Re-evaluating the Skyway

[BridgeTroll]

That also won't get you an "A" from a debate teacher.

I am guessing a debate teacher would object to debaters using derogotory terms like $ky-high-way when more appropriate and correct terms are available.

[Shwaz]

Rehashing the same used up points won't get you an "A" either... in fact you'd be thrown off the team as you haven't swayed single MJ poster 

Although it wasn't my first time on the skyway, (it was my first time to wait in line) there really is no reason to use it coming from a suburban area. If I have to drive 25 miles to a station, I might as well drive the .3 to my destination.

I really don't want to rehash all my objections again to the $ky-high-way here.  One can go read any of about a dozen or more threads on this boondoggle elsewhere to see all sides to this debate.

You pretty much summed up my entire point on page six with your own words.

[stjr]

Would you have an isolated streetcar line on the Southbank or are you suggesting to build another river crossing?

I don't see it as a necessity to build a river crossing although if we ever abandon the $ky-high-way, we could reuse that real estate again.  Interestingly, the old Acosta Bridge was three lanes and I was always told the middle lane originally was a streetcar line.  Maybe you or Ock could verify this.  It would be history repeating itself if that came to pass again.

Having an "isolated" streetcar line on the Southbank would be fine if it is designed to loop through San Marco and, maybe, reach to St. Nicholas, Emerson, Hendricks, St. Augustine Road, and/or University Blvd. West/Lakewood areas.  I believe you and Ock have already highlighted smaller starter lines in other cities that have been successes.

So, Lake, what, if any, objections would one have to replace Ock's proposed extension of the $ky-high-way with streetcar lines?

[Omarvelous09]

Ohh the SkyWay...
I remember when they opened it, i was a youngster and it looked like the greatest thing ever. After living in DC and Chicago the skyway didn't look all that awesome. It would be great to have an "L" or train transit..but realistically i don't think it would be greatly appreciated or used. Maybe if they extended it to just the urban areas (i.e. Shands, 5 points, and further into San Marco) and use the rest of the money to improve the bus system. I think if the bus system was quicker, ran more often and longer people wouldn't be so reluctant to ride.

[Ocklawaha]

Jacksonville Convention Center Station, 2021?

Would you have an isolated streetcar line on the Southbank or are you suggesting to build another river crossing?

I don't see it as a necessity to build a river crossing although if we ever abandon the $ky-high-way, we could reuse that real estate again.  Interestingly, the old Acosta Bridge was three lanes and I was always told the middle lane originally was a streetcar line.  Maybe you or Ock could verify this.  It would be history repeating itself if that came to pass again.

The "Duval Bridge Company" operated a double track route over the original Acosta Bridge, seems few if any other historians in town remember that Mayor Jake? promised us to save the center towers and span to go on permanent display in a nearby park. It would have been an outstanding bow to history not just Jacksonville but the entire State. I understand it's somewhere off shore today and I'd STILL like to drag it back home! Damn them! They have done this over by the Swannee River crossing at Chiefland and again as a fishing pier in Sanford on old 17-92 (well worth the stops if you dig old stuff). In my older photos the Duval bridge tracks stop about 20' feet from the Jacksonville Traction rails on Riverside?? Weird, a toll booth stood between them. My guess is the photo was likely before the streetcar connection was built as the South Jacksonville Muni operated single ended cars AND double enders. The single enders would not have ever entered into a dead end track, as unless you LOVE lightning strikes... Ain't no way I'm PUSHING that trolley pole along the wire, (it's always trailing or pulled). If the photo dates after the traction era, then it begs a question of when the tolls came off??

Having an "isolated" streetcar line on the Southbank would be fine if it is designed to loop through San Marco and, maybe, reach to St. Nicholas, Emerson, Hendricks, St. Augustine Road, and/or University Blvd. West/Lakewood areas.  I believe you and Ock have already highlighted smaller starter lines in other cities that have been successes.[/b]

So, Lake, what, if any, objections would one have to replace Ock's proposed extension of the $ky-high-way with streetcar lines?

SAN MARCO EXTENSION:
The reason we cannot extend the Skyway with streetcar in the Southbank is it would require two transfers within a mile for passengers on Commuter Rail or Regional/Intercity Rail who embark or disembark at San Marco Station, (a station that would be placed west of the tracks right at Atlantic and the Florida East Coast). Passengers need the ability to step off the train and onto the Skyway for the downtown trip. Nothing wrong with also having a Southside Streetcar Line, and BRT connections coming out of the same station... But Southside is not optimum for streetcar in the close in areas of San Marco-Downtown, due to two crossings of the Florida East Coast Railway Mainline. Until we spring for two highway underpasses, which will be below river level, totally doable however for perhaps twice the price of your $kyway!

There are REASONS why I now support those 3 extensions on a system I have fought for at least 10 years:

RIVERSIDE AVENUE:
Skyway "central" is already positioned to move down Riverside and the right of way is already owned and preserved by the City. Riverside is not streetcar friendly as both the grades, traffic, multiple merging and exit lanes and freeway speeds would play more to a bus, or trolley bus which has a bit of emergency radial mobility. So we take the Skyway at least to Forrest and connect it to other modes, ideally we tie the new insurance/financial buildings to the system and use the Skyway, Streetcar, BRT, Bus connecting area as an excuse to recycle and save Annie Lytle.

