JTA Skyway: Nation's Fastest Growing Rail System!

[fieldafm]

IMO, more elimination of duplicate services should occur and it should become a higher priority to redevelop properties around its stations.  We don't need to wait for a streetcar to get TOD off the ground.  We have eight Skyway stations we can play with right now.

That Bay Street Station project that Carlton Jones was planning adjacent to the Jefferson Skyway Statation would have been a nice start. I wonder how many folks at the condos (San Marco Place, Peninsula, etc.) on the Southbank use the Skyway? They are just steps away. The recession and then the FFDOT Overland Bridge project stopped the Mike Balanky project next to the Hilton Hotels on Kings Ave. Another great opportunity lsot (or at least postponed).

It would be nice to see some proposals or concepts on how best to convert the skyway stations into Transit Oriented Development Projects. 

For our readers who arent acquainted with the term, a TOD is a project that combines a transit element with the kind of 'development' that would be supported by transit.

Like a shopping center built into a subway station, or an apartment complex with ground level retail built right into the train station or an older example like the Five Points shopping district designed and built around the trolley stops.
[/quote]

Pasadena along the light rail line:

One side of building:



The other side



A TOD project at the next stop North of the above picture

[Fallen Buckeye]

Question: Do you think that with increasing ridership and elimination of redundancies that we should see an increase in TOD along the Skyway route that you would see with other fixed route transit modes? Obviously, there's a cost benefit in better utilizing existing resources, but if so I could see where success in stimulating TOD at home could be used to positively influence future planning decisions.

Also, I would say that measuring growth as a percentage could be a little misleading. Take SLC for instance. They grew only 19%, but, if I'm doing the math right, that's around 9,000 riders. Growth is good, but I wouldn't say that this train has "arrived" just yet.

[fieldafm]

Question: Do you think that with increasing ridership and elimination of redundancies that we should see an increase in TOD along the Skyway route that you would see with other fixed route transit modes? Obviously, there's a cost benefit in better utilizing existing resources, but if so I could see where success in stimulating TOD at home could be used to positively influence future planning decisions.

Also, I would say that measuring growth as a percentage could be a little misleading. Take SLC for instance. They grew only 19%, but, if I'm doing the math right, that's around 9,000 riders. Growth is good, but I wouldn't say that this train has "arrived" just yet.

Salt Lake kind of answers your first paragraph.  They modified land use policies to encourage TOD.

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/10/24/how-salt-lake-city-became-a-leader-in-transit-oriented-development/

[Doctor_K]

^I doubt those new towers have had much of an impact.  They aren't integrated with the Skyway in any fashion.  Those would be examples of TAD or Transit Adjacent Development.  They simply happen to be within a quarter mile radius of the nearest Skyway station.

I know - and that's what I was trying to get at.  Sorry I wasn't articulate.

My point was that if those towers had been constructed around existing stations instead of completely, physically separate of them, it might have made a difference.

Another opportunity lost.

[exnewsman]

^I doubt those new towers have had much of an impact.  They aren't integrated with the Skyway in any fashion.  Those would be examples of TAD or Transit Adjacent Development.  They simply happen to be within a quarter mile radius of the nearest Skyway station.

As I recall that's what the Bay Street Station project was attempting to do. The Skyway was going to be incorporated right into the project at teh platform level. I think it had a couple hotels, theater, offices. Not sure if that's one that will ever be resurrected or not.

I know - and that's what I was trying to get at.  Sorry I wasn't articulate.

My point was that if those towers had been constructed around existing stations instead of completely, physically separate of them, it might have made a difference.

Another opportunity lost.

[Fallen Buckeye]

Question: Do you think that with increasing ridership and elimination of redundancies that we should see an increase in TOD along the Skyway route that you would see with other fixed route transit modes? Obviously, there's a cost benefit in better utilizing existing resources, but if so I could see where success in stimulating TOD at home could be used to positively influence future planning decisions.

Also, I would say that measuring growth as a percentage could be a little misleading. Take SLC for instance. They grew only 19%, but, if I'm doing the math right, that's around 9,000 riders. Growth is good, but I wouldn't say that this train has "arrived" just yet.

