JTA planning to seek bids to build, run U2C

[jaxlongtimer]

^ I see a possible nearer-future of autonomous vehicles, just not JTA's.  Rather, closer to today's cars/SUV's and shared, Uber-style.  With the right algorithms to manage travel, we could increase efficiencies enough to provide an ROI that works for less dense cities like Jax while catering to the cultural demand for point to point travel embedded here.

Without investing billions in roadway infrastructure, signals, etc., you won't see this on a large scale. You'll likely see AVs that are still human operator controlled.....some of which is already out there. From a transit perspective, I still struggle to see what JTA is proposing, going mainstream. Restricting an AV the size of an SUV to fixed Skyway infrastructure and stops will only put that system at a competitive disadvantage against ride share. For it to be effective as mass transit, we'll need bigger vehicles. However, that's not necessarily a technology issue.

Aside from flexibility, scalability and lower initial capital outlays, this solution could also be implemented on a much faster timeline by using existing infrastructure.

AV technology aside, what type of capacity vehicles /rolling stock are you talking about?

Shared vehicles should also reduce the number of vehicles on the road, extending the capacity-life of said existing infrastructure.

I wouldn't count on this, at this point. Any true reduction vehicles on the road will happen later down the line. The technology has to become common amongst the general population or somewhat regulated by the government before that day comes.

Ennis, I think you are missing my point.  I agree that JTA's plan is a waste of money and not the future. 

I am talking about a consumer-"manged" Uber-style arrangement, not a JTA mass transit operated one, that would use vehicles essentially akin to today's personal autos/suvs/pickups.  As such,these vehicles only carry your "party" (single to family/friends) at a time, not other unrelated people .

Implementation of intelligent transportation systems (ITS) is  already underway and will only accelerate as the technology gets perfected and drops in price.  ITS will be implemented even with today's vehicles so, at the margin, it won't be much of an additional cost over what is destined to get built.  It's destiny because even human controlled vehicles will more and more play off of ITS platforms.

The end result will be evolutionary, incrementally moving from more human control to more autonomous control over a number of years as the technology expands and humans get more comfortable turning over their control to the technology.  (Consider that planes are often flown on autopilot already - albeit with human oversight.).

I have never expected this to be quick, just quicker (and cheaper and more popular) than perhaps building a mass transit rail system (which, to be clear, I fully support if the AV option is not feasible or ultimately also saturates our existing infrastructure) in a city like Jacksonville.

I have seen some articles (that I can't find right now) that predict that widespread use of AVs could increase vehicle miles traveled.  There are two scenarios. First, if you own your AV, and are going to work at an office, you (it) would drive to the door of your office and you would get out and walk into your office. The AV would then go park itself. Since the site design would not have to accommodate you walking from your parked car to the office, the AV parking could be farther away.  When you get ready to go home, you would summon your AV as you leave your desk, meeting it in front of your office. Here, the distance between your office door and the AV parking is "added miles" not currently driven.  Now, the AV parking area may or may not require driving on public roads, but it will drive on some pavement that has to be maintained.

If you don't own the AV, and it has to come from some parking area, or off of another trip, before it picks you up in the morning or evening, these are even more "new" miles on the road.

Charles, I am envisioning "shared" vehicles where the vehicle moves from "ride" to "ride" and rarely stays idle, just as a taxi does.  Basically, an automated Uber.  It's why Uber also has interest in AV technology.  On this basis, there are far less cars needed on the roads.

By example, lets say you commute from home to Downtown.  Car drops you off.  A couple of blocks over, an office worker needs to go to a doctor's appointment.  Car goes a couple of blocks, picks them up and takes them to the doctor.  Someone is leaving the doctor and needs to head home.  Once in the patient's neighborhood, a neighbor needs to run to the grocery store.... and so on. Eliminates most "return trips" thus taking vehicles off the road.  With thousands of requests at any given time, vehicles should be pretty efficient at reducing unnecessary mileage. 

[thelakelander]

Ennis, I think you are missing my point.  I agree that JTA's plan is a waste of money and not the future. 

I am talking about a consumer-"manged" Uber-style arrangement, not a JTA mass transit operated one, that would use vehicles essentially akin to today's personal autos/suvs/pickups.  As such, these vehicles only carry your "party" (single to family/friends) at a time, not other unrelated people .

Got it! I don't see these happening any time soon without a human attendant for a variety of reasons. But yes, a ride share situation would work much better than what JTA is proposing and would literally put JTA's current proposal out of business.

