JTA Skyway Riverside Extension

[stjr]

Lake, thanks for highlighting the point I have been making all along.  The $ky-high-way represents the most expensive mode by several times over other options for mass transit.  Given that, it PAYS to tear it down and do something far more cost effective.  It's so obvious, I don't understand why I have to work so hard to convince the diehards here.  Maybe your data will finally convince them.  P.S. As an added benefit, we can also get a more convenient, flexible, street friendly, aesthetically pleasing solution with other options.

[exnewsman]

Not right now. You have to use the Kings Ave Station due to the Fire at the station closest to those condos.  The skyway dumps you 3 blocks from the Landing anyway. 

Kings Ave is only a block from the Penisula and the Central Station (the first stop back across the river) is basically across the street from the Landing).
According to teh Chamber/DVI - there's 11,000 workers within a block of the Skyway. If each one used it for lunch once a week (which is not unreasonable as there are plenty of eateries along the route - both sides) - that's nearly 90k trips/month plus an additional $500k in revenue a year.  All with just one trip a week. 

[tufsu1]

Lake, thanks for highlighting the point I have been making all along.  The $ky-high-way represents the most expensive mode by several times over other options for mass transit. 

Maybe at one time, but not anymore....all of the infrastructure is in place so extensions should be no more than $15 million a mile for construction....a new light rail system would likely cost twice that much for double tracking new corridors....and that's not even counting ROW

[stjr]

Lake, thanks for highlighting the point I have been making all along.  The $ky-high-way represents the most expensive mode by several times over other options for mass transit. 

Maybe at one time, but not anymore....all of the infrastructure is in place so extensions should be no more than $15 million a mile for construction....a new light rail system would likely cost twice that much for double tracking new corridors....and that's not even counting ROW

I see light rail as apples and oranges with the $ky-high-way as light rail would go longer distances into the suburbs.  Also, most extensions of the $ky-high-way would also require the purchase of new ROW as you can't run it down the middle of most streets!  Did you add that cost into your extensions?

Street cars and trolleys aren't only cheaper, they can run more places (increasing convenience) and down existing ROW since they stay within existing streets in most cases.  They are much more approachable, inviting, and pleasing to view not to mention more cost effective.  As to double tracking, unlike the $ky-high-way, you could run return pathways down different streets doubling the exposure of the transit system.  Question:  Since the $ky-high-way was built, how many cities have added and/or expanded their street cars and trolleys versus the three same old cities living with their albatross people movers?

Its pretty obvious, at least to some of us, where we should spend our LIMITED dollars for the future.

[Keith-N-Jax]

Looks like Miami expanded there's around there new Carnival Center and I dont see them taking theres down.

[tufsu1]

not quite....the extyension into brooklyn already has the ROW...and a shot extension to Atlantic Blvd in San Marco would require very little.

And who says the skyway can't go within the street ROW....have you seen Bay or Hogan streets....and cities like NY, Philly, and Chicago run elevated trains down streets.

Now I won't argue that streetcars would be better and likely less expensive....but you said the Skyway is the most expensive system that could be buit, and that's simply not true.

[stjr]

Now I won't argue that streetcars would be better and likely less expensive....but you said the Skyway is the most expensive system that could be buit, and that's simply not true.

Tufsu, I don't mean to quibble - we already do enough of that - but I do want to clarify that what I was trying to convey was that the $ky-high-way was several times the cost of competing options, not the most expensive system that could be built.  I am sure someone could easily conceive of something even more expensive or has already done so (a la Boston's Big Dig?).  God bless those taxypayers  !

[Jason]

The numbers do speak for themselves StJr.  You're right.  But we're not talking about a new system from scratch.  What we're talking about are simple extensions that would almost certainly make the skyway a viable mode of transportation throughout the core.  And it wouldn't cost nearly as much as the original system did because the big money work is already done (ie, river crossing, control center, maintenance building, main lines).

Yes, you can build streetcar lines for less money than an elevated monorail system, but the skyway is already here and to start over would be a waste of what can certainly be a viable system.  Furthermore, it doesn't cost any more to run the skyway than it does to run an LRT system or even streetcars.

Still, as many of us have been saying all along, the skyway expansions should come after some sort of commuter system is implemented to feed riders into the skyway.  Without the suburban connection it will never live up to its full potential.

[brainstormer]

stjr, if we were to tear down the skyway as you seem to want, what is your solution for connecting the North and South banks?  You can't have streetcars on the Main Street Bridge, and I don't think the Acosta would work because of it's steep grades and its expressway ramps.  The Fuller is out because it is an interstate, so what is your solution?  It seems to me like the already built skyway route seems like the best option for a city split by a river with lots of river traffic.

