Nat Ford: Why Jax should invest in the future of transportation, Downtown

[marcuscnelson]

Looking at their Documentation page, this Infrastructure Assessment and this Concept & Alternatives Review provide some hints to the cost estimates they made. It looks like these cost estimates, ranging from $105 million to $184 million, only include the cost of actually redoing the guideway. The remaining... $56 million to $135 million would be for things like the maintenance center, presumably visually refreshing stations, overhauling the operations facility to control the vehicles, adding the sensors (that they're not sure which to use yet) and operating system (which doesn't exist yet) to control the vehicles.

If I recall correctly, the AVs cost somewhere in the range of $300-400k a pop, although that doesn't account for whatever "next generation" vehicle they might be trying to procure now. They're insisting that this is actually a great deal, despite having to purchase more vehicles because, you know, they're small. Seeing as the LIDAR sensors alone can cost $10k each, and each vehicle has several, you can see how quickly that cost can increase.

I was planning to say this to Council before learning that they no longer allow public comments via Zoom, but one of the big issues here is that working self-driving vehicles will basically require a Manhattan Project-level effort, right up alongside AI itself, or a crewed mission to Mars. It's not that JTA doesn't have smart people working on the U2C, it's just that this is a very difficult and very expensive endeavor, for something that isn't really worth the cost of admission in terms of what we really need. They can quip "can't do X with a streetcar" all they want, but the fact is that cities aren't exactly crying out for those capabilities in the first place, and have clearly done just fine with streetcars all over the country and the world.

Ford's little speech today really reveals the gambit, that they fell into the trap of believing that they could invent the hoverboard, evidence otherwise be damned. And it's just really sad to see that come from a public transportation agency. Instead of having a productive conversation about real transit solutions, we're wasting time and money arguing about hypothetical capability of technology that is nowhere near revenue service ready.

[thelakelander]

Listening to one of the meetings now. Nat Ford didn't have a number for how much it would cost to expand the Skyway in its current form. He just said, whatever it is, it cost more than the U2C. Five years ago, I would have said that to be true. I believe it's incorrect now if we're saying it takes $240 million to turn it into a 2.5 mile road.

[jaxoNOLE]

Listening to one of the meetings now. Nat Ford didn't have a number for how much it would cost to expand the Skyway in its current form. He just said, whatever it is, it cost more than the U2C. Five years ago, I would have said that to be true. I believe it's incorrect now if we're saying it takes $240 million to turn it into a 2.5 mile road.

Yeah, his answers are repetitive and generic on U2C. Whereas Elsbury seems to be adapting and responding, the JTA line hasn't changed. The pitch at $240M is the same as it was at $379M.

[marcuscnelson]

Listening to one of the meetings now. Nat Ford didn't have a number for how much it would cost to expand the Skyway in its current form. He just said, whatever it is, it cost more than the U2C. Five years ago, I would have said that to be true. I believe it's incorrect now if we're saying it takes $240 million to turn it into a 2.5 mile road.

According to JTA's Transit Concept and Alternatives Review, fully elevated neighborhood extensions of the U2C would cost $428,225,958.47. That's not including the conversion costs for the existing system, but I think it includes Bay Street. My guess is that they're using that number as a ballpark for how much it'd cost to expand the existing Skyway. Although that still wouldn't include replacing the vehicles and operating system, or any improvements made to stations. And the U2C numbers wouldn't include adding a beam or the switching tracks. So that number is going to look worse compared to "$132 million for street-level, mixed-traffic extensions."

Yeah, his answers are repetitive and generic on U2C. Whereas Elsbury seems to be adapting and responding, the JTA line hasn't changed. The pitch at $240M is the same as it was at $379M.

When the whole pitch is just "let's build the transportation system of the future! There are a ton of hypothetical future capabilities that no one else has really figured out yet that we think we can, so it'll be really cool! Also we've already spent five years and millions of dollars on this so please don't say no" there's not really anywhere to adapt to. If you never face reality you never have to contend with how it doesn't actually work yet and you can't really afford to make it work. So you go to City Council and talk about hypothetical future vehicles (that you openly admit under your breath aren't what you're procuring nor possible with the money you're asking for) picking up old ladies right outside their house, and you hope, because hope that technology will save you is really all you have.