STADUIM EXTENSION:
Any new convention center on the city waterfront Courthouse/Hyatt/Landing area is going to need a direct link to Transportation Center and the Skyway is more then 1/2 way there. In fact even if it just extends the few blocks to Hyatt/Courthouse blocks it would do wonders for city connectivity. The Skyway has an almost unique ability (streetcars too but perhaps a slightly lesser degree) of punching right through the heart of a building like a convention center. Witness Disney's Atrium Hotel/Monorail. Finish it 3/4 of the way to the stadium is just as crazy, when we'd be in easy striking distance of the Randolph/Arena/Stadium/Park/Ball Field district. Imagine the ease of mobility the conventioneer's would report home after a trip to our city.

"Incredible, they had this monorail to the transportation center and another line to the Southside station where we caught the train to St. Augustine. Then these historic streetcars go down along the waterfront to the Landing and this quaint little 5-Points place, or North into the really old homes and shops in Springfield. Going from Amtrak to the monorail was a snap, we went through a tunnel, into this amazing old station, then up and out... streetcars, monorails, buses, freeways, God they even have WATER BUSES..."  (Report to CEO's in DCA/BNA/MSY or LAX circa...2021)

OCKLAWAHA

[thelakelander]

Having an "isolated" streetcar line on the Southbank would be fine if it is designed to loop through San Marco and, maybe, reach to St. Nicholas, Emerson, Hendricks, St. Augustine Road, and/or University Blvd. West/Lakewood areas.  I believe you and Ock have already highlighted smaller starter lines in other cities that have been successes.[/b]

So, Lake, what, if any, objections would one have to replace Ock's proposed extension of the $ky-high-way with streetcar lines?

I'm not a big fan of isolating transit components.  In this particular case, a skyway extension to Atlantic, would be cheaper and more efficient because the system already ties riders in with downtown and the terminal.  An extension of a few hundred feet, half of which could be dropped to ground level, would be significantly cheaper than building an isolated duplicate streetcar line from scratch.  In addition, that streetcar line would most likely have to be grade separated with the FEC mainline (more money) and it would require duplicate O&M operations (more money).  So unless, the skyway was abandoned and a separate mass transit system was built using the support infrastructure, I would be opposed.  Then if this were done, you would still need this particular corridor to construct a transit bridge to get you over the FEC tracks. 

[stjr]

So, Lake, what, if any, objections would one have to replace Ock's proposed extension of the $ky-high-way with streetcar lines?

SAN MARCO EXTENSION:
The reason we cannot extend the Skyway with streetcar in the Southbank is it would require two transfers within a mile for passengers on Commuter Rail or Regional/Intercity Rail who embark or disembark at San Marco Station, (a station that would be placed west of the tracks right at Atlantic and the Florida East Coast). Passengers need the ability to step off the train and onto the Skyway for the downtown trip.

Why do Commuter Rail passengers have to disembark in San Marco?  Why can't they ride the rails on FEC over their bridge and get off directly at a Downtown station like the planned intermodal facility?  By the way, in your San Marco transfer scenario, the $ky-high-way requires two transfers, one to it at your San Marco station and one to another mode once Dowtown.  Why doesn't that bother you?  Commuter Rail can take you direct to the intermodal facility and would thus involve only one intermodal transfer Downtown.

Nothing wrong with also having a Southside Streetcar Line, and BRT connections coming out of the same station... But Southside is not optimum for streetcar in the close in areas of San Marco-Downtown, due to two crossings of the Florida East Coast Railway Mainline. Until we spring for two highway underpasses, which will be below river level, totally doable however for perhaps twice the price of your $kyway!

Why can't the streetcars go up and over.  This may be cheaper than going under.  And, I can't believe it would cost anywhere near what the far bigger $ky-high-way would cost.  Consider, too, that the entire rest of the streetcar system is at grade and the $ky-high-way is entirely, or almost entirely, elevated making the system costs far more as well.

There are REASONS why I now support those 3 extensions on a system I have fought for at least 10 years:

RIVERSIDE AVENUE:
Skyway "central" is already positioned to move down Riverside and the right of way is already owned and preserved by the City. Riverside is not streetcar friendly as both the grades, traffic, multiple merging and exit lanes and freeway speeds would play more to a bus, or trolley bus which has a bit of emergency radial mobility. So we take the Skyway at least to Forrest and connect it to other modes, ideally we tie the new insurance/financial buildings to the system and use the Skyway, Streetcar, BRT, Bus connecting area as an excuse to recycle and save Annie Lytle.

Ock, why so complicated here?  First, the Streetcars could use the very same right of way you claim is reserved for the $ky-high-way.  And, Riverside Avenue does not have "freeway speeds" or the complexity of traffic you protray to my knowledge.  Based on your own posted pictures of streetcars elsewhere, I don't see the widened Riverside Avenue as anything but streetcar friendly.  And, no reason streetcars can't connect to BRT's or buses if needed.  What advantage is there in introducing another mode of transit with the $ky-high-way when you are more than covered by less expensive, more flexible, and more street friendly and accessible options?

STADUIM EXTENSION:
Any new convention center on the city waterfront Courthouse/Hyatt/Landing area is going to need a direct link to Transportation Center and the Skyway is more then 1/2 way there. In fact even if it just extends the few blocks to Hyatt/Courthouse blocks it would do wonders for city connectivity. The Skyway has an almost unique ability (streetcars too but perhaps a slightly lesser degree) of punching right through the heart of a building like a convention center. Witness Disney's Atrium Hotel/Monorail. Finish it 3/4 of the way to the stadium is just as crazy, when we'd be in easy striking distance of the Randolph/Arena/Stadium/Park/Ball Field district. Imagine the ease of mobility the conventioneer's would report home after a trip to our city.

