Is U2C serious? Help me make it make sense....

[thelakelander]

• Similarly, securing a few parcels along the CSX A-Line would be smart, which might be useful sooner than FEC sites since Amtrak services could potentially stop at some. Ortega Park, NAS Jax, and perhaps elsewhere in Clay County.

I wonder what would it look like to flat out buy the A-Line from CSX between downtown and Deland? Outside of some limited industry in Palatka (and who knows what will be still need consistant freight rail service 10-20 years from now), there's not much along this corridor but it does cut through several urban neighborhoods and rapidly growing suburbs where commuting congestion is a mess. Whatever the cost, my guess is that it would be cheaper than any potential alternative corridor paralleling it between DT and Clay County.

[jaxlongtimer]

I can support most suggestions here for redeploying U2C funds with the exception of spending even one penny to save the Skyway and/or extend it. 

I haven't seen one financially feasible proposal or technology that can compete with spending such dollars on most anything else. The maintenance on anything running on it seems to be a giant money pit vs. any surface based solutions.  Not to mention I don't see anything running on it that can transport significant numbers of people given its physical limitations/design.  By example, I don't see it competing with the ROI of a surface trolley system taking into account the construction, operation and maintenance dollars and numbers of people it can move or geographical areas it can be extended to.

I see two options only for the Skyway at this point: convert it to a pedestrian/bike path or tear it down.  Time for us to swallow the bitter pill and move on from it.  JTA is using its survival as a wedge for justifying U2C or some other unrealistic solution if they back away from that.  It is just a distraction from more feasible and better solutions. 

Need to wipe the slate clean and start over.  We tore down the Landing, the Berkman, River City Brewing, a big chunk of the Stadium (twice now), the Hart Bridge and Main Street bridge ramps, the Ford plant, the old Courthouse and City Hall, numerous other historic buildings, the original Acosta and Fuller Warren Bridges, etc.  One thing Jax knows how to do is tear things down  .  Nothing is more deserving of that fate than the Skyway.

[thelakelander]

I haven't seen one financially feasible proposal or technology that can compete with spending such dollars on most anything else. The maintenance on anything running on it seems to be a giant money pit vs. any surface based solutions.

We have a surface based solution running right now that's a bigger money pit. It's the U2C!! It makes the Skyway look like the NYC Subway in terms of ridership comparisons!

I see two options only for the Skyway at this point: convert it to a pedestrian/bike path or tear it down.

A pedestrian/bike path conversion is a money pit that serves less people though. I fail to see how thats a solution when we're already investing in the Emerald Trail through downtown but using it for mass transit is a no go.

[jaxlongtimer]

I haven't seen one financially feasible proposal or technology that can compete with spending such dollars on most anything else. The maintenance on anything running on it seems to be a giant money pit vs. any surface based solutions.

We have a surface based solution running right now that's a bigger money pit. It's the U2C!! It makes the Skyway look like the NYC Subway in terms of ridership comparisons!

My comparison was to a trolley, not U2C.  Not sure why you made this comparison.

I see two options only for the Skyway at this point: convert it to a pedestrian/bike path or tear it down.

A pedestrian/bike path conversion is a money pit that serves less people though. I fail to see how thats a solution when we're already investing in the Emerald Trail through downtown but using it for mass transit is a no go.

Whatever it cost to maintain the Skyway track for pedestrians would be a fraction of the cost for supporting a vehicle of any kind.  The number of pedestrians is likely to exceed the current Skyway ridership or any substitute system.  If you don't think the pedestrian count would be adequate justification, then we should just tear it down.

Show me a mass transit proposal for the Skyway track that (1) compares favorably, on an ROI basis, to a surface mass transit option such as a trolley (2) transports as many or more people in "mass" and (3) can be expanded to more places at less cost than a surface vehicle. 

Assuming it cost at least $200 to 250 million +++ to rebuild/extend/modify the Skyway track for any other vehicle, not just U2C, and that is unlikely to attract significantly any more riders makes no sense to me vs. spending such dollars on a new surface solution that would have a much better chance of being sustainable.