[Fallen Buckeye]

This talk of a transit system of the future makes me think that the underlying motivation to get U2C going is for the JTA brass to be able to leave "a legacy" more than it is to further the public good. That said, I'd say the best tactic for talking sense to JTA is to make the case for how it will actually tarnish the legacy they leave, and offer an alternative that lets them have their innovative legacy project.

Also, how backward is that that the public can no longer participate via Zoom. We should be encouraging more community engagement not less.

[thelakelander]

Last night, they allowed comments via zoom.

[thelakelander]

Listening to one of the meetings now. Nat Ford didn't have a number for how much it would cost to expand the Skyway in its current form. He just said, whatever it is, it cost more than the U2C. Five years ago, I would have said that to be true. I believe it's incorrect now if we're saying it takes $240 million to turn it into a 2.5 mile road.

According to JTA's Transit Concept and Alternatives Review, fully elevated neighborhood extensions of the U2C would cost $428,225,958.47. That's not including the conversion costs for the existing system, but I think it includes Bay Street. My guess is that they're using that number as a ballpark for how much it'd cost to expand the existing Skyway. Although that still wouldn't include replacing the vehicles and operating system, or any improvements made to stations. And the U2C numbers wouldn't include adding a beam or the switching tracks. So that number is going to look worse compared to "$132 million for street-level, mixed-traffic extensions."

Except you would not layout an identical route. There would be no need to have a line running on Riverside and Park, or on Kings and San Marco Blvd either. Since they have $44 million committed to Bay Street for the U2C, there's no reason to extend the Skyway as a monorail there either. So the proposal would be dramatically different and significantly cheaper than what's being poorly sold to the community. With that said, I'm still concerned they'll get the entire gas tax shot down over this U2C thing. They need to cut more out.

Listening to one of the meetings now. Nat Ford didn't have a number for how much it would cost to expand the Skyway in its current form. He just said, whatever it is, it cost more than the U2C. Five years ago, I would have said that to be true. I believe it's incorrect now if we're saying it takes $240 million to turn it into a 2.5 mile road.

Yeah, his answers are repetitive and generic on U2C. Whereas Elsbury seems to be adapting and responding, the JTA line hasn't changed. The pitch at $240M is the same as it was at $379M.

Yeah, I don't care what the technology is, I would not be crazy about paying $100 million per mile for it. You could be a 10 mile streetcar line from scratch for that number and leave the Skyway in tact as a monorail. Anyone wanting to ride the 2.5-mile Skyway could transfer to it from the new 10-mile streetcar at the JRTC.

[bl8jaxnative]

It's unlikely that you could build a streetcar line in downtown Jacksonville for $10M / mile.  The line itself, maybe.  But the cost of moving utilities would be humongous.   

IIRC , MIlwaukee's The Hop cost ~$125M for 2 miles.  Cincinatti's Bell Connector was about ~$150M for 3 miles.  St. Louis' short lived The Loop kept it's costs down by not being downtown + having to move utilities + using some old car.  Still it cost $50M for 2 miles.

It's possible but it's going to be tough.


Not sure the operating costs would be a big problem.   A few million a year for operations though.  Not sure that's anymore than the Skyway, is it?

[thelakelander]

IIRC , MIlwaukee's The Hop cost ~$125M for 2 miles.  Cincinatti's Bell Connector was about ~$150M for 3 miles.  St. Louis' short lived The Loop kept it's costs down by not being downtown + having to move utilities + using some old car.  Still it cost $50M for 2 miles.

It's possible but it's going to be tough.

Some of the modern streetcar systems mentioned above are ones I'd consider being loaded (bloated) with unnecessary bells and whistles. However, even those numbers are cheaper than the $96 million per mile ($240 million for 2.5 miles) that JTA wants to pay to retrofit the Skyway into an elevated road for AVs. Add in the cost of the $423 million of the entire U2C system + $15 to $20 million annually for O&M, and I'd argue that we'd be better off with a streetcar or true bus rapid transit being built from scratch. Heck, we'd be better off throwing a fraction of that money into the bus system to reduce the headways citywide and then investing the savings elsewhere.

Not sure the operating costs would be a big problem.   A few million a year for operations though.  Not sure that's anymore than the Skyway, is it?

Nat Ford mentioned annual O&M would be $15 to $20 million for the U2C.