Ock, your own proposal shows streetcars far more networked throughout Downtown and the urban grid than the $ky-high-way.  Why wouldn't riders prefer the most networked option that provides the most convenience, efficiency, and flexibility?  The $ky-high-way is limited to a straight line travel through town for the most part.

In the end, an extensively networked and COMPLETE STREETCAR system can literally run circles around the $ky-high-way system, with or without an expansion, in my opinion.  That's my story and I'm stickin' with it.

[stjr]

I'm not a big fan of isolating transit components.  In this particular case, a skyway extension to Atlantic, would be cheaper and more efficient because the system already ties riders in with downtown and the terminal.  An extension of a few hundred feet, half of which could be dropped to ground level, would be significantly cheaper than building an isolated duplicate streetcar line from scratch.  In addition, that streetcar line would most likely have to be grade separated with the FEC mainline (more money) and it would require duplicate O&M operations (more money).  So unless, the skyway was abandoned and a separate mass transit system was built using the support infrastructure, I would be opposed.  Then if this were done, you would still need this particular corridor to construct a transit bridge to get you over the FEC tracks. 

A Phase I streetcar system for the south side of the river would be to mainly service the higher density intra-sectional traffic on that side.  If someone wants to cross the river, they can take the existing $ky-high-way, a river taxi, a bus, walk, bike, or take any eventual substitute for the $ky-high-way if it's abandoned (such as a streetcar connection!).

As I said in my last post to Ock, Commuter Rail should plow on through to the intermodal facility downtown.  So, for what purpose would one want to expand the $ky-high-way to Atlantic's crossing the FEC?  What's there that is going to generate traffic or serve as a destination?  Nothing that I know of.  This expansion appears to me to be a complete waste even if you were to believe in the $ky-high-way model.

[thelakelander]

Why can't the streetcars go up and over.  This may be cheaper than going under.  And, I can't believe it would cost anywhere near what the far bigger $ky-high-way would cost.  Consider, too, that the entire rest of the streetcar system is at grade and the $ky-high-way is entirely, or almost entirely, elevated making the system costs far more as well.

I can't tell if you're asking for my opinion on Ock's map or responding to Ock.  So here's my take on the image shown.

San Marco Extension

As said earlier, this is one where the skyway would be cheaper, because its an already established system.

The cost of a streetcar bridge would be about the same as building a skyway bridge over the FEC, assuming you used the same ROW mentioned for extending the skyway down to Atlantic Blvd.  You'll pay more than twice as much for a Hendricks overpass (destroying a few historic structures in the process) and an overpass would not be feasible at the San Marco Blvd crossing (the Acosta overpass is in the way).  Once we put the overpass issue aside, you would not need to purchase new skyway cars or expand the existing O&M center.  Put a streetcar on the Southbank and you'll have to add these things to the cost as well.


Riverside Avenue

As for the rest of Ock's diagram, I would send a streetcar down Riverside Ave, south of Forest or Oak south of Margaret.  There are too many major employment, medical, retail and cultural destinations along that corridor to ignore.  


Downtown

Instead of having three east/west streetcar lines or a mega couplet downtown, I would eliminate one or two of those lines and spend the money saved on extending direct connections to nearby urban neighborhoods like Durkeeville, Sugar Hill and Avondale.  We'll get more bang for our buck by getting transit into areas where more residents live instead of a dominate focus on the Northbank.


Stadium Extension

This is something that should probably be studied.  I could go either way on this one.  However, I do like the idea of having a streetcar line directly through the heart of the Cathedral District (Duval Street), as opposed to Bay Street.

In the end, an extensively networked and COMPLETE STREETCAR system can literally run circles around the $ky-high-way system, with or without an expansion, in my opinion.  That's my story and I'm stickin' with it.

I believe a mix will work best.  Neither will efficiently tie in the burbs and their support will be needed for any form of mass transit expansion.

[thelakelander]

I'm not a big fan of isolating transit components.  In this particular case, a skyway extension to Atlantic, would be cheaper and more efficient because the system already ties riders in with downtown and the terminal.  An extension of a few hundred feet, half of which could be dropped to ground level, would be significantly cheaper than building an isolated duplicate streetcar line from scratch.  In addition, that streetcar line would most likely have to be grade separated with the FEC mainline (more money) and it would require duplicate O&M operations (more money).  So unless, the skyway was abandoned and a separate mass transit system was built using the support infrastructure, I would be opposed.  Then if this were done, you would still need this particular corridor to construct a transit bridge to get you over the FEC tracks. 

A Phase I streetcar system for the south side of the river would be to mainly service the higher density intra-sectional traffic on that side.  If someone wants to cross the river, they can take the existing $ky-high-way, a river taxi, a bus, walk, bike, or take any eventual substitute for the $ky-high-way if it's abandoned (such as a streetcar connection!).

Can you show the route that is in your head.  I'm highly interested to see where it would cross the FEC.

So, for what purpose would one want to expand the $ky-high-way to Atlantic's crossing the FEC?  What's there that is going to generate traffic or serve as a destination?  Nothing that I know of.  This expansion appears to me to be a complete waste even if you were to believe in the $ky-high-way model. [/b]

San Marco Square and the Hendricks Avenue Strip would be the purpose and the traffic generators.  With the FEC crossing in place, one could easily work or live downtown and get to San Marco Square to eat or shop without the use of a car.  San Marco residents could use that location to get to downtown offices, nightlife and cultural destinations without the use of a car or being subject to heavy train traffic.  It would also be a nice point to tie the downtown network in with buses coming in from Atlantic and Beach Blvds.

