Best Mass Transit for Jax

[prtsupporter]

Do you think the density of Jacksonville is high enough to make Personal Rapid Transit practical there?

It is estimated to cost significantly less than light rail or monorail and be able to provide on-demand, non-stop service to any station in the system. The lightweight vehicles would be more energy efficient than buses or cars. Running on a grade-separated guideway would prevent delays due to traffic jams.

[Urban_Legend]

I don't like the idea of personal rapid transit, only because it encourages people to avoid interacting with others. In essence, that's what the automobile did to America, and now that rapid transit would be "personalized" just seems a bit too much.

But it really is a novel idea, I'll give them that!

[prtsupporter]

How much interaction goes on during the bus ride or train ride?

If you spent less time traveling, you would have more time to spend interacting at your destination. (Studies have been done that show PRT's non-stop travel would be quicker than what buses or trains could provide in urban situations.)

[monsoon]

If you spent less time traveling, you would have more time to spend interacting at your destination. (Studies have been done that show PRT's non-stop travel would be quicker than what buses or trains could provide in urban situations.)

But they are just studies sponsored by PRT supporters. There are no real life examples to prove it one way or the other. I have my doubts about these systems. In any case, it appears that something such as this won't be coming to Jacksonville anytime in the near future.

[Spartan]

Do you think the density of Jacksonville is high enough to make Personal Rapid Transit practical there?

It is estimated to cost significantly less than light rail or monorail and be able to provide on-demand, non-stop service to any station in the system. The lightweight vehicles would be more energy efficient than buses or cars. Running on a grade-separated guideway would prevent delays due to traffic jams.

[tampasteve]

The skyway does not have to be nearly as expensive as it has been to build. It is a true monorail now, not a people mover like it was when it was installed orriginally. There is no reason to continue the massive guideway that they used in the first installation and expansion, a typicall thin guideway would work fine, and reduce costs significantly. This system could work great in the down town area as a distibutor for a larger rail (be it commuter or Light) network.

If one ever travels on it you can see that it is used often. About 6 months ago when I was there for business I took it durring peak hours and every train I was on was near capacity.

Really, the question is two fold: what is the best transit in DT, and what is the best transit to the burbs?

Expand the skyway DT and add commuter or light rail to the burbs.

Steve

[Spartan]

How successful is the skyway now? I could see perhaps expanding it south towards San Marco or maybe around the south bank. I think that the city could and probably should expand its current investment if it has the capacity to move people at the same rate as BRT or LRT, since it isn't that different in concept.

[tampasteve]

My experiences with the skyway are from use, not any study or the like, but if that means anything it is pretty successful, like I said, every train I is full or nearly so when I ride it. I think that it absolutly should be expanded in the Down Town area, at least to the stadium area. A expansion down San Marco and then over to the stadiums would really add a lot to the ridership, especially durring games as the skyway connects to several parking structures.

Currently the monorail cars are only 2 per set, but they can be expanded (I believe that they can have up to 6 cars per set, but it is at least 4). If they were expanded they would certainly rival any light rail car, and for sure have more space than a BRT bus.

Anything outside of the DT area might be better served by commuter rail that woud feed into the skyway. But, there are many ways to work things. Perhaps even the skyway could be at grade outside of the DT area, thus saving in some costs.....but would it still be called the "skyway" at that point.....

Steve

[Spartan]

The train's length (number of cars) is always dependant on the size of the station platforms... well that and how many cars you have to use!

I agree that teh stadium area would be another vital area to expand. Just look at most other large cities with mass transit stops at their stadiums. I speak mainly of Atlanta, but there are many others... its a very convenient way to get around.

