Four alternative paths for JTA's Skyway U2C proposal

[marcuscnelson]

I did speak, expressed concerns about the technology not really existing despite massive private sector investment, the cost per mile compared to streetcars, alternative projects like Emerald Trail and the terminal, and noting how strangely things like "elevated extensions were never an option" were communicated to the public in 2015 (or not). And then closed with how we can't make these assumptions now based on hypothetical future capability, and U2C doesn't really offer a practical, proven solution.

Someone from JTA sent me a DM on Twitter.

[thelakelander]

Watching it on Zoom and planning to speak when the chance comes.

I caught some of your comment but you ran out of time. Do you mind sending it? I'll post it as a front page editorial. It is interesting in that it is your generation that some council members and JTA believe will flock to downtown because of the innovation associated with the U2C. However, there's not much transportation knowledge on the council for them to fully determine what is a good and bad investment from a public perspective on the issue. So they're putting a lot of faith in Nat Ford. I agree that Nat Ford has done a good job during his time here, but much of this is out of his, JTA staff, and local control.

[Charles Hunter]

For reference, for folks who don't speak metric, 13 to 15 kilometers per hour (km/h) is about 9 miles per hour (mph); and the aspirational speed of 25 km/h is 15.5 mph.

Here's a November 2020 article about the Lyon experiment, which also notes France is investing 42 million Euros (about $50 million) in AV Shuttle experiments in "16 experiments involving autonomous vehicles."  The article links to another that provides more detail about those projects - but it is in French.

Between February and May 2019, EDF and Semitan (a semi-public company for public transport in the Nantes area) have set up an autonomous shuttle linking the Technocampus Océan and an inter-company restaurant. This shuttle covered a 2.5km [1.6 miles] route with a speed limit of 30km/h [~19 mph], although it was mostly at 18km/h [11 mph]. Capable of carrying 8 seated passengers, it also had a supervisor in charge of monitoring the smooth running of the shuttle.

Result of the experiment: the shuttle still needs to be improved. Its low speed created a strong traffic slowdown. As a result, the traffic was less fluid and may have created a traffic build-up.
On the users' side, it was used only occasionally and changed the users' travel habits moderately. The main advantages that were perceived are: reliability, silence and the presence of a supervisor on board which gives a feeling of safety. However, for non-users, the shuttle is perceived as too slow compared to the usual modes of transport.
https://lyko.blog/en/the-implementation-of-autonomous-shuttles-in-the-urban-landscape/

Another issue from the article, that I have not heard discussed with the U2C is liability

The autonomous vehicle being relatively recent, many tests will still be carried out in the coming years. Moreover, the legislation must change because nowadays, the autonomous car is insured because it has a supervisor. But the goal being to abolish this supervisor and to increase the speed of these vehicles (because judged too slow), who will pay in case of a fatal accident? This is a question that needs to be addressed quickly over the next few years.

[thelakelander]

^Unfortunately, no one here asks these types of questions about these things. The Lyons, France example was mentioned today in a sense that would make the average person think that it is not a pilot and operates as proposed locally. Ford did mention that it would be a long time before these vehicles could run without an attendant. I plan to send the Councilwoman DeFoor more info on this particular question that she asked. It can get pretty frustrating listening to cheerleaders who aren't considering these practical issues, concerns and challenges.

[marcuscnelson]

Watching it on Zoom and planning to speak when the chance comes.

I caught some of your comment but you ran out of time. Do you mind sending it? I'll post it as a front page editorial. It is interesting in that it is your generation that some council members and JTA believe will flock to downtown because of the innovation associated with the U2C. However, there's not much transportation knowledge on the council for them to fully determine what is a good and bad investment from a public perspective on the issue. So they're putting a lot of faith in Nat Ford. I agree that Nat Ford has done a good job during his time here, but much of this is out of his, JTA staff, and local control.

Just emailed.

I think the thing is that it's likely my generation will flock to downtowns. But I would be loath to believe that the reason would be because of innovation or the gee-whiz experience of using autonomous vehicles. Largely it has more to do with things the rising cost of suburban living, the newfound appreciation for the convenience of urban living (with the bonus of most cities cleaning up in recent years), and to some extent concern about climate change that inspires more eco-friendly lifestyles. Of course, convenient urban transit is necessary to make that work (beyond walking or biking distance), but the U2C alone doesn't really do that. Dense community spaces connected by transit does that, and introducing new technology doesn't do an enormous amount to change that.

