JTA planning to seek bids to build, run U2C

[marcuscnelson]

Look Charles, I'm telling you that one of the largest car companies in the world is wrong on their timeline. JTA is gonna have this all figured out by 2023! For mixed traffic, too!

[Charles Hunter]

Look Charles, I'm telling you that one of the largest car companies in the world is wrong on their timeline. JTA is gonna have this all figured out by 2023! For mixed traffic, too!

Thanks for the reality check.  What could I have been thinking?!? 

[Ken_FSU]

AV by the private sector is going to be a thing in the next decade, and the JTA will never, ever have the economies of scale to compete with whatever that is going to look like.

Their focus shouldn't be on competing with Amazon/Uber/Lyft/Toyota/etc on on-demand rideshare, but rather on providing what the private sector cannot - strategic, fixed transit with dedicated ROW.

Leave the AV where it belongs, as a first-mile/last-mile feeder system into your fixed mass transit.

It's just foolishness all around.

[thelakelander]

^Bingo Ken! Their focus should be on running efficient and effective mass transit that aligns with the desires, needs and future vision of the community as a whole. The U2C as an on-demand rideshare type thing will never be able to compete head to head with the private sector. From that perspective, the fixed transit infrastructure becomes a negative. The fixed infrastructure needs to be positioned to move high volumes of people. That requires more emphasis on land use coordination than on the type of technology and rolling stock being invested in.

[marcuscnelson]

Two interesting updates from JTA's Procurement site:

The Bay Street Innovation Corridor RFQ was awarded on December 11th, not sure to whom.

A RFI has just been put out for a "mini overhaul" of Skyway vehicles. This to me seems more interesting. It's been what, 5 years now since the initial talk of needing to replace the vehicles, but the replacement all the chips are on is so far out that they have to "mini overhaul" the vehicles anyway.

Looking at the document they're asking to replace quite a bit if possible. New doors, new cooling system, new electrical systems, new bogies, new HVAC from Sutrak. I remember seeing in documents from 5 years ago that overhauling the vehicles would get about 10-15 years of extra life out of them. I wonder what the expected addition is for this.

[marcuscnelson]

AV by the private sector is going to be a thing in the next decade, and the JTA will never, ever have the economies of scale to compete with whatever that is going to look like.

Their focus shouldn't be on competing with Amazon/Uber/Lyft/Toyota/etc on on-demand rideshare, but rather on providing what the private sector cannot - strategic, fixed transit with dedicated ROW.

Leave the AV where it belongs, as a first-mile/last-mile feeder system into your fixed mass transit.

It's just foolishness all around.

^Bingo Ken! Their focus should be on running efficient and effective mass transit that aligns with the desires, needs and future vision of the community as a whole. The U2C as an on-demand rideshare type thing will never be able to compete head to head with the private sector. From that perspective, the fixed transit infrastructure becomes a negative. The fixed infrastructure needs to be positioned to move high volumes of people. That requires more emphasis on land use coordination than on the type of technology and rolling stock being invested in.

I concur! So who's going to tell Nat Ford that?

[thelakelander]

I'd assume that a change in direction would have to come from the board. They've be better off just replacing the the Skyway vehicles, upgrading the system as is and really working together with the DIA to cluster TOD and infill around every existing Skyway station (along with getting that Brooklyn station open). That doesn't stop them from experimenting on Bay Street with the innovation corridor thing, which is more about testing emerging technologies than it is serving as a viable mass transit option.

[marcuscnelson]

I'd assume that a change in direction would have to come from the board.

So these guys. Good to know.

They've be better off just replacing the the Skyway vehicles, upgrading the system as is and really working together with the DIA to cluster TOD and infill around every existing Skyway station (along with getting that Brooklyn station open).

Back in 2015 this option was considered (at least the first half). They spent much of the report discussing a streetcar system, which is interesting.

