Emails reveal FDOT concerns over U2C

[thelakelander]

Back in 2022 (which we now know was about two months after the discussions these emails revealed), LeAnna Cumber voted against appointing Aundra Wallace to the JTA Board of Directors because of cost escalations on the U2C and concerns with the sole-source contract to Balfour Beatty Vision 2 Reality.

Council member LeAnna Cumber was the sole vote against Wallace's appointment at the Council Rules Committee and at Council.

During Wallace's confirmation interview with the committee Feb. 15, Cumber said her vote was related to her opposition to the cost of JTA's Skyway modernization called the Ultimate Urban Circulator.

Cumber agreed Wallace does "great work" for the chamber and is qualified for the appointment.

But Cumber said she didn't like  Wallace's responses to questions at the committee.

He declined to support a cap to the U2C's growing cost and he did not take issue with the JTA board approval of a single-response bid to design and build the project's first phase.

"I'm going to look at the numbers. I'm going to talk to staff, and we're going to see if we got the best cost available. And we're going to make informed decisions," Wallace said.

"As a board member of JTA, we'll make that decision collectively."

The transportation authority estimates the entire 10-mile automated vehicle network will cost $379 million to $400 million.

Hmmm.....this gimmick