[ProjectMaximus]

You don't have to go to France to see a pilot. They operate in mixed traffic as pilots in Gainesville and Lake Nona in Orlando as well. I've posted a video of the one in Lake Nona before.

Lake Nona AV video: https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/the-jaxson-asks-jta-12-questions-about-the-u2c/

There's several examples out there. However, there aren't any out there that do what JTA is proposing with the U2C. That's what makes the U2C more expensive and with risks. However, it seems the technology side of the discussion is far outside of the comfortability of most council members, based on what I heard today. Much of the focus was centered around typical local politics, who will be getting the construction jobs and dreams of this being a gamechanger that puts Jax on the maps.

My friend (Chuck) took a video on the AV shuttle in downtown Tampa before the Super Bowl. Another example in FL and they all run at sub 15mph.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3labJLhEG0

I am more tolerant than most on this AV topic, as I do believe the technology will be transformational in a fairly compressed time horizon, but that said I 100% agree with many of the concerns brought up and the bottom line is a public service agency has zero business trailblazing new technology. There's absolutely no benefit and way too much risk to the community to be early adopters. This should be the domain of private enterprise until it's been proven to work.

The only benefit to anyone would be for the leadership, if they have any semblance of success. So obviously seems ego driven...

[jaxlongtimer]

^Unfortunately, no one here asks these types of questions about these things. The Lyons, France example was mentioned today in a sense that would make the average person think that it is not a pilot and operates as proposed locally. Ford did mention that it would be a long time before these vehicles could run without an attendant. I plan to send the Councilwoman DeFoor more info on this particular question that she asked. It can get pretty frustrating listening to cheerleaders who aren't considering these practical issues, concerns and challenges.

I note that the Lyon, France, trial is only 1.4 KM (0.87 miles).  Further, the tested vehicle is manufactured in France which reminds me of JEA wanting to buy 2 floating nuclear power plants (that no one else ever ordered) in the 1970's, not because the technology was proven or it was financially feasible, but simply because they were to be manufactured in Jacksonville.  Lyon supporting a French company doesn't impress me as the end-all credible endorsement of this technology.  And, it remains as a pilot/demonstration project at that.

https://www.intelligenttransport.com/transport-news/92364/autonomous-shuttles-to-be-rolled-out-in-lyon/

At the Finance Committee meeting, Nate Ford just said that [paraphrase] "AV technology is proven and has been in use in China and Japan for years."

It's unproven here. There's a reason we're the guinea pigs with what we're proposing locally.

Did Mr. Ford give a specific citation for the Japanese and Chinese "proven" implementations?  I am willing to bet that in their cities they are a lot less "auto-centric" than we are so I would be interested to know how "tangled" the AV's are with other vehicles in traffic and what choices their riders have for competing transit.

I did speak, expressed concerns about the technology not really existing despite massive private sector investment, the cost per mile compared to streetcars, alternative projects like Emerald Trail and the terminal, and noting how strangely things like "elevated extensions were never an option" were communicated to the public in 2015 (or not). And then closed with how we can't make these assumptions now based on hypothetical future capability, and U2C doesn't really offer a practical, proven solution.

Someone from JTA sent me a DM on Twitter.

Marcus, another great job on your part.  Keep it up!

However, there's not much transportation knowledge on the council for them to fully determine what is a good and bad investment from a public perspective on the issue.

Ennis, they don't get this pass from me.  Anyone with a thinking brain and common sense can see the writing on the wall here.  Those who support this are doing it only for reasons that feed their own political ambitions.  Perversely, supporting this and then having it blow up will sabotage those ambitions in the long run. 

The sad part is some of those being cited here as already supporting it represent parts of town that will be hurt the most by doing this project as $400+ million gets diverted from projects that would benefit their constituents far more.  And, if they are only supporting it just to ram through the gas tax to fund septic tank removals, they may end up with nothing if this project sinks the entire LOGT proposal.