[Ocklawaha]

Ohh the SkyWay...
I remember when they opened it, i was a youngster and it looked like the greatest thing ever. After living in DC and Chicago the skyway didn't look all that awesome. It would be great to have an "L" or train transit..but realistically i don't think it would be greatly appreciated or used. Maybe if they extended it to just the urban areas (i.e. Shands, 5 points, and further into San Marco) and use the rest of the money to improve the bus system. I think if the bus system was quicker, ran more often and longer people wouldn't be so reluctant to ride.

Welcome to the discussion, you are 100% right of course, if the times (called headways) were closer the bus system would be much more usable. In streetcar days our city had 8 minute headways, today's buses run 30-45 minute headways, (if your lucky).

The beauty of expanding the Skyway just to some basic logical terminals, and   streetcars and rail service, is we can redeploy the buses to operate more like our classical lost transit. If we had Commuter and Regional Amtrak Rail, plus a good sized streetcar network and finished our Skyway to some logical terminals, we could retire dozens of bus route miles that are now spent running from downtown to whatever community that local bus serves. We take those same buses and now run them from the nearest Rapid Transit Station to the local community, and we could double or triple the service with almost no effort. Wouldn't 20 minute headways beat the heck out of what we now have?

You get it my friend! Rock on.

OCKLAWAHA

[Ocklawaha]

A simple single beam monorail is quick, cheap and easy to build.

So, Lake, what, if any, objections would one have to replace Ock's proposed extension of the $ky-high-way with streetcar lines?

SAN MARCO EXTENSION:
The reason we cannot extend the Skyway with streetcar in the Southbank is it would require two transfers within a mile for passengers on Commuter Rail or Regional/Intercity Rail who embark or disembark at San Marco Station, (a station that would be placed west of the tracks right at Atlantic and the Florida East Coast). Passengers need the ability to step off the train and onto the Skyway for the downtown trip.

Why do Commuter Rail passengers have to disembark in San Marco?  Why can't they ride the rails on FEC over their bridge and get off directly at a Downtown station like the planned intermodal facility?  By the way, in your San Marco transfer scenario, the $ky-high-way requires two transfers, one to it at your San Marco station and one to another mode once Dowtown.  Why doesn't that bother you?  Commuter Rail can take you direct to the intermodal facility and would thus involve only one intermodal transfer Downtown.

Why would we force the South Jacksonville, St. Johns and St. Augustine passengers to ride across the river when we'd have stations at Avenues, Bay Meadows, JTB, University, South Jacksonville (San Marco) and across the river into Jacksonville Terminal. That would be the rail or transit equal to the JTA super garage that sits by the new Hilton with no entry or exit, unless you drive downtown and double back. Why would 4,000 Baptist Hospital workers want to ride past work and then change to ride back again? Ditto for the other 9,000 or so in the "Baptist - Atena - Pru" Corner.  BTW, SOUTH JACKSONVILLE had an FEC station from prior to Henry Flagler until about 1968, like near twin Yukon (NAS JAX) across the river on the CSX (former ACL) both locations are still on the timetables. It makes little sense to skip this stop by train, when Atlantic is the gateway to South Bank, San Marco, St. Nicholas, San Jose, Hogan and even the beaches via bus. Every Student at JU or FCCJ Beaches Campus, living south of the border would be using that station. Knowing San Marco, we'd even see a detailed reconstruction of the original gingerbread clapboard station I remember.

Nothing wrong with also having a Southside Streetcar Line, and BRT connections coming out of the same station... But Southside is not optimum for streetcar in the close in areas of San Marco-Downtown, due to two crossings of the Florida East Coast Railway Mainline. Until we spring for two highway underpasses, which will be below river level, totally doable however for perhaps twice the price of your $kyway!

Why can't the streetcars go up and over.  This may be cheaper than going under.  And, I can't believe it would cost anywhere near what the far bigger $ky-high-way would cost.  Consider, too, that the entire rest of the streetcar system is at grade and the $ky-high-way is entirely, or almost entirely, elevated making the system costs far more as well.

Okay, STJR, we did it your way, Ooh, "That's Another Fine Mess You've Gotten Us Into!"

The Skyway TRAIN weighs in at right at 30,000 pounds, the older tiny 4 wheel streetcars of Jacksonville weighed in at about 25,000 pounds (so far so good on your economic bridge), however a 1970's vintage TTC - UTDC (Bombardier) streetcar - LIGHTER then LRT, weighs in at 82,000 pounds. I doubt the Skyway bridges would support them and also doubt a heavy girder, complex bridge over the FEC would be cheaper, as you've then either got to get over or under I-95, even with a 6% grade I don't think you'd have room to do it. Which takes us back under the FEC. The Skyway can and should be single beam monorail and THAT would be far cheaper then a mile long bridge and approaches, to clear both FEC tracks at 23.6 feet height.


Just because the Skyway is over the traffic is no excuse to drive your truck down the track as this German found out.

There are REASONS why I now support those 3 extensions on a system I have fought for at least 10 years:

RIVERSIDE AVENUE:
Skyway "central" carbarn and operations is already positioned to move the line down Riverside, and the right of way is already owned and preserved by the City. North Riverside is not streetcar friendly as both the grades, traffic, multiple merging and exit lanes and freeway speeds would play more to a bus, or trolley bus which has a bit of emergency radial mobility. So we take the Skyway at least to Forrest and connect it to other modes, ideally we tie the new insurance/financial buildings to the system and use the Skyway, Streetcar, BRT, Bus connecting area as an excuse to recycle and save Annie Lytle.