[thelakelander]

I haven't seen one financially feasible proposal or technology that can compete with spending such dollars on most anything else. The maintenance on anything running on it seems to be a giant money pit vs. any surface based solutions.

We have a surface based solution running right now that's a bigger money pit. It's the U2C!! It makes the Skyway look like the NYC Subway in terms of ridership comparisons!

My comparison was to a trolley, not U2C.  Not sure why you made this comparison.

I saw "any surface based solutions" and empty U2C/NAVI vans were the most recent surface based solution I saw today. So it immediately popped into my head.

Whatever it cost to maintain the Skyway track for pedestrians would be a fraction of the cost for supporting a vehicle of any kind.  The number of pedestrians is likely to exceed the current Skyway ridership or any substitute system.  If you don't think the pedestrian count would be adequate justification, then we should just tear it down.

You get a fraction of the use, achieve minimum-to-no economic benefit since we're essentially duplicated an existing pedestrian network and Emerald Trail system. We've also subtracked from a poor mass transit network to begin with, with no answers resolved in moving forward.

Show me a mass transit proposal for the Skyway track that (1) compares favorably, on an ROI basis, to a surface mass transit option such as a trolley (2) transports as many or more people in "mass" and (3) can be expanded to more places at less cost than a surface vehicle.

I'm not sure why they need to be pitted against each other, as they serve to different transit purposes but the cost of a surface-based system isn't going to be cheap as we have no logical ROW for one, most likely never getting approval from FDOT to run it down their arterial highways and we'd need to build a new river crossing since we'd tear down a structurally sound existing one that's already paid for simply because its associated with the Skyway.

Then what about a trolley or tram that could use the elevated infrastructure and possibly drop to grade? I know Ock and I gave some of examples of this years ago before JTA went crazy with the AV stuff. Those technologies haven't gone away. They just have not been seriously vetted by JTA to date.

In my professional opinion, there's a lot of issues that will need to be addressed and answered prior to making a decision to demolish the Skyway infrastructure for the hell of it. In my experience and observation of failed projects and policies, its poor planning to demolish what you have without having an alternative solution or funded commitment lined up. This typically ends upwith taxpayers spending a lot more than they may have too all due to us not taking the time to properly plan, vision out what we want our future to look like, while really evaluating the pros and cons of what it may take and cost to get there.

Assuming it cost at least $200 to 250 million +++ to rebuild/extend/modify the Skyway track for any other vehicle, not just U2C, and that is unlikely to attract significantly any more riders makes no sense to me vs. spending such dollars on a new surface solution that would have a much better chance of being sustainable.

Sounds crazy to someone who may not see what these things cost now, but $200 to $250 million would be peanuts for upgrading an elevated system the length of the Skyway that has seen no investment in it for 40 years. On the other hand, it would probably cost upwards of $500 million to build a new river crossing for any mass transit surface solution that's not a bus. We're easily damn near $1 billion spent without getting out of District 7 since our river is not dry like Phoenix's. And if its a bus, we can kiss any potential TOD related development and the increased taxrolls that come with it from materializing.

[thelakelander]

^I really do think that if we want a surface-based fixed transit solution, it would make more sense to buy an existing freight railroad corridor. The only one the makes short term sense is the CSX A Line and it would likely cost over a billion but at least we'd have something actually linking downtown with urban neighborhoods (North Riverside, Riverside, Murray Hill, Lakeshore, etc.), major employment centers (NAS Jax, downtown, Rail Yard District, Roosevelt Square, FSCJ, etc.), rapidly growing suburbs (Orange Park, Fleming Island, Green Cove Springs, etc.) that also is an alternative to congested highways (Blanding, US 17, etc.). What I've basically described is what places like San Diego, Norfolk, Charlotte, St. Louis, New Jersey, Central Florida, etc. did to launch their LRT/DMU/commuter rail systems over the last 20-30 years. There's clear precedence of the path.

[marcuscnelson]

Oh wow, missed a lot.

We should also probably make sure that the Skyway is not going to literally fall apart on us while we start over on deciding what will happen with it and rail transit in the long run (since Nat Ford worked so hard to completely blow our previous bite at that apple). the planning work of what to do next costs money, and because we'd be starting from scratch after cleaning house at JTA, being able to afford those planners will be key.