On page 5, it appears JTA as of now has chosen Option 2, with the replacement system being U2C. You're suggesting Option 3a, but not necessarily with extensions (save for Brooklyn).



Page 11 shows what Lea+Elliott thought of replacing the vehicles:

Option 3 – System Replacement with Minimal Infrastructure Modifications
Option 3 was the only option that all four respondents offered proposed solutions for. However, each of them comes with its own risk that must be considered by the JTA when evaluating the proposed options. Each of these proposed solutions would also have major impact to existing Skyway operations and would likely need to shut down the system for an extended duration to implement.

Bombardier suggests that the monorail beam be removed and that they propose to use a vehicle technology that would closely match the original Skyway system technology, the Matra VAL 256. Bombardier states that they have experience in replacement of the Matra VAL 256 with their Innovia APM 256 vehicle technology in Taipei and are currently under contract to replace it again at Chicago O'Hare International Airport. Bombardier's experience with previously performing this work and utilizing a standard Bombardier APM vehicle should be noted as a benefit.

A potential concern with this proposed solution is that Bombardier would need to verify and confirm that the entire Skyway guideway (original/starter line and all extensions & MSF) is designed and constructed for the heavier Innovia APM 256 technology. If not, there may be extensive infrastructure re‐design and reinforcement requirements that must be considered. The JTA would need to do a complete cost benefit analysis on this proposed solution.

SDI recommends Option 3 and state that they could adapt their technology, vehicle and system and that will have minimal impact on the existing infrastructure and provide for a 30 year service life. It is suggested that detailed meetings be held with SDI to gain confidence and a higher level of comfort that SDI is capable of performing the replacement and to understand the extent of the required changes to the Infrastructure and to the Operating System. Also the JTA could consider sharing the technical contractual requirements of the Jacksonville Skyway monorail with SDI. Some of the project constraints are somewhat challenging (such as 8% grade, Y‐junction) and it would be advisable that the JTA makes sure that SDI fully understands the project requirement and is capable of delivering a reliable system.

Thales proposed to replace the ATC and communications system but offers no solution for the vehicle replacement. This is understandable given that Thales is a train control supplier.

Skyweb Express proposes a Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) System to replace the current trains with lighter, more private single vehicles. Skyweb Express strongly believes that the JTA's short‐term and long‐term solution (extending into historic neighborhoods) lie with a solution such as PRT. Skyweb Express discusses comparative cost per mile benefits that should be verified. Skyweb indicates that the Conversion of the current system would require alteration only at Rosa Park, King Street and Prime Osborn stations by allowing a balloon track to move cars from one side to the other on a two‐way track.

Skyweb express discussion of System capacity appears optimistic as the advertised headways may not have been proven in passenger service (see Lea+Elliott note on PRT headway included in Lea+Elliott Technology Assessment Report dated November 2014).

It is recommended that detailed discussions be held with Skyweb Express to determine the extent of the proposed changes, their impact on the infrastructure and the operations of the proposed system. Furthermore, the decision to implement a PRT requires a complete separate study by the JTA to determine alignment, station locations, fleet size, ridership, business case etc.

[thelakelander]

I remember that study quite well.  Some of these studies pretty much come to the conclusion that the client wanted from the start. U2C is basically the PRT route. As then, I remain a fan of keeping the existing infrastructure and expanding where it makes sense and supports a community supported vision of what Downtown and various neighborhoods should be. The community didn't ask for AVs and the U2C. That's JTA's vision, so I've always had a concern from the true public engagement perspective of the planning effort. As a result, you end up with a project that connects to the sports district, but one that would fail even if it were successful because it won't have the capacity to move crowds from major events. Heck, the Skyway, which has more capacity now than the U2C will, could barely move One Spark crowds.