[Charles Hunter]

In one of these LOGT discussions, someone said there is a provision that requires the LOGT to be split 50/50 between the City and JTA. Does anyone have the documentation on this? Does it just apply to the existing LOGT (six cents), or to any future increases in the Local Option Gas Tax?

[marcuscnelson]

I think the bill was only introduced today, so we don't have the exact specifics yet. But if I remember correctly it's a 50-50 split of the additional six cents.

[Charles Hunter]

I think the bill was only introduced today, so we don't have the exact specifics yet. But if I remember correctly it's a 50-50 split of the additional six cents.

So, the 50/50 split could be negotiable one of the facets of the bill?

[jaxlongtimer]

I think the bill was only introduced today, so we don't have the exact specifics yet. But if I remember correctly it's a 50-50 split of the additional six cents.

So, the 50/50 split could be negotiable one of the facets of the bill?

It looks to me like the 50/50 split was arrived based on how much the City could apply to "transportation" projects in its budget as that appears to be what the tax proceeds must be used for.  If correct, JTA got the "leftovers."

Of course, since Ford has been asking for an increase all along, Curry probably felt obligated to give him a "fare share" to gain his support so they split it 50/50.  If this is all true, that would be the "negotiated" result.

If the City added more "transportation" projects, like full funding of the Emerald Trail, I would think more of the proceeds might shift to the City unless the City delegated the Trail to JTA to build out. 

In the end, its all a shell game and the total JTA + City project list should be the focus.

[thelakelander]

I am more tolerant than most on this AV topic, as I do believe the technology will be transformational in a fairly compressed time horizon, but that said I 100% agree with many of the concerns brought up and the bottom line is a public service agency has zero business trailblazing new technology.

I'm more tolerant of AV technology than I may sound on these forums and in public. However, my tolerance comes with common sense conditions that have nothing to do with technology.

1. This system should run on 100% dedicated transit lanes and ROW. It's ridiculous to even want to run something that can't exceed 15mph in mixed traffic conditions and think that it is superior or safe in any way compared to having its own lane, free of congestion.

2. Given the price tag, this should be about economic development and stimulating TOD, just as much as anything. You're not getting that by desiring to be flexible. The flexible perspective is one that fails to realize how important land use is to making these things ultimately work.

3. Capacity. If we're spending LRT or streetcar system type money, we should hope to pay for something that can provide similar type maximum transit capacity through the life time of the project. They can have some small cars, in terms of the need to move smaller amounts of people at times (say 3am in the morning), but the project should be designed to accommodate larger capacity vehicles as well (and not just saying we can platoon a bunch of AV vans together like a train). We currently don't have that and don't know when or if we ever will.

4. Cost. At some point, the entire thing becomes fiscally irresponsible to the local taxpayer. I've think we've reached that point.

[Charles Hunter]

I think the bill was only introduced today, so we don't have the exact specifics yet. But if I remember correctly it's a 50-50 split of the additional six cents.

So, the 50/50 split could be negotiable one of the facets of the bill?

It looks to me like the 50/50 split was arrived based on how much the City could apply to "transportation" projects in its budget as that appears to be what the tax proceeds must be used for.  If correct, JTA got the "leftovers."

Of course, since Ford has been asking for an increase all along, Curry probably felt obligated to give him a "fare share" to gain his support so they split it 50/50.  If this is all true, that would be the "negotiated" result.

If the City added more "transportation" projects, like full funding of the Emerald Trail, I would think more of the proceeds might shift to the City unless the City delegated the Trail to JTA to build out. 

In the end, its all a shell game and the total JTA + City project list should be the focus.

My point is, if the 50/50 is written into the bill, it justifies the ridiculous amounts on the U2C. If the spending is project-based, the split between agencies will be based on how the projects fall on the list.

[tufsu1]

^ There are other spending options if the 50/50 split needs to be maintained. JTA can of course build roads. Based on the JRTC (including Greyhound), they obviously could also build a new Amtrak station. Also seems to me their charter would allow construction of much of the Emerald Trail.

[thelakelander]

^If they can build sidewalks, shared use paths and crosswalks, do electric AV vehicles, etc. then they can do trail segments....which is essentially a mix of complete streets (i.e. Hogan Street, Lee Street, etc.), shared use paths, sidewalks and crosswalks when you break it down.