This seems like another low hanging fruit to me. Upgrade the Skyway with new rolling stock. Doesn't matter to me if it is monrail (i.e. keeping the center beam) or some other type of technology, as long as it remains grade separated and not mixed with regular vehicular traffic. Its a part of our local mass transit system and it should be viewed independently of the U2C/AV conversation. Related to this, COJ and the DIA should do everything humanly possible to increase density within a 1/4 mile radius of every existing Skyway station. Seems like adding a station at the Brooklyn O&M center is a no brainer as well. Ultimately, if there is a decision to possibly extend to the stadium, consider options that can take advantage of what remains of the Hart Bridge Expressway between Liberty Street and APR.

Hard to say for certain because JTA has essentially refused to investigate any further for a decade now, but it still looks like at the most feasible options for the Skyway at this juncture would be to either go back to the original automated Matra technology (which is still used at O'Hare Airport and in Taiwan) or attempt to convert to some kind of steel-wheeled system that the guideway could support and may or may not be automated. Both of those have potential technical challenges and drawbacks, but either seems like a starting point to seriously reevaluate.

The only other, cheaper fallback option I can think of is trying our best to overhaul the existing monorail in place to see the concrete through its useful life and then starting over from scratch, but that would probably hurt the odds of justifying TOD without a clearer commitment and would be technically difficult due to its bespoke nature. I imagine JTA didn't bother to buy the leftover parts from the last similar system at Tampa's airport when that was dismantled, the way Detroit did with a similar system in Toronto.

Whatever happens, the goal should be delivering some kind of fast, frequent, fixed guideway transit service that actually reliably runs seven days a week at most hours of the day and night. We are wasting everyone's time and money with weekday-only, commuter-only services and that really ought to stop.

But in the meantime, it looks like the First Coast Flyer will have to be our "rapid transit" for the foreseeable future, so investing in improving it (and probably also in running better bus service in general) would be worth at least some of that money. Figuring out what needs to happen with the new state laws about lane repurposing, improving stations with platforms more like what we see on SunRunner and other BRT systems, making some limited expansions (turn the Amazon Shuttle into an airport connection to the Green Line).

I don't see a world (within the next 5 years) where FDOT allows a lane elimination on Philips, Beach, Blanding or Lem Turner for a seldom used JTA bus. The AADT on these arterials don't suggest this would be feasible and that's not where state and federal transportation politics are at. When looking at a system like SunRunner in St. Pete, that's running on locally maintained roadways. If Jax wants something similar, we need to be evaluating local arterials and collectors where this may make sense. Otherwise, we're just beating our heads against the wall when its clear this isn't really happening on FDOT maintained roads statewide.

By and large, you are probably right. However, there are already technically designated bus lanes on Blanding Blvd between Morse Ave and 103rd St, as well as on Kings Ave between Manning St and Prudential Drive, plus the downtown lanes on Broad St and Jefferson St, and JTA is at least claiming that one of the LOGT road projects would convert lanes on Norwood Ave for buses and bikes. Now, maybe FDOT will do what they did with the SunRunner on Pasadena Ave and forcibly eliminate all of those for culture war reasons. If that's the case, that's the case (and the LOGT would need to be updated anyway to shift that project's funds elsewhere). But if it's not, then there's a real opportunity in trying to invest in things like longer service hours and better stations and painting the lanes and perhaps even higher frequencies, especially if that might be combined with simplifying TOD rules and giving people more reason to trust in JTA's service and feel like they actually have some rapid-ish transit.

• Similarly, securing a few parcels along the CSX A-Line would be smart, which might be useful sooner than FEC sites since Amtrak services could potentially stop at some. Ortega Park, NAS Jax, and perhaps elsewhere in Clay County.

I wonder what would it look like to flat out buy the A-Line from CSX between downtown and Deland? Outside of some limited industry in Palatka (and who knows what will be still need consistant freight rail service 10-20 years from now), there's not much along this corridor but it does cut through several urban neighborhoods and rapidly growing suburbs where commuting congestion is a mess. Whatever the cost, my guess is that it would be cheaper than any potential alternative corridor paralleling it between DT and Clay County.