[asonj23]

IMO the expansion to the stadium district is necessary as well as a line into Brooklyn. The next thing to do would be to get a commuter rail system up and running that will funnel in riders from the suburbs. As it stands right now, the skyway is simply a way to get around downtown. The only people its really benefitting are the few residents (thats changing) and the lunch rush during the week. It does very little for commuters because of the ample parking already downtown. Most don't prefer to park their car at an outlying garage and rise the skyway into town and be forced to add 5-10 minutes more to their daily commute, they'll just simply drive on in to a garage in the core and walk a block or two if their building doesn't have its own garage.

With a commuter rail link, a commuter has a true benefit by being able to make a short trip to a rail station and ride in headache free then transfer to the skyway to get to their destination. Also, a commuter rail system could be linked to nearby tourist destinations such as St. Aug and Fernandina/Amerlia using existing tracks. The only track additions required would be a spur to the airport. Busses would then pick up the rest of town. A BRT route to the beaches would make a lot of sence because there aren't any existing tracks for a commuter rail line.

Miami's system is an elevated peoplemover with a heavy/commuter rail line feeding in riders from all over the region and is highly succesful especially since they made their skyway free.

[Spartan]

I generally agree with that, though I am not conviced BRT is the best way to go. Its a good idea in principle, but people very rarely implement it in the right way. Light rail would be a good start, and IMO would probably work well in the east. It would have to run up 3rd St along the beaches (or maybe 2nd?) in order to make it appealing. You'd be able to attract alot of beachgoers that way, and you'd be able to catch some of the commute as well.

Your CR ideas are right on. I know someone who commutes from Amelia Island/Fernandina, and it takes 45 mins on a good day. A CR stop would do wonders, and they'd probably use it.

[tampasteve]

The stations on the Skyway are designed to hold train sets from two to six cars long, so there is plenty of room for expansion.

The Miami system (the metromover) is a great system. I have the pleasure of spending time in Miami every few months, and I love both the Metrorail (HRT) and the Metromover (people mover). The Metromover is a fantastic system as it coveres most of the DT area, and not to mention it is free. There are two (if I remember right) stations where one can switch to the metrorail, however to get to the Trirail (CRT) one must take the metromover to one of the transer stations and then ride metrorail to the metrorail/trirail transfer station; but that is pretty easy really.

I like the idea of commuter rail (or LRT) feeding the Skyway. BRT can be implemented OK, but in the end I am really for rail. One reason that I usually site rail as an advantage is that historically there is a lot of development around rail (LRT or CRT) stations, however bus stations rarely, if ever, attract such investment. Also, if one is having to build a new ROW for BRT anyway, it really is not that much more to lay the rail - provided we are actually haveing a seperated ROW for the BRT.

Steve

[Spartan]

Exactly. The ROW is the most expensive part of a new dedicated transit system. If you are going to invest in the right of way for BRT the way it SHOULD be done, why not go ahead and invest in rail too?

One need only look at Charlotte's investment in LRT to see the immediate benefits and development occuring adjacent to the future stations because of it.

[asonj23]

A BRT route to the beaches would likely be cheaper in first cost and would allow a LRT system to be built at a later date using the same right of way. I fully agree that LRT is far superior to BRT but in an application where there are no existing tracks to run trains on it can be a good first step for that leg.

The other option would be a "commuter rail" line from the beaches with limited stops inbetween to allow for higher travel speeds.

I would love to see a trolly running up and down 3rd street with a commuter rail line running parallel to JTB with a stop at SJTC and the JTB/I95 buisness district.

[Spartan]

When you try to build LRT on top of existing BRT, its more than likely going to result in a loss of service since they will have to build tacks over the existing pavement, and the LRT won't be fully functional for a while. People will stop relying on transit as a valid option furing that transition, and you will have to start luring people back.

A BRT bus (when done correctly) is not all that different from an LRT car. The difference is an investment in the tracks to support it. Investing in LRT to begin with is much better in the long run. Financially, its easier and cheaper to do it all at once than it is to invest in BRT, then switch to LRT... for example, what do you do with those BRT busses? Also, the psychological effect of a rail station is very different than that of a bus station, and the results of investment in the vicinity will be higher with rail.