Ock, why so complicated here?  First, the Streetcars could use the very same right of way you claim is reserved for the $ky-high-way.  And, Riverside Avenue does not have "freeway speeds" or the complexity of traffic you protray to my knowledge.  Based on your own posted pictures of streetcars elsewhere, I don't see the widened Riverside Avenue as anything but streetcar friendly.  And, no reason streetcars can't connect to BRT's or buses if needed.  What advantage is there in introducing another mode of transit with the $ky-high-way when you are more than covered by less expensive, more flexible, and more street friendly and accessible options?

Harold never could get the hang of that merging traffic on the Acosta!

The bridge on Riverside Avenue has very fast traffic in spite of the posted speeds, just look at the scars on the Jersey Barriers, their are ramps on and off of Water, Jefferson, Broad, Bay, Riverside and the Acosta. That's 6 merging roadways on top or bottom of a bridge. Bridges leave no room for error and neither do streetcars when they are in mixed traffic. 8% downgrade, 35 mph, Toyota = 1,900 pounds, Streetcar 86,000 pounds, trolley bus can swerve, streetcar can't... end of consideration for use. Do the math. Further how do you get the streetcar to Riverside without that bridge? Can't use Park either for two reasons, though somewhat easier to solve, they don't need to be addressed at all:


"Hey white car dude? Get the HELL out of the way!"

1. Park/Lee Street Viaduct (PROPERLY CALLED THE LEE STREET VIADUCT) will have to come down and be raised to expand the passenger train terminal. Otherwise the whole yard will have to be put in a concrete tub (costing many times the bridge) to prevent flooding and a safety violation (which I am filing) with the FRA to prevent building rail platforms in a flood zone.

2. Even if Park is used as it appears on some JTA maps, the turn Northeast toward Riverside Ave cannot be effected until you reach a wide enough road - Forrest. The other roads to the Northeast are narrow and quite below the grade of Park Street involving about a 10% grade for perhaps 100' each.

3. This leaves me solid in the camp of the old MYRTLE AVE SUBWAY, Myrtle would pull Brooklyn developers West, infill would explode between the streetcar/Interstate and the Skyway/River. It also sets the stage to serve a very nice section of Durkeeville in the future.

STADUIM EXTENSION:
Any new convention center on the city waterfront Courthouse/Hyatt/Landing area is going to need a direct link to Transportation Center and the Skyway is more then 1/2 way there. In fact even if it just extends the few blocks to Hyatt/Courthouse blocks it would do wonders for city connectivity. The Skyway has an almost unique ability (streetcars too but perhaps a slightly lesser degree) of punching right through the heart of a building like a convention center. Witness Disney's Atrium Hotel/Monorail. Finish it 3/4 of the way to the stadium is just as crazy, when we'd be in easy striking distance of the Randolph/Arena/Stadium/Park/Ball Field district. Imagine the ease of mobility the conventioneer's would report home after a trip to our city.

Ock, your own proposal shows streetcars far more networked throughout Downtown and the urban grid than the $ky-high-way.  Why wouldn't riders prefer the most networked option that provides the most convenience, efficiency, and flexibility?  The $ky-high-way is limited to a straight line travel through town for the most part.

In the end, an extensively networked and COMPLETE STREETCAR system can literally run circles around the $ky-high-way system, with or without an expansion, in my opinion.  That's my story and I'm stickin' with it.

The Convention goers, will prefer which ever mode suits their purpose, The Skyway for a quick trip to a game or to the depot. The Streetcar to the Landing or 5-points or Park and King, The Commuter or regional rail from San Marco to St. Augustine, The JTA BRT to the Beaches, Amtrak or the Airlines to Orlando and MICKEY, Water Taxi to Ruth's Chris, and they'll take home thousands of rave reviews, stories and photos that we couldn't buy with all the money in the world. THE VERY NATURE OF GOOD TRANSIT IS "PRO CHOICE!"


Ooh Multi-Modal monorail and streetcars and buses. Oh My.

Actually what you saw was a hybrid of mine and JTA's consultants study, I favor a DUVAL - Lee - Water/Independence - Newnan - Beaver - Randolph - Duval, figure "8" in the core with extensions up Randolph to private right of way to Gateway. Also along Bay from Lee - Myrtle - Forrest - Riverside - 5-Points, Park/King - St. Vincents, and a Newnan - 1St - Main - 8Th - Blvd to the "S" line (The "S" would be a multi-modal station / as I would build in San Marco / Randolph / Annie Lytle).
Skyway, bus, train, streetcar, water craft would be seamless.

Since ALL Skyway Equipment rolls into Brooklyn Car barns and the switch as well as the stub for the spur is sitting there, we could use single beam, even some on the ground beam to get the Skyway down to Forrest. It would be great if we could prevail on the business community to get it on into Annie Lytle and do a REAL TOD out of it. Something unlike any city in the world. A MONORAIL station with vintage streetcars and modern buses in a station dating to the very early 1900's. UNREAL. Proximity to the full interchange at Forrest as well as the ramps at Park and I-95 would make it great for BRT as well. We're not asking to build the Santa Fe here, simply a mile to connect our lives PAST-PRESENT and FUTURE and create a monument to transit creativity world wide.

THAT'S MY STORY AND I'LL FIGHT FOR IT TILL I ROLL THAT LAST MILE!

OCKLAWAHA

[stjr]

STJR: So, Lake, what, if any, objections would one have to replace Ock's proposed extension of the $ky-high-way with streetcar lines?

OCK: SAN MARCO EXTENSION:
The reason we cannot extend the Skyway with streetcar in the Southbank is it would require two transfers within a mile for passengers on Commuter Rail or Regional/Intercity Rail who embark or disembark at San Marco Station, (a station that would be placed west of the tracks right at Atlantic and the Florida East Coast). Passengers need the ability to step off the train and onto the Skyway for the downtown trip.