All the way back in 2019, Amtrak was awarded a $3.8 million federal grant to rehabilitate 52 miles of the A-Line between Palatka and DeLand, after which CSX would transfer ownership of that section to them. As far as I can tell, they have never actually attempted to utilize this grant, I suspect because of the state's continued hostility to them operating more intercity rail service. That same year was when Jacksonville was awarded the $17.6 million grant to try and reduce the infamous San Marco train blockages, which I believe they only seriously started working on recently. I'm not sure what CSX's actual price tag for that or other lines would be, but I do agree that it'd be worthwhile securing as much of those lines as reasonable, because especially with how large this region is, speed is paramount to make transit competitive with driving and those lines are the best way to get it.

[marcuscnelson]

I can support most suggestions here for redeploying U2C funds with the exception of spending even one penny to save the Skyway and/or extend it. 

I haven't seen one financially feasible proposal or technology that can compete with spending such dollars on most anything else. The maintenance on anything running on it seems to be a giant money pit vs. any surface based solutions.  Not to mention I don't see anything running on it that can transport significant numbers of people given its physical limitations/design.  By example, I don't see it competing with the ROI of a surface trolley system taking into account the construction, operation and maintenance dollars and numbers of people it can move or geographical areas it can be extended to.

I've had a lot of opportunities to see some different applications of surface-based transit in a lot of other cities, and having done so I've become dramatically less convinced by the value they generally deliver for being good transit. The trouble especially is exactly what thelakelander specifies, that once you are at street level you are now subject to the constraints of the street level. And more often than not, that means that any resulting transit line, especially rail-based ones, will be slower, less frequent, and thereby less capable. There's often a lot of appreciation for the visual quaintness and unobtrusiveness of streetcars, but in so many cases that is directly at odds with being able to carry more passengers to their destination sooner.

Just a few weeks ago, there was a very high-profile failure of a brand new surface rail line in Toronto, built upon many of the same presumptions you mention: theoretically being cheaper to build and operate than grade-separated lines, technically higher capacity on paper than the buses it was meant to replace, easier to expand in the future. But because of local and regional policies on transit signal priority, and the basic physical nature of having to move trains through busy urban intersections instead of over or under them, the completed line is slow, now expensive to operate, and unpopular in the public image.

That's not to say streetcars are inherently bad or that we should never build them, but especially looking now at a place like Jacksonville, in Florida, it seems like a glaring concern as to whether surface-based transit is really an ideal way to deliver fast, frequent, and reliable service to the public. As thelakelander notes, we are not likely to get the kinds of signal priority and street treatment to make streetcars work well, so one really has to ask whether choosing that mode will actually produce useful transit in the end, especially if the goal is ultimately to build transit for more than just a mile or two of Downtown.

Show me a mass transit proposal for the Skyway track that (1) compares favorably, on an ROI basis, to a surface mass transit option such as a trolley (2) transports as many or more people in "mass" and (3) can be expanded to more places at less cost than a surface vehicle. 

Assuming it cost at least $200 to 250 million +++ to rebuild/extend/modify the Skyway track for any other vehicle, not just U2C, and that is unlikely to attract significantly any more riders makes no sense to me vs. spending such dollars on a new surface solution that would have a much better chance of being sustainable.

I think this is the wrong question, because fundamentally grade separation is going to be more expensive than surface transit. That is a basic reality of dealing with the physical realm. The only reality in which building any kind of elevated guideway is going to be cheaper than surface transit is one in which the surface transit requires purchasing large amounts of expensive urban land outside of the existing street right of way (which, admittedly, seems to be what the state would like to force transit agencies to do in order to preclude building new transit entirely).

Building surface rail transit isn't inherently sustainable either. Memphis built a streetcar system three times the length of the Skyway at around the same time, and right now none of it is operational. That's not to say it would have still been if they'd built a Skyway, but that any way of building transit requires investment and commitment in exchange for different benefits and drawbacks. The Skyway is obviously imperfect, and we have not been particularly good stewards of it. But that doesn't mean that elevated transit cannot not be part of how people get around Jacksonville, or that the Skyway is inherently disqualified from being part of that.