[Peter Griffin]

The most effective mass transit system I've used in this city was the UNF Shuttle from Lot 18 or Lot 53 to the main campus.

A few shuttle buses running up and down Bay St on gameday or on the weekends, run up and down the "elbow" and loop back around, would likely get ridden and used.

Higher capacity, good headways, inexpensive comparatively, and uses existing technology.

[thelakelander]

Yes, them running school buses between LaVilla and the stadium on game day is a more effective way of funneling people in and out of the stadium than the U2C.

[marcuscnelson]

Yes, them running school buses between LaVilla and the stadium on game day is a more effective way of funneling people in and out of the stadium than the U2C.

My understanding is that JTA already does this.

If your goal was to build an effective, high-frequency, high-capacity transit system, the best thing you could probably do is either a high-speed, dedicated lane LRT, or add TSP to every light between the two points and treat it like BRT. However, the problem is that JTA's goal isn't that, it's transportation system of the future, so instead we're getting unproven technology with lower capacity than buses, theoretical headway numbers, and hypothetical "platooning" capability.

The thing I'm stuck on is that I'm not sure how to convince the JTA board to knock it off with the tech-bro fantasies and focus on providing an actual transportation system. There's no transit advocacy group to fully present and lobby for an alternative vision. Much of the frustration I've gotten from people I've talked to about this is that it's an actual transit agency pushing these, not some third-party who is simply being entertained by the transit agency. I'm not sure what the pathway is to doing something else.

[thelakelander]

My understanding is that JTA already does this.

Exactly!

[thelakelander]

The thing I'm stuck on is that I'm not sure how to convince the JTA board to knock it off with the tech-bro fantasies and focus on providing an actual transportation system. There's no transit advocacy group to fully present and lobby for an alternative vision. Much of the frustration I've gotten from people I've talked to about this is that it's an actual transit agency pushing these, not some third-party who is simply being entertained by the transit agency. I'm not sure what the pathway is to doing something else.

This is JTA's baby and apparently one that they are willing to die on the hill for and even risk sinking the entire gas tax proposal over. Regardless of whether the LOGT passes or fails, JTA will continue to pursue the U2C until their leadership and board priorities change. They've already spent millions on AV R&D and have too much invested to back away, regardless of how crazy and unrealistic the plan seems to the outside world.

It's clear the greater local community doesn't share the same vision as JTA. That's a large problem in and of itself. You should not have to oversell the viability of infrastructure projects that have true community support. So it is all on the council to reduce the amount of funding in the LOGT dedicated to the U2C.  Council has the ability to amend just about anything related to the LOGT proposal and the draft list of projects that would be funded by it.

[jaxoNOLE]

The thing I'm stuck on is that I'm not sure how to convince the JTA board to knock it off with the tech-bro fantasies and focus on providing an actual transportation system. There's no transit advocacy group to fully present and lobby for an alternative vision. Much of the frustration I've gotten from people I've talked to about this is that it's an actual transit agency pushing these, not some third-party who is simply being entertained by the transit agency. I'm not sure what the pathway is to doing something else.

This is JTA's baby and apparently one that they are willing to die on the hill for and even risk sinking the entire gas tax proposal over. Regardless of whether the LOGT passes or fails, JTA will continue to pursue the U2C until their leadership and board priorities change. They've already spent millions on AV R&D and have too much invested to back away, regardless of how crazy and unrealistic the plan seems to the outside world.

It's clear the greater local community doesn't share the same vision as JTA. That's a large problem in and of itself. You should not have to oversell the viability of infrastructure projects that have true community support. So it is all on the council to reduce the amount of funding in the LOGT dedicated to the U2C.  Council has the ability to amend just about anything related to the LOGT proposal and the draft list of projects that would be funded by it.

If all of the concerns expressed on this forum are well-founded, then Bay Street should fail in rather spectacular fashion. It should continually fall (further) behind schedule on build-out, go over-budget, and once (if) completed, embody all of the limitations we fret about. It's fully funded, so JTA can't blame its failure on a lack of resources. I sincerely hope that, if Bay Street demonstrates these limitations, the Council at the time will be able to see through the BS excuses and kill the rest of the beast. Hopefully that happens before we blow hundreds of millions more on converting the elevated structure.