While a fan of expansion, it's not a good idea to spend money expanding when we can't implement ways to get more efficient utilization out of the existing infrastructure. Much of that revolves around a lack of complementary land use and development policies with downtown in general over the years. The Skyway ending up at a seldom used convention center or parking garage instead of the sports district or directly tying into UF Health Jax or Baptist are great examples of this. Still having no sound strategy within the downtown district around driving infill TOD to cluster around existing stations is another. There's nothing wrong with having a well used 2.5 mile system than underutilized, more expensive 4 mile system. So treat the existing as the "starter" line and go from there.

Then there's the reality of timeline. At this rate, it will be more than 10 years since that study was done before anyone ever takes an AV on the Skyway infrastructure across the Acosta. So we're going to really end up paying a lot more money for two of these options, when its all said and done (paying to keep the existing system running for +10 years and paying for whatever the replacement turns out to be).

[bl8jaxnative]

Can the current Skyway fleet last more than a few more years?

[marcuscnelson]

It turns out JTA wants to perform a "mini" overhaul of the current fleet, so it seems they're expecting it to stick around longer than a few more years.

[ProjectMaximus]

Well, Uber is out of the self-driving development game. Too difficult & expensive. Yet another signal that the enthusiasm far outpaces the tech for the foreseeable future.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/07/uber-sells-atg-self-driving-unit-to-aurora-.html

Then a week later Lyft and Motional announced their plans to rollout entire fleets of autonomous vehicle taxis throughout the US by 2023. Maybe they won't succeed, but that's a bold declaration either way.

[thelakelander]

^Makes one wonder why would one believe that throwing autonomous minivans on fixed guideway makes in the short or term sense? Fixed guideway makes sense when moving large volumes of people to select destinations where large volumes of people can easily move by foot. Once you scale down to the person vehicle size, an entity that can use regular streets and take the rider anywhere they want to go is going to have the competitive advantage compared to a similar vehicle stuck to Skyway guideway. Driver or no driver.

[marcuscnelson]

According to documents JTA has released as part of the RFI for the "mini overhaul," the targeted lifetime of the overhauled system is another 10 years. Sounds like someone absolutely cracked open the now 6-year-old technology assessment report and circled option 2. It makes me think they must have gotten some bad news on feasibility last year.

Shame they can't give the streetcar option another look, I think that'd be pretty cool. Tampa seems on to something with how they're expanding their system now.

[Charles Hunter]

JTA has selected two teams to respond to their RFP for the U2C along Bay Street.

California-based Balfour Beaty Construction, LLC. will be the design lead and project manager. Superior Construction Company Southeast; Beep, Inc.; WGI, Inc.; Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. and Miller Electric will serve as sub-contractors.

The second proposal features Jacksonville-based The Haskell Company as the design lead, build contractor, project manager, transportation engineering, architect and engineer as well as project oversight firm. The subcontractors would be Transdev Services, Inc.; Oceaneering International, Inc; 2getthere; Siemens Mobility, Inc. and Metric Engineering.

"The release for that Request For Proposal is a major milestone for the (Ultimate Urban Circulator) project," Ford said. "It's Phase I, which the Bay Street Innovation Corridor. It took years of education and testing on the JTA side. It took years of working with the private sector to look at these technologies and determine what strategy is the best strategy for the JTA to develop this technology that is developing rapidly."

In December, Ford told the Business Journal he anticipates the RFP process to conclude this calendar year.

https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2021/01/15/jta-jan-14-2021-board-meeting.html?ana=e_me_prem&j=90546715&t=Morning&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWmprek9EZGtPV05pTTJOaSIsInQiOiJycTlOQm9JOEI3d1NZWEpVbEs3MGJJbU1KNG9kbFltTXFLdENKQnZtQnllbjlqUlB5ZTM4dEdzOVdiOXpKOFwvRlRTUnh5WmZlYXVhcTN0VnJ4NWlwajJOY0RFR2Y2NnY2cjFwUXpHc0VWVGNWeVU2VlJwajlZUnViMjFrenZOTVYifQ%3D%3D

Business Journal article, so there may be a paywall.  And geez, that's a long URL.