[Charles Hunter]

I agree that it is very unlikely that FDOT would allow transit signal pre-emption along, or crossing, their roads (anything with a State Road or US route number), whether for bus or street-rail, especially if that transit has the level of frequency appropriate for a good transit system. Although modern traffic signal controllers can accommodate signal pre-emption, historically, FDOT has only allowed it for emergency vehicles.

If it is physically possible for "streetcars" (in whatever configuration) to use the Skyway structure, I think it could overcome (pun intended) the congestion and closely spaced signals in the core.
But, a few questions about using the existing Skyway structure for a more conventional streetcar-like system.
1. Could a 'standard" streetcar navigate the Bay-Hogan curve?
1a. Are there articulated vehicles that could?
2. What about the weight of these vehicles and load-bearing capacity of the existing structure?
3. Getting to/from street level will be a problem. Assuming some amount of standing passengers, what is the steepest feasible slope? Given that, where would a ramp coming off the Bay Street stub (at Hogan) reach street level?
3a. Can it be done before reaching Laura Street?
3b. What does this not-insubtantial structure do to access to the parking garage, alley, and businesses along the south side of Bay Street? A work-around would be to extend the elevated guideway to (or near) the Sports Complex, where there might be more room to reach street level.
3c. Same question about the Skyway/Street connection at the other ends - FSCJ (State/Union), Southbank, and LaVilla?

[thelakelander]

By and large, you are probably right. However, there are already technically designated bus lanes on Blanding Blvd between Morse Ave and 103rd St, as well as on Kings Ave between Manning St and Prudential Drive, plus the downtown lanes on Broad St and Jefferson St, and JTA is at least claiming that one of the LOGT road projects would convert lanes on Norwood Ave for buses and bikes.

My bad. I'm talking about something with separation going above and beyond than paint that still allows for the possibility of mixed traffic. Something with form of vertical barrier that allows for high frequency transit that is consistently present.

[jaxlongtimer]

^ All, I appreciate the discussion in response to my comments.  I respect your thoughts but remain not fully convinced.  I would point to Europe that has cities with extensive surface vehicles and, having experienced them, can appreciate how well they work when properly built and managed.  Been awhile, but I recall New Orleans has a viable trolley and Philly something similar.  Maybe some failures are due to mismanagement, poor planning (we can identify with that!), etc. that result in inadequate usage.  I don't think we should broad-brush the opportunity.

If I read you correctly, aside from any ROW costs, there is serious concerns regarding operational management.  If it can be done successfully somewhere else, we should be able to mimic that success here.  I can not accept that our historical or someone else's incompetence is a reason to not strive for better going forward if that is, otherwise, the best path to pursue.  It's time to hold people accountable for delivering outstanding results and to stop accepting mediocrity.  Raise the bar (not the vehicle  )!

I would also keep in mind that "mass" transit isn't all about speed, as cars have to contend with the same obstacles.  At a minimum, it does need to be safe, cheaper than cars, timely, reliable and convenient.  It is as much for people who can't or don't want to drive or pay for the privilege to do so.  In this scenario, speeding above traffic is less of a concern.  Surface vehicles can also trump cars in speed by activating traffic signals to favor them as they approach intersections, not unlike having a police escort for a funeral procession.

[marcuscnelson]

I agree that it is very unlikely that FDOT would allow transit signal pre-emption along, or crossing, their roads (anything with a State Road or US route number), whether for bus or street-rail, especially if that transit has the level of frequency appropriate for a good transit system. Although modern traffic signal controllers can accommodate signal pre-emption, historically, FDOT has only allowed it for emergency vehicles.