Implementation of intelligent transportation systems (ITS) is  already underway and will only accelerate as the technology gets perfected and drops in price.  ITS will be implemented even with today's vehicles so, at the margin, it won't be much of an additional cost over what is destined to get built.  It's destiny because even human controlled vehicles will more and more play off of ITS platforms.

It's (a 100% driverless situation without a human attendant) not close to being anywhere on the streets in mass. We'll need to invest billions in our public infrastructure for that day to come. That's what I getting from the TSM&O guys intimately involved. Part of the appeal of JTA's plan is that it would basically be a pilot/test of these things in limited, but real life conditions. As of now, we still need to get them through a traffic signal safely.

The end result will be evolutionary, incrementally moving from more human control to more autonomous control over a number of years as the technology expands and humans get more comfortable turning over their control to the technology.  (Consider that planes are often flown on autopilot already - albeit with human oversight.).

I have never expected this to be quick, just quicker (and cheaper and more popular) than perhaps building a mass transit rail system (which, to be clear, I fully support if the AV option is not feasible or ultimately also saturates our existing infrastructure) in a city like Jacksonville.

Some fixed mass transit systems will go autonomous before anything large scale taking place in mixed traffic. The systems will need their own dedicated lanes or grade separated ROW. The most effective and reliable mass transit systems will need their own dedicated ROW/infrastructure regardless of what the technology happens to be.  From that perspective, the general idea of retrofitting the Skyway is interesting, assuming the capacity of the system can actually move masses of people.

[marcuscnelson]

Here's the Bainbridge apartment development across from Walmart in Avenues Walk that JTA claims to be TOD.

This is a carbon copy of recently built apartment complexes that have been constructed all over the Southside. While having a bus stop within walking distance of the entrance to the long winding complex access drive is an amenity, that's not the driver of this project anymore than the railroad being a significant draw for Walmart to locate at Avenues Walk.

Oh. I see. Yeah, that looks a lot more like happenstance than anything else. I suppose the AVs would be useful as shuttles in that case.

Some fixed mass transit systems will go autonomous before anything large scale taking place in mixed traffic. The systems will need their own dedicated lanes or grade separated ROW. The most effective and reliable mass transit systems will need their own dedicated ROW/infrastructure regardless of what the technology happens to be.  From that perspective, the general idea of retrofitting the Skyway is interesting, assuming the capacity of the system can actually move masses of people.

Oh yeah, I forgot about these. I'm struggling to remember what exactly the difference is between this and an articulated BRT system. I guess just the autonomy? You're still pretty much building roads for them, so it's not like you save much money on infrastructure.

[thelakelander]

^ Like LRT, streetcar, BRT, etc., the best hope for cost savings would be the retrofit of existing ROW and roadway infrastructure. Like repurposing a four lane road into two dedicated transit lanes and two lanes for automobiles and trucks. Mixing transit systems (that really need to move masses of people in a reliable and efficient manner) with regular traffic puts these systems at a disadvantage.

[marcuscnelson]

Realized what I said in another thread should probably also be here.

Article about a proposed gas tax increase.

JTA would direct its share of the gas tax money for transit projects such as modernization of the elevated Skyway structure in downtown, making hundreds of bus stops compliant with Americans with Disability Act standards, and putting in place the "complete streets" concept that designs road corridors for motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians and transit riders.

The single most costly JTA item involves the Skyway system of elevated tracks and stations in downtown. JTA wants to eventually retire the Skyway trains and replace them with smaller automated vehicles that would travel the elevated structure and at street level.

The list shows JTA would spend $378 million to rehabilitate that existing system and make it ready for autonomous vehicles while also expanding the Skyway network into the downtown area neighborhoods of Riverside and Five Points, the sports complex, the Springfield neighborhood and UF Health Jacksonville, San Marco, and a route into the Southside.

"The Skyway obviously had its challenges over the years, but it clearly is an asset for downtown going into the future if we're truly to develop downtown," Ford said.

Uh... what? Isn't this like, double the cost of the entire existing system? The proposed system is something like 10 miles long, right? That makes AVs nearly $38 million per mile? Am I taking crazy pills, or are they?

[WAJAS]

Realized what I said in another thread should probably also be here.

Article about a proposed gas tax increase.

JTA would direct its share of the gas tax money for transit projects such as modernization of the elevated Skyway structure in downtown, making hundreds of bus stops compliant with Americans with Disability Act standards, and putting in place the "complete streets" concept that designs road corridors for motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians and transit riders.