Salt Lake kind of answers your first paragraph.  They modified land use policies to encourage TOD.

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/10/24/how-salt-lake-city-became-a-leader-in-transit-oriented-development/

I see what you're saying about land use policies, but haven't we done that to an extent here already with Mobility 2030? But on the spurring developing question, I was mainly wondering whether it would make a difference that the skyway is an elevated system that doesn't have the same street interaction as a street car for instance.

[fieldafm]

Question: Do you think that with increasing ridership and elimination of redundancies that we should see an increase in TOD along the Skyway route that you would see with other fixed route transit modes? Obviously, there's a cost benefit in better utilizing existing resources, but if so I could see where success in stimulating TOD at home could be used to positively influence future planning decisions.

Also, I would say that measuring growth as a percentage could be a little misleading. Take SLC for instance. They grew only 19%, but, if I'm doing the math right, that's around 9,000 riders. Growth is good, but I wouldn't say that this train has "arrived" just yet.

Salt Lake kind of answers your first paragraph.  They modified land use policies to encourage TOD.

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/10/24/how-salt-lake-city-became-a-leader-in-transit-oriented-development/

I see what you're saying about land use policies, but haven't we done that to an extent here already with Mobility 2030? But on the spurring developing question, I was mainly wondering whether it would make a difference that the skyway is an elevated system that doesn't have the same street interaction as a street car for instance.

Not really.  Zoning laws still don't match up to the goals of Mobility.  For instance, Tapestry Park was a PUD.  Southside should be filled with more mixed use developments like that and land use policies should encourage it.  Take for example how dangerous by design the commercial and residential developments are on Southside and Touchton.

In regards to your second set of questions... not really again.  Look at the TOD around Miami's Metromover or Detroit's People Mover.   Lake can post up pictures showing TOD can work with elevated guideways.  Difference there is the system is integrated and connected together.  Not just a spine with no arms/legs.

[dougskiles]

^I doubt those new towers have had much of an impact.  They aren't integrated with the Skyway in any fashion.  Those would be examples of TAD or Transit Adjacent Development.  They simply happen to be within a quarter mile radius of the nearest Skyway station.

I know - and that's what I was trying to get at.  Sorry I wasn't articulate.

My point was that if those towers had been constructed around existing stations instead of completely, physically separate of them, it might have made a difference.

Another opportunity lost.

I think the opportunity remains until JTA turns Riverplace Blvd into a dedicated BRT raceway.  The biggest issue I see with the condo towers and connectivity to the Skyway stations is the pedestrian environment on Riverplace Blvd.

This 5-lane road could easily be turned into a 3-lane Complete Street that leads to more street-level commerce and activity.  There is no where near enough car traffic to justify 5-lanes or dedicated bus lanes.  On street parking, bike lanes, a travel lane in each direction and a center turn lane with landscaped medians would transform the road and encourage residents to walk to the Skyway.  The parking on the street would provide more access to the Southbank Riverwalk that will hopefully start reconstruction this summer.

[thelakelander]

Not really.  Zoning laws still don't match up to the goals of Mobility.  For instance, Tapestry Park was a PUD.  Southside should be filled with more mixed use developments like that and land use policies should encourage it.  Take for example how dangerous by design the commercial and residential developments are on Southside and Touchton.

As fieldafm alludes to, the mobility plan resulted in some land use policies being changed within the city's comprehensive plan.  However, we still need to completely revamp our autocentric zoning code (the comp plan land use changes pave the way for this).

In regards to your second set of questions... not really again.  Look at the TOD around Miami's Metromover or Detroit's People Mover.   Lake can post up pictures showing TOD can work with elevated guideways.  Difference there is the system is integrated and connected together.  Not just a spine with no arms/legs.

Detroit Peoplemover:

[fieldafm]

^I doubt those new towers have had much of an impact.  They aren't integrated with the Skyway in any fashion.  Those would be examples of TAD or Transit Adjacent Development.  They simply happen to be within a quarter mile radius of the nearest Skyway station.