If it is physically possible for "streetcars" (in whatever configuration) to use the Skyway structure, I think it could overcome (pun intended) the congestion and closely spaced signals in the core.
But, a few questions about using the existing Skyway structure for a more conventional streetcar-like system.
1. Could a 'standard" streetcar navigate the Bay-Hogan curve?
1a. Are there articulated vehicles that could?
2. What about the weight of these vehicles and load-bearing capacity of the existing structure?
3. Getting to/from street level will be a problem. Assuming some amount of standing passengers, what is the steepest feasible slope? Given that, where would a ramp coming off the Bay Street stub (at Hogan) reach street level?
3a. Can it be done before reaching Laura Street?
3b. What does this not-insubtantial structure do to access to the parking garage, alley, and businesses along the south side of Bay Street? A work-around would be to extend the elevated guideway to (or near) the Sports Complex, where there might be more room to reach street level.
3c. Same question about the Skyway/Street connection at the other ends - FSCJ (State/Union), Southbank, and LaVilla?

These are all good questions that JTA staff or consultants on their behalf should have been investigating answers to a decade ago. The decision making at JTA and the City has prevented that.

As far as I can tell as an outsider, the most likely candidate for some kind of light rail conversion of the Skyway would need to be some kind of articulated, high-floor, lightweight LRV. Articulated trams are common globally, although usually in a low-floor variety, which doesn't help because you'd need high floors to use the existing platforms. Height of the vehicles would potentially also be a problem, particularly if there's a need to accommodate catenary poles and wires. Stations and other covering structures might need to be modified for that. Weight seems like the biggest challenge, unless the superstructure can be reinforced somehow. That might be a challenge as modern vehicles tend to be heavy. Grades are usually pretty well accommodated by modern vehicles, although I would definitely expect some kind of elevated extension in order to find the right places to go down to street level. A major potential drawback is that doing so likely means losing automation, which in an era where labor costs continue to rise might prove a real problem in the long run if the goal is to run frequent urban service. And then ultimately, if surface rail is the mode choice you are still going to have to deal with FDOT and potentially the City having a real distaste for making the policy changes to support those trains keeping schedule through intersections. Think about how messy a Jaguars game ending is on the streets, or whenever there's some kind of big special event Downtown.

[thelakelander]

^ All, I appreciate the discussion in response to my comments.  I respect your thoughts but remain not fully convinced.  I would point to Europe that has cities with extensive surface vehicles and, having experienced them, can appreciate how well they work when properly built and managed.

I'd argue that considering context, policy (local, state, federal levels), etc....which both have a significant impact on transit, its apples and oranges to compare a Sunbelt city in the US with just about anything in Europe. I say that with great appreciation for cities in other countries that have been around for hundreds of years before our autocentric Sunbelt sprawlers.

Been awhile, but I recall New Orleans has a viable trolley and Philly something similar.  Maybe some failures are due to mismanagement, poor planning (we can identify with that!), etc. that result in inadequate usage.  I don't think we should broad-brush the opportunity.

I would not call the New Orleans streetcar a viable mass transit solution. Its definitely popular with tourist though. Philly streetcars complement its subway, intercity rail, commuter rail, etc. All of these modes work together as a part of that region's mass transit network.

I would also keep in mind that "mass" transit isn't all about speed, as cars have to contend with the same obstacles.  At a minimum, it does need to be safe, cheaper than cars, timely, reliable and convenient.  It is as much for people who can't or don't want to drive or pay for the privilege to do so.  In this scenario, speeding above traffic is less of a concern.  Surface vehicles can also trump cars in speed by activating traffic signals to favor them as they approach intersections, not unlike having a police escort for a funeral procession.

This is why its important to study options prior to demolishing potential existing assets. A real evaluation and vision will answer many assumptions one way or another.

[marcuscnelson]

I would point to Europe that has cities with extensive surface vehicles and, having experienced them, can appreciate how well they work when properly built and managed.  Been awhile, but I recall New Orleans has a viable trolley and Philly something similar.

I know this is a common refrain, but very simply: this is not Europe. We have long made the active policy choice to not manage our streets in a way that supports effectively running trams at street level the way cities in Europe do. There is really no reason to believe that Jacksonville in Florida will be essentially the first city in North America to do otherwise. Even in Miami, where they already have much more fixed transit, their new BRT line suffers from waiting at signals because FDOT has been very clear that it prioritizes personal vehicle traffic on Dixie Highway over moving transit riders.

