop because there's no need to force feed a streetcar line into a loop.

You could cut out a few miles of that loop and still serve the same area with a single line, with a few sidings along the way to accommodate bidirectional traffic.

So no need to immediately double up on track infrastructure if the demand isn't there. Save taxpayers several million in the process.

Jax has a bad tendency of wanting to subtract in order to add. We saw this with kicking out several restaurants and businesses and tearing down the Landing. Now we're spending well over $100 million for a replacement park and hotel that when combined, still won't generate the foot traffic consistently of what was ran off.

We'd be better of letting the Skyway remain an APM that crosses the river that also connects to Pearl Square and FSCJ, while treating a streetcar as a different, but complimentary line that extends service to places the Skyway will never reach (e.g. stadium district, Riverside).

[OspreyGrad]

The single line with a few sidings along the way would work better. Keeping the Skyway is important for complimenting the streetcar line. I wanted to avoid overlapping both to save on costs.

 The BRT should also compliment the two and act as feeders into both the streetcar line and Skyway. The city has destroyed too much downtown and has cost us years of positive growth. Poor planning is the main cause.

[Jankelope]

I just really don't understand how we can consistently get so much wrong

[Ocklawaha]

A key feature of Streetcar Technology is the fact that IT IS A TRAIN. It doesn't need to be I'n the middle of a road and in fact, outside of the immediate core, it shouldn't be.

The original JACKSONVILLE TRACTION COMPANY used side of the road placement from Fairfax to today's NAS JAX. Likewise the North Pearl Street, North Main Street lines were on exclusive medians. Plymouth Sweet/Murray Hill ran between the railroad and the street. San Jose Blvd was side of the road as was Evergreen Ave.

"Little slow trolleys," is how JTA framed a streetcar proposal when it was offered as an alternative to the original people-mover, the officials laughed and smirked. We got a few thousand yards of people-mover, for about the same price as San Diego paid for 15 miles of Light-Rail, Light-Rail which operated along existing railroad tracks south to the border.

In 2017 Oklahoma City spend $185,000,000 on a 4.86 mile downtown circulator and 2.04 mile historic Bricktown streetcar line. The 66 foot long cars can carry 104 passengers each, at speeds up to 44 mph. San Diego typically operates at up to 55 mph. Denvers Light-Rail operates at speeds up to 79 mph, while Dallas can hit 65 mph. So much for "Little slow trolleys."

[jaxlongtimer]

A key feature of Streetcar Technology is the fact that IT IS A TRAIN. It doesn't need to be I'n the middle of a road and in fact, outside of the immediate core, it shouldn't be.

The original JACKSONVILLE TRACTION COMPANY used side of the road placement from Fairfax to today's NAS JAX. Likewise the North Pearl Street, North Main Street lines were on exclusive medians. Plymouth Sweet/Murray Hill ran between the railroad and the street. San Jose Blvd was side of the road as was Evergreen Ave.

"Little slow trolleys," is how JTA framed a streetcar proposal when it was offered as an alternative to the original people-mover, the officials laughed and smirked. We got a few thousand yards of people-mover, for about the same price as San Diego paid for 15 miles of Light-Rail, Light-Rail which operated along existing railroad tracks south to the border.

In 2017 Oklahoma City spend $185,000,000 on a 4.86 mile downtown circulator and 2.04 mile historic Bricktown streetcar line. The 66 foot long cars can carry 104 passengers each, at speeds up to 44 mph. San Diego typically operates at up to 55 mph. Denvers Light-Rail operates at speeds up to 79 mph, while Dallas can hit 65 mph. So much for "Little slow trolleys."

Ock, thanks for sharing.  All reasons why, if you have a hundred(s) of millions of dollars to blow, it should be on what moves the most people most efficiently and cost effectively.  If it cost the same to make the "little slow" Skyway "workable" vs. the same for miles of street cars, and you only have enough to do one, you know which one makes the most sense to me  .

[thelakelander]

^They aren't the same thing. The Skyway is an urban circulator. A streetcar does not have to be, serve the same user or follow the same path.

[jaxlongtimer]

^They aren't the same thing. The Skyway is an urban circulator. A streetcar does not have to be, serve the same user or follow the same path.

Ennis, not saying they are the same thing.  Two separate toys, no problem.  But, if you only have money to buy one toy, you have to choose.  I say make the best decision, buy the new toy that works much better, don't pay to fix the old broken one that will never be as good as the new toy for similar costs.

[jaxoNOLE]

Treating them as mutually exclusive seems premature. The sunk cost of the Skyway to this point doesn't erase the existence of a not-insubstantial infrastructure asset.

With significant development occurring around established Skyway infrastructure, are our funds truly better spent developing solutions as if the Skyway doesn't (or shortly won't) exist? It seems more prudent to consider complementary solutions, absent an honest and objective finding that better service can be provided at lower cost in a world where the Skyway is abandoned.

Today, as is, the Skyway is a failure. NAVI is an even bigger failure. Launching a third mode of transit with the level of due diligence completed thus far would dwarf both of them.

[jaxlongtimer]

^ My point is that if there isn't money for both the Skyway and "complementary solutions", it's necessary to look forward at what works best in the future.  Your assumption is we can have our cake and eat to... both the Skyway and something else.  I am suggesting there may not be the funding (and political will) to do more than one option.  In that case, a "tough" decision has to be made to move forward.  Sacrificing better long term solutions for the embedded Skyway that is inferior to other options makes no sense at that point.