I know - and that's what I was trying to get at.  Sorry I wasn't articulate.

My point was that if those towers had been constructed around existing stations instead of completely, physically separate of them, it might have made a difference.

Another opportunity lost.

I think the opportunity remains until JTA turns Riverplace Blvd into a dedicated BRT raceway.  The biggest issue I see with the condo towers and connectivity to the Skyway stations is the pedestrian environment on Riverplace Blvd.

This 5-lane road could easily be turned into a 3-lane Complete Street that leads to more street-level commerce and activity.  There is no where near enough car traffic to justify 5-lanes or dedicated bus lanes.  On street parking, bike lanes, a travel lane in each direction and a center turn lane with landscaped medians would transform the road and encourage residents to walk to the Skyway.  The parking on the street would provide more access to the Southbank Riverwalk that will hopefully start reconstruction this summer.

Totally agree.  Riverplace and Prudential aren't your typical pedestrian friendly urban layout.  If it's not interesting to walk through... People won't (and don't) walk it.

And you're absolutely right about not needing a 5 lame expressway and dedicated bus lanes (parallel to the skyway) running through this area. 

See the Lancaster Blvd example:
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/design/2013/01/case-walkability-economic-development-tool/4317/

[thelakelander]

I think the opportunity remains until JTA turns Riverplace Blvd into a dedicated BRT raceway.

Unless, it's been delayed, I believe the downtown BRT project is expected to break ground next month.  It will include converting Riverplace Blvd into a street with dedicated bus lanes.

[thelakelander]

Downtown BRT plans for Riverplace Boulevard and the Southbank:

[dougskiles]

I think the opportunity remains until JTA turns Riverplace Blvd into a dedicated BRT raceway.

Unless, it's been delayed, I believe the downtown BRT project is expected to break ground next month.  It will include converting Riverplace Blvd into a street with dedicated bus lanes.

We may have a few more months before they start.  My theory is that until the shovel hits the ground, changes can be made to the design.  That doesn't mean they will.  But, JTA and City Council are soon to get an earful from the residents of the towers on Riverplace Blvd.

At the very least, the construction should wait until DIA has addressed this segment in terms of the CRA plan.

[thelakelander]

Also, I would say that measuring growth as a percentage could be a little misleading. Take SLC for instance. They grew only 19%, but, if I'm doing the math right, that's around 9,000 riders. Growth is good, but I wouldn't say that this train has "arrived" just yet.

I'd take them on a case by case basis.  Salt Lake City has 35 miles of LRT track that has been incrementally expanded over the last decade, as well as benefited from commuter rail and BRT projects added over the years, feeding riders into it.  So while a 9,000 jump in riders is great, they also invested hundreds of millions in expanding their fixed transit spine network, which is leading to the new growth as more and more areas of that metro become accessible to it.  Expect more Salt Lake City jumps this year once more commuter rail, streetcar, and LRT corridor expansions are completed.

Nevertheless, the Skyway's jump is highly impressive because we've witnessed a +100% increase without adding a dime to expand a short 2.5 mile line that hasn't averaged more than 3,000 over the previous two decades.  If we actually invested in our mass transit system we'd see similar increases as Salt Lake City, as reliable mass transit becomes accessible to more and more areas of the city. 

At the end of the day, I believe the Skyway's recent growth by simply changing how it is utilized, really does illustrate the potential of mass transit in Jacksonville, assuming we don't continue attempts to hold it back.  All of this kind of goes against the argument of those saying mass transit can't work here in Jacksonville or that the Skyway is a complete waste.  It probably would be just as effective as originally conceived if we work on following out the original concept of feeding it with a connected rapid transit system (sorry guys, our BRT plan is not real rapid transit).

[Toddhigginbotham]

Maybe if you add on to it and take it down to the sports complex, even more people will ride it.  You could then charge fares on days of special events.  You would probably make a profit and you would make traffic a lot better because then people would park and ride from other places in the city rather than all at the stadium.