STJR: Why do Commuter Rail passengers have to disembark in San Marco?  Why can't they ride the rails on FEC over their bridge and get off directly at a Downtown station like the planned intermodal facility?  By the way, in your San Marco transfer scenario, the $ky-high-way requires two transfers, one to it at your San Marco station and one to another mode once Dowtown.  Why doesn't that bother you?  Commuter Rail can take you direct to the intermodal facility and would thus involve only one intermodal transfer Downtown.

OCK: Why would we force the South Jacksonville, St. Johns and St. Augustine passengers to ride across the river when we'd have stations at Avenues, Bay Meadows, JTB, University, South Jacksonville (San Marco) and across the river into Jacksonville Terminal. That would be the rail or transit equal to the JTA super garage that sits by the new Hilton with no entry or exit, unless you drive downtown and double back. Why would 4,000 Baptist Hospital workers want to ride past work and then change to ride back again? Ditto for the other 9,000 or so in the "Baptist - Atena - Pru" Corner.  BTW, SOUTH JACKSONVILLE had an FEC station from prior to Henry Flagler until about 1968, like near twin Yukon (NAS JAX) across the river on the CSX (former ACL) both locations are still on the timetables. It makes little sense to skip this stop by train, when Atlantic is the gateway to South Bank, San Marco, St. Nicholas, San Jose, Hogan and even the beaches via bus. Every Student at JU or FCCJ Beaches Campus, living south of the border would be using that station. Knowing San Marco, we'd even see a detailed reconstruction of the original gingerbread clapboard station I remember.

Ock, let me clarify my original response here.  What I was intending to say was why would people from the suburbs that are headed Downtown on a Commuter Rail disembark onto the $ky-high-way at a San Marco station when they could just stay on the Commuter Rail to the Downtown station?  I posed this question in response to your initial first quoted response above referencing two transfers, one of them being a transfer in San Marco.  I certainly would support a San Marco station at Atlantic and the FEC crossing for Commuter Rail but, again, I see no value to this same area being reached by a $ky-high-way expansion from the current Kings Road station.

OCK: Nothing wrong with also having a Southside Streetcar Line, and BRT connections coming out of the same station... But Southside is not optimum for streetcar in the close in areas of San Marco-Downtown, due to two crossings of the Florida East Coast Railway Mainline. Until we spring for two highway underpasses, which will be below river level, totally doable however for perhaps twice the price of your $kyway!

STJR: Why can't the streetcars go up and over.  This may be cheaper than going under.  And, I can't believe it would cost anywhere near what the far bigger $ky-high-way would cost.  Consider, too, that the entire rest of the streetcar system is at grade and the $ky-high-way is entirely, or almost entirely, elevated making the system costs far more as well.

OCK: The Skyway TRAIN weighs in at right at 30,000 pounds, the older tiny 4 wheel streetcars of Jacksonville weighed in at about 25,000 pounds (so far so good on your economic bridge), however a 1970's vintage TTC - UTDC (Bombardier) streetcar - LIGHTER then LRT, weighs in at 82,000 pounds. I doubt the Skyway bridges would support them and also doubt a heavy girder, complex bridge over the FEC would be cheaper, as you've then either got to get over or under I-95, even with a 6% grade I don't think you'd have room to do it. Which takes us back under the FEC. The Skyway can and should be single beam monorail and THAT would be far cheaper then a mile long bridge and approaches, to clear both FEC tracks at 23.6 feet height.

So now we are pushing for the $ky-high-way because it makes a good River and FEC Rail crossover device?  I can't believe engineers can't find a way to out maneuver this with streetcars!  First, regarding weight, I can't say you wrong, but common sense doesn't allow me to say you are right, that a streetcar HAS to weigh more than the $ky-high-way!  I would have to hear multiple opinions on that one to subscribe to this.  I would also think that advances in materials technologies since the 1970's era would very likely produce a dramatically different weight than what you cited.

As to street cars crossing the FEC, I appreciate your concerns but, again, somewhere on the Southbank, I would think we could find a way to make a streetcar cost and grade-wise effectively cross the FEC rails.  How about at the same spot you suggest that the $ky-high-way crosses them, alongside Kings Road?

OCK: There are REASONS why I now support those 3 extensions on a system I have fought for at least 10 years:

RIVERSIDE AVENUE:
Skyway "central" carbarn and operations is already positioned to move the line down Riverside, and the right of way is already owned and preserved by the City. North Riverside is not streetcar friendly as both the grades, traffic, multiple merging and exit lanes and freeway speeds would play more to a bus, or trolley bus which has a bit of emergency radial mobility. So we take the Skyway at least to Forrest and connect it to other modes, ideally we tie the new insurance/financial buildings to the system and use the Skyway, Streetcar, BRT, Bus connecting area as an excuse to recycle and save Annie Lytle.

STJR: Ock, why so complicated here?  First, the Streetcars could use the very same right of way you claim is reserved for the $ky-high-way.  And, Riverside Avenue does not have "freeway speeds" or the complexity of traffic you protray to my knowledge.  Based on your own posted pictures of streetcars elsewhere, I don't see the widened Riverside Avenue as anything but streetcar friendly.  And, no reason streetcars can't connect to BRT's or buses if needed.  What advantage is there in introducing another mode of transit with the $ky-high-way when you are more than covered by less expensive, more flexible, and more street friendly and accessible options?