[Ocklawaha]

The numbers do speak for themselves StJr.  You're right.  But we're not talking about a new system from scratch.  What we're talking about are simple extensions that would almost certainly make the skyway a viable mode of transportation throughout the core.  And it wouldn't cost nearly as much as the original system did because the big money work is already done (ie, river crossing, control center, maintenance building, main lines).

Yes, you can build streetcar lines for less money than an elevated monorail system, but the skyway is already here and to start over would be a waste of what can certainly be a viable system.  Furthermore, it doesn't cost any more to run the skyway than it does to run an LRT system or even streetcars.

Still, as many of us have been saying all along, the skyway expansions should come after some sort of commuter system is implemented to feed riders into the skyway.  Without the suburban connection it will never live up to its full potential.

This is sort of a dangerous chicken and egg question. If we built a commuter rail system without the skyway connections, then we run the real risk of failure to distribute the passenger load in the central city, thus killing our ridership. If the Skyway is extended to San Marco first, and Commuter Rail second, then it's in place to take any or all of the commuter ridership to their destinations in town.

While I'm certainly the biggest supporter of Light Rail and Streetcars this city has ever had, I realize they do have some drawbacks when mixing with auto traffic. Traffic jams will effect them just as it can a bus. The best way to implement streetcars is to get them on their own right-of-way even if this means closing a lane or two.

Brainstormer you are correct in getting streetcars over the river is going to be expensive. Once over the river they need to avoid the FEC tracks like the plague, otherwise, they become just one more stalled vehicle waiting for the trains. That really only leaves Prudential Drive to the School Board and hence toward Saint Nicholas, Beach or Atlantic. Grades are usually held to about 6%, but in some cases can reach as high as 12%, their safety record, acceleration and braking power on the grades are superior to buses.



OCKLAWAHA

[Captain Zissou]

Exnews, I'm not going to argue this any further, but from google maps I counted about 7 blocks of walking to use the skyway route I described earlier.  I counted 6-7 blocks of walking to get from the Peninsula to the Landing via the Main Street Bridge.  

I also think that currently the trolley is a much better way to get to and from lunch for office workers.

[Jason]

This is sort of a dangerous chicken and egg question. If we built a commuter rail system without the skyway connections, then we run the real risk of failure to distribute the passenger load in the central city, thus killing our ridership. If the Skyway is extended to San Marco first, and Commuter Rail second, then it's in place to take any or all of the commuter ridership to their destinations in town.

Wouldn't Union Station do the same thing to connect the passengers as long as there is a commuter rail stop in San Marco?  The only gap is then the sports district because 5 points and Brooklyn are currently connected by the PCT trolly.  So, build the commuter rail (north/south segment using the S-line including a stop in San Marco) and provide a trolly loop to the sports district.  Then we can work on securing funding for skyway legs to San Marco Square (Atlantic), Shands, and Riverside Brooklyn.

[JaxNative68]

speaking of miami, the skyway at the miami zoo is probably more successful and profitable than ours.

[stjr]

stjr, if we were to tear down the skyway as you seem to want, what is your solution for connecting the North and South banks?  You can't have streetcars on the Main Street Bridge, and I don't think the Acosta would work because of it's steep grades and its expressway ramps.  The Fuller is out because it is an interstate, so what is your solution?  It seems to me like the already built skyway route seems like the best option for a city split by a river with lots of river traffic.

I don't know without talking to engineers what requirements a street car would need for crossing the river.  I do know that decades ago, street cars crossed the river over the original Acosta bridge without issue so I don't know why we couldn't consider that solution today (if the grades are too steep, we could use the same cable technology that San Francisco uses for its streetcars - problem solved over 100 years ago!).  I also don't know why the Main Street Bridge couldn't carry them and you don't say why.  If it's because Main Street is a draw bridge, well, so was the old Acosta.

As to crossing FEC tracks, we had a discussion before on this.  I know Ock or Lake objected, but I don't recall being convinced that street cars couldn't cross FEC tracks at grade.

Someday, I would like to see street car loops, for example, as follows:

Downtown (DT) Loop
DT-Brooklyn-5 Points-Riverside-Avondale-Ortega-Lakeshore
DT-San Marco-Hendricks-Emerson-Beach-St. Nicholas
DT-Main Street-Springfield-8th Street/Shands
DT-Beaver-Farmers Market-McDuff
Convention Center-Landing-DT-Arena/Stadium-Eastside/Tallyrand

[thelakelander]

Crossing the FEC at grade in San Marco with a streetcar?  FEC would need the convincing.  I know the TECO line in Tampa crosses a seldom used CSX line.  Are there any examples out there that cross lines as busy as the FEC, at grade?  If there are, I'd be interested to hear more about their on-time performance and who has first priority....freight or streetcar.

At this point, I still believe investing in a streetcar crossing across the river to access San Marco doesn't make sense.  As you say about the skyway, there are more feasible modes of transit that can provide service to that area.