The single most costly JTA item involves the Skyway system of elevated tracks and stations in downtown. JTA wants to eventually retire the Skyway trains and replace them with smaller automated vehicles that would travel the elevated structure and at street level.

The list shows JTA would spend $378 million to rehabilitate that existing system and make it ready for autonomous vehicles while also expanding the Skyway network into the downtown area neighborhoods of Riverside and Five Points, the sports complex, the Springfield neighborhood and UF Health Jacksonville, San Marco, and a route into the Southside.

"The Skyway obviously had its challenges over the years, but it clearly is an asset for downtown going into the future if we're truly to develop downtown," Ford said.

Uh... what? Isn't this like, double the cost of the entire existing system? The proposed system is something like 10 miles long, right? That makes AVs nearly $38 million per mile? Am I taking crazy pills, or are they?

I think we need a better quote from JTA before jumping to any conclusions here. That whole sentence is rife with vagueness as to what that money is for.

[thelakelander]

I wouldn't be surprised if the cost for an AV conversion is well above the original cost of the Skyway. What they are proposing is unconventional and certainly not cheap or affordable.

[Charles Hunter]

Don't forget that part of going to a full U2C system on the elevated guideway and at-grade will require some way of getting the AVs from the elevated guideway down to ground level. That can't be cheap. If the U2C vehicles are designed to have standing passengers, I think that would limit the slope of the ramps between the skyway and the ground.  Ramping down from Central Station to Bay Street will be difficult with the existing driveways along Bay and the closeness of Hogan and Laura Streets.

[icarus]

Its simply mind numbing to me that we are even still moving ahead with U2C.  In what world, was this ever a viable project? 

Converting the skyway as a track for unproven autonomous cars? Really??? It is vaguely reminiscent of an old Mattel car and track set I played with as a child and about as useful for mass transportation.

[marcuscnelson]

^ Not only are we apparently still moving ahead, JTA is honest-to-God asking that we spend $378,840,000 on it.

In a way, this is actually worse than the original people-mover idea, because at least people-movers were a proven, working technology when JTA decided to build one. This literally does not exist as a production mass transit system in any other city on Earth, and they are asking for nearly $400 million for it.

It's the sheer audacity for me.

[thelakelander]

Pretty sure the locals only paid 25% of the original Skyway cost. Let's not forget that it was a federal demonstration project that we won.

[marcuscnelson]

^ Even better!

[jaxlongtimer]

^ Not only are we apparently still moving ahead, JTA is honest-to-God asking that we spend $378,840,000 on it.

In a way, this is actually worse than the original people-mover idea, because at least people-movers were a proven, working technology when JTA decided to build one. This literally does not exist as a production mass transit system in any other city on Earth, and they are asking for nearly $400 million for it.

It's the sheer audacity for me.

I wouldn't say that the original people mover project was a proven, working technology at the outset.  As Ennis notes, it was a demonstration project.

I believe it has always been a maintenance headache on some level and the fact that it is no longer supported by the manufacturer tells you it wasn't so "proven."

It definitely hasn't been "proven" from the standpoint of the public using it* and it has only survived due to unplanned or optional revisions/additions, free fares (was supposed to be tolled) and subsidies far beyond other mass transit options along with using an overblown excuse that we might have to pay the Feds back a few million to kill it.  It's clear it is far cheaper to kill it, even with the penalty (and I an not convinced that the Feds, politically, wouldn't cancel the penalty) than to continue the charade that it has any real value other than, as was set out originally, to demonstrate, in this case, that it is a failed concept.

*I know some will say it failed because it was not built to enough areas and/or the City/JTA failed to support it properly.  I am not convinced.  It never had anywhere near the ridership consultants promised for any phase of it.  It never made sense to me that anyone would drive from the suburbs or take mass transit from the burbs and then offload to the Skyway for the last mile.  The torture of commuting is in the 10 to 20 mile in, not the last mile.  By then, you might as well go all the way to the finish line.  And, as demonstrated, any expansions are just putting good money after bad.  It is slow, uncomfortably cramped, low capacity (if large numbers want to use it,  it couldn't handle it.  Just trying using it after a Downtown event lets out.) and, again, far more expensive than alternatives.

[thelakelander]

^ Not only are we apparently still moving ahead, JTA is honest-to-God asking that we spend $378,840,000 on it.