OCK: The bridge on Riverside Avenue has very fast traffic in spite of the posted speeds, just look at the scars on the Jersey Barriers, their are ramps on and off of Water, Jefferson, Broad, Bay, Riverside and the Acosta. That's 6 merging roadways on top or bottom of a bridge. Bridges leave no room for error and neither do streetcars when they are in mixed traffic. 8% downgrade, 35 mph, Toyota = 1,900 pounds, Streetcar 86,000 pounds, trolley bus can swerve, streetcar can't... end of consideration for use. Do the math. Further how do you get the streetcar to Riverside without that bridge? Can't use Park either for two reasons, though somewhat easier to solve, they don't need to be addressed at all:

1. Park/Lee Street Viaduct (PROPERLY CALLED THE LEE STREET VIADUCT) will have to come down and be raised to expand the passenger train terminal. Otherwise the whole yard will have to be put in a concrete tub (costing many times the bridge) to prevent flooding and a safety violation (which I am filing) with the FRA to prevent building rail platforms in a flood zone.

2. Even if Park is used as it appears on some JTA maps, the turn Northeast toward Riverside Ave cannot be effected until you reach a wide enough road - Forrest. The other roads to the Northeast are narrow and quite below the grade of Park Street involving about a 10% grade for perhaps 100' each.

3. This leaves me solid in the camp of the old MYRTLE AVE SUBWAY, Myrtle would pull Brooklyn developers West, infill would explode between the streetcar/Interstate and the Skyway/River. It also sets the stage to serve a very nice section of Durkeeville in the future.

Ock, no problem with Myrtle Avenue.  But, a second route would be from the area near Water and Jefferson over the Federal Reserve Bank parking lot and the FEC tracks using a streetcar ONLY bridge.  This bridge would come down on Magnolia Street behind the $ky-high-way barn.  It could then proceed back to Riverside Avenue down Leila Street or Stonewall Street (which street could also feed it, or complete a loop, to Park Street). This avoids all the bridge clutter and Park Street issues you refer to.

OCK: STADUIM EXTENSION:
Any new convention center on the city waterfront Courthouse/Hyatt/Landing area is going to need a direct link to Transportation Center and the Skyway is more then 1/2 way there. In fact even if it just extends the few blocks to Hyatt/Courthouse blocks it would do wonders for city connectivity. The Skyway has an almost unique ability (streetcars too but perhaps a slightly lesser degree) of punching right through the heart of a building like a convention center. Witness Disney's Atrium Hotel/Monorail. Finish it 3/4 of the way to the stadium is just as crazy, when we'd be in easy striking distance of the Randolph/Arena/Stadium/Park/Ball Field district. Imagine the ease of mobility the conventioneer's would report home after a trip to our city.

STJR: Ock, your own proposal shows streetcars far more networked throughout Downtown and the urban grid than the $ky-high-way.  Why wouldn't riders prefer the most networked option that provides the most convenience, efficiency, and flexibility?  The $ky-high-way is limited to a straight line travel through town for the most part.

In the end, an extensively networked and COMPLETE STREETCAR system can literally run circles around the $ky-high-way system, with or without an expansion, in my opinion.  That's my story and I'm stickin' with it.

OCK: The Convention goers, will prefer which ever mode suits their purpose, The Skyway for a quick trip to a game or to the depot. The Streetcar to the Landing or 5-points or Park and King, The Commuter or regional rail from San Marco to St. Augustine, The JTA BRT to the Beaches, Amtrak or the Airlines to Orlando and MICKEY, Water Taxi to Ruth's Chris, and they'll take home thousands of rave reviews, stories and photos that we couldn't buy with all the money in the world. THE VERY NATURE OF GOOD TRANSIT IS "PRO CHOICE!"

Ock, I just don't see why we need to parallel build the $ky-high-way with Streetcars or Commuter Rail.  Either of these latter options can service any expansion areas of the $ky-high-way better and they offer more options to travel to, or connect with, with less hassle and more convenience and accessibility.  It is for these reasons, I am pushing the demise of the $ky-high-way.

[stjr]

Lake and Ock, if the solution pictured below could be implemented, streetcars could easily cross the FEC rails.  Any reason this won't work?

[Ocklawaha]

Ock, let me clarify my original response here.  What I was intending to say was why would people from the suburbs that are headed Downtown on a Commuter Rail disembark onto the $ky-high-way at a San Marco station when they could just stay on the Commuter Rail to the Downtown station?  I posed this question in response to your initial first quoted response above referencing two transfers, one of them being a transfer in San Marco.  I certainly would support a San Marco station at Atlantic and the FEC crossing for Commuter Rail but, again, I see no value to this same area being reached by a $ky-high-way expansion from the current Kings Road station.

I think perhaps it's time to tell you I think you see no value because you don't want to see a value in it? The value is, just in the "Baptist-Pru" corner of the Southbank, there are 9,000 employees. That many employees is more then equal to the population of many of our surrounding communities. That doesn't include the thousands more scattered from the new Hilton to the Prudential Building, Riverplace etc... ALL of these folks would be able to get off a northbound Amtrak/Regional/Commute train at the new SOUTH JACKSONVILLE (railroad name for San Marco at Atlantic) STATION. Walk across a platform and get on a ground level Skyway train that would whisk them north, then gain altitude, swing over the tracks and into HILTON STATION... KINGS AVENUE....RIVERPLACE.... SAN MARCO STATION.... or if they desire, on to CENTRAL, HEMMING, ROSA PARKS, BOA, HYATT/CONVENTION CENTER, BERKMAN, SHIPYARDS, RANDOLPH, STADIUM/PARKS. Only one ticket and no transfer needed for ticketed passengers. This Skyway link would be much cheaper then trying to engineer a streetcar crossing over or under the FEC.