I would hesitate to call New Orleans' trolley system "viable," as it has long been starved of badly-needed investment and lacks many of the safety features that systems in Europe and elsewhere in this country have. They have been very creative in keeping it running, much like some at JTA have been with the Skyway. I am good friends with people who work at SEPTA in Philadelphia and they've noted serious struggles while attempting to cost-effectively fix up their streetcar system, with one line in particular (the G/15) notorious for often being replaced by buses which are better able to provide service than their streetcars. That's while also having multiple grade separated rapid transit lines (including several of those streetcars having a dedicated tunnel through their urban core) and a regional rail system.

If I read you correctly, aside from any ROW costs, there is serious concerns regarding operational management.  If it can be done successfully somewhere else, we should be able to mimic that success here.  I can not accept that our historical or someone else's incompetence is a reason to not strive for better going forward if that is, otherwise, the best path to pursue.  It's time to hold people accountable for delivering outstanding results and to stop accepting mediocrity.  Raise the bar (not the vehicle  )!

The live question here seems to be whether that is in fact the best path to pursue. There's a reason cities like Honolulu and Vancouver were very intentional building automated, grade-separated systems that provide good service, and given the size of Jacksonville it seems plenty debatable if trolleys are the best path to get people around it that they will prefer to actually use over driving, not just find quaint to drive past. Many of those European cities are smaller and also have grade-separated rail those trams connect to, while many North American cities regret building street-level systems and either are suffering from drawbacks or are trying to expand those systems with separation. Cities like Seattle, Dallas, Portland, and Toronto all started out building street-level systems but are now proposing spending billions trying to construct grade separated subways through their urban centers.

I would also keep in mind that "mass" transit isn't all about speed, as cars have to contend with the same obstacles.  At a minimum, it does need to be safe, cheaper than cars, timely, reliable and convenient.  It is as much for people who can't or don't want to drive or pay for the privilege to do so.  In this scenario, speeding above traffic is less of a concern.  Surface vehicles can also trump cars in speed by activating traffic signals to favor them as they approach intersections, not unlike having a police escort for a funeral procession.

I actually strongly disagree. We have spent trillions of dollars making those obstacles less relevant for cars. We built one-way pairs of streets to speed more of them through urban areas, we tore hundreds of cities apart with new highways for them, we have entire Regional Traffic Management Centers built around the goal of making travel by car as fast as possible. People start out their days and nights wanting to get from Point A to Point B as quickly and reliably as they can, and ultimately the requests for safety and convenience build atop that. Cost is clearly not the barrier, because a great many people are willing to spend much more money to own and drive a car? Why? Because it will get them to their destination sooner. The people who can't or choose not to drive deserve just as much of an effort to get them to their destination as soon as possible as DOTs give the people who do drive.

Marco Chitti, a European researcher on cities and transit, spells out the value of fast transit much better than I can.

We already know, we already see, that officials are simply not going to enable genuine signal priority for transit over personal vehicle traffic, and I'm frankly quite tired of watching transit agency after transit agency forced to sell that lie to the public just to get a poorer project over the finish line. I've waited on enough buses and streetcars at traffic lights to know how that almost always goes in practice. We're not going to convince Ron DeSantis and the FDOT Secretary who delivered I-4 Ultimate to be good guys about transit. So I'd much rather build transit over their problem instead of accepting it has to be mired in it.

[jaxlongtimer]

^ Thanks for the added comments.  I understand your side of the coin.  Not sure we can't emulate Europe over time though.  We copy them on so many other levels  .

Maybe one answer is to close our streets, in at least Downtown, to cars*.  Make people park on the fringes and take mass transit into and around the urban core.  This is essentially what Disney does and its monorail, train and ferry boats are great examples of how much people love mass transit when there is no competition for it. If I were "God" over city planning, I would seriously look at this.  Clearly, I am not and I understand the resistance one could expect to implementing it.  But, I also can imagine the resistance when someone says we can expand the heretofore boondoggle riderless Skyway for $1 billion +++.  So, maybe we are stuck with the status quo for the rest of our life spans and future generations will have to resolve this issue.  Wonder if the Skyway's concrete supports and track will hold together that long in which case one option may come off the table by default .

*Exception for emergency vehicles.  For businesses and residents, cars and delivery trucks can be permitted maybe in the off hours/middle of the night.