In a way, this is actually worse than the original people-mover idea, because at least people-movers were a proven, working technology when JTA decided to build one. This literally does not exist as a production mass transit system in any other city on Earth, and they are asking for nearly $400 million for it.

It's the sheer audacity for me.

I wouldn't say that the original people mover project was a proven, working technology at the outset.  As Ennis notes, it was a demonstration project.

It was a demonstration project in that it used peoplemover technology in urban conditions. Typically peoplemovers are used in places like airport terminals. Overall, other technologies like LRT, streetcar and buses were proven to be better solutions for urban conditions.

I believe it has always been a maintenance headache on some level and the fact that it is no longer supported by the manufacturer tells you it wasn't so "proven."

Definitely a challenge when you have something that is not used commonly. This could be a long term problem with the U2C as well. Because we're trying to force this on Skyway infrastructure, the type of AV vehicles used will always be limited by the constraints of the Skyway infrastructure. As time goes on, that could easily spawn into a maintenance and parts replacement problem.

It definitely hasn't been "proven" from the standpoint of the public using it* and it has only survived due to unplanned or optional revisions/additions, free fares (was supposed to be tolled) and subsidies far beyond other mass transit options along with using an overblown excuse that we might have to pay the Feds back a few million to kill it.  It's clear it is far cheaper to kill it, even with the penalty (and I an not convinced that the Feds, politically, wouldn't cancel the penalty) than to continue the charade that it has any real value other than, as was set out originally, to demonstrate, in this case, that it is a failed concept.

This is where I disagree from a transit technology perspective. Literally anything will fail if you do everything from a land use perspective to not support it. The Metromover (same technology) has attracted significantly higher ridership in South Florida because they've continued to build density around and even directly over it. Metrorail also feeds it with thousands of daily riders from suburban Miami-Dade County.

Jax has failed the Skyway, not the other way around. Downtown is a shell of itself, compared to what it was when the Skyway was originally proposed. If I were the feds, I wouldn't give Jax one red cent on any other form of transit until it makes right with what it already has. There are ways to significantly increase ridership and the value of the system. However, they have to do more with land use policy and investment more so than the type of transit technology. 

*I know some will say it failed because it was not built to enough areas and/or the City/JTA failed to support it properly.  I am not convinced.  It never had anywhere near the ridership consultants promised for any phase of it.  It never made sense to me that anyone would drive from the suburbs or take mass transit from the burbs and then offload to the Skyway for the last mile. The torture of commuting is in the 10 to 20 mile in, not the last mile.  By then, you might as well go all the way to the finish line.

From what I've seen, it was supposed to fed ridership from a citywide fixed transit system.....that was never built. The idea of suburbanites fighting congestion for 20 miles, only to park a few blocks from their destination and hop on the Skyway for a stop or two has never made any sense.

And, as demonstrated, any expansions are just putting good money after bad.

Brooklyn is an excellent expansion. It's a no frills solution that cost $1.2 million. They spend more than that with studies that never get implemented. Alone, it can probably generate as many additional riders as extending the system a mile into San Marco at the cost of $20-$30 million. Expanding to TIAA Bank Field as the U2C concept also makes little sense. That one will cost millions and even if successful, won't even be able to move large event crowds efficiently. So I think expansion can be good or bad, depending on the details. With this in mind, I fall in the camp of maximizing what's already in place before getting too crazy with expansion.

It is slow, uncomfortably cramped, low capacity (if large numbers want to use it,  it couldn't handle it.  Just trying using it after a Downtown event lets out.) and, again, far more expensive than alternatives.

Lol, just wait to that U2C AV vehicle is blocking your car, traveling in front of you at a max speed of 12mph and only carrying a family of five. As a kid on a tricycle flies by you and that AV at Star Wars-style light speed, you'll think the Skyway was Chicago's El in comparison.

[jaxlongtimer]

^ So Ennis, regardless of how we get there, when can we agree it is time to cut bait on the Skyway?

Of course, I say it is long overdue.  To me, aside from the obvious costs, it also gives both Downtown and mass transit an ongoing black eye with the public.  This gas tax proposal is about to greatly magnify that and just highlight to suburbanites that maybe Downtown isn't worth the investment if this is what we get for $380 million.  As long as it runs, it also seems JTA feels compelled to support it at all costs, no matter how ridiculous it gets to be.  Seems someone may need to make the decision for them (i.e if the Mayor and City Council said kill it, JTA would have a hard time saying no).

What would it take for you to come around to giving up on it?