Going over is a matter of distance on part of your look idea. Streetcars can handle short grades of up to 12% but a 6-8% grade (6%= a 6' foot climb for every 100 feet of travel) is about all one would desire for good operations. Not a problem you say? The reason the JTA PCT'S failed in San Marco is that the railroad is ALWAYS blocked with transfer freight trains. People got fired as they couldn't depend on the schedules to get back from lunch. A bridge for a 80,000 pound streetcar is a hell of a lot more money then one for a 30,000 pound single beam MONORAIL. In fact the whole extension could probably be built cheaper then your bridge. Consider the cost of the Kernan/Beach overpass, talk about $ky High... No engineer can figure it out? Did you know the City of South Jacksonville sued to have that underpass or overpass built in 1924? TRUE. The freeway sealed it's fate, it's just a no go.

So now we are pushing for the $ky-high-way because it makes a good River and FEC Rail crossover device?  I can't believe engineers can't find a way to out maneuver this with streetcars!  First, regarding weight, I can't say you wrong, but common sense doesn't allow me to say you are right, that a streetcar HAS to weigh more than the $ky-high-way!  I would have to hear multiple opinions on that one to subscribe to this.  I would also think that advances in materials technologies since the 1970's era would very likely produce a dramatically different weight than what you cited.

As to street cars crossing the FEC, I appreciate your concerns but, again, somewhere on the Southbank, I would think we could find a way to make a streetcar cost and grade-wise effectively cross the FEC rails.  How about at the same spot you suggest that the $ky-high-way crosses them, alongside Kings Road?

Man, you now doubt any facts I print? What is the point in this long discussion if you start tossing out this and that based on your own transit experience? Try these:
http://www.lightrail.com/carspecpages/toronto/alrv.htm  (LOOK UP THE WEIGHT add PASSENGER CAP)
http://www.mata.org/186specs.htm (Original Jacksonville type TURTLEBACK CAR weighs EMPTY 42,000 pounds )
http://www.lightrail.com/carspecpages/mbta/mbtatype8.htm (NEW BREDA STREETCARS add PASSENGER CAP)

If you still disagree, I can point you to entire catalogs of equipment...

Beyond that your latest photo post shows a classic railroad diamond, why would this at grade crossing work any better then JTA's PCT did? It would still have to wait on the train all the time, meaning no schedule regularity at all. The FEC trains are transfers on this segment and do NOT run on a regular schedule... (Oh I know, so go ahead and call them over at Bowden Yard).

Ock, no problem with Myrtle Avenue.  But, a second route would be from the area near Water and Jefferson over the Federal Reserve Bank parking lot and the FEC tracks using a streetcar ONLY bridge.  This bridge would come down on Magnolia Street behind the $ky-high-way barn.  It could then proceed back to Riverside Avenue down Leila Street or Stonewall Street (which street could also feed it, or complete a loop, to Park Street). This avoids all the bridge clutter and Park Street issues you refer to.

Sorry, but again weight and bulk would make for an expensive and LONG bridge that would have to clear the back fence at the FED at 23.6 feet and maintain this all the way to Magnolia. Also putting streetcar in a narrow street is bad karma man.
So you build your city block and a half long bridge, but the Skyway is already perched right in front of the TU and is already over the railroad yards and the Fed. So again for less then your streetcar bridge, we could get a single beam monorail all the way to Forest Street. The Skyway BTW is on the ground in front of the TU and the switch to Forest is no more then 6' feet or so high. It would be no more costly to build the Skyway on this segment either, both would come in very close and I am trying to get the streetcars beyond that railroad WITHOUT building a DAMN Thing! Duck under Myrtle as God Intended it back in 1919.

Ock, I just don't see why we need to parallel build the $ky-high-way with Streetcars or Commuter Rail.  Either of these latter options can service any expansion areas of the $ky-high-way better and they offer more options to travel to, or connect with, with less hassle and more convenience and accessibility.  It is for these reasons, I am pushing the demise of the $ky-high-way.

NONE of the systems I have drawn would parallel, and each would use it's strongest points to vie for traffic. For example the Government is going to shut down the shuttle buses to the games. Skyways, won't be effected because by their nature they run automated and are trains. The Skyway down Bay is a straight shot and SPECIAL trains coming in from parking need not stop at all stations. Did you know our Skyway trains have been tested to 50 MPH? TRUE? (Okay, call Steve Arrington at JTA and ask). Now the streetcar to the stadium in ALL of my drawings uses a BEAVER/DUVAL route through the Cathedral District. Streetcars can't be bumped off the stadium shuttles because everyone knows our streetcars run on 5 minute headways on Weekends... Let some private bus operator try that trick. So we'd be feeding the stadium from the air (Skyway) the unused Beaver Street alignment over Hogans Creek or the JTA "TROLLEY" station by the Arena, which by the way would get REAL TROLLEYS! Meanwhile streetcars would come rolling down Randolph from Gateway Plaza. Water taxi's could serve the end of Randolph or the Shipyards docks... Just add private buses such as the highly rated Annett Lines (look them up too). We'd make NFL history as the FIRST CITY with streetcar, ship, monorail, bus and auto access and the media we would get would bring us fun things like SUPERBOWLS... and BIG CONVENTIONS... and maybe even the NBA, NL, AL, NHL, etc...

(Oh that last part IS OPINION so don't try and prove we can't do it.)  Sorry if I'm a bit harsh tonight, blame it on heavy medical tests starting early tomorrow morning somewhere in the Southside... If I'm still alive at 10 or 11am I'll jump back on.
Someone get me a barf bag. UCK!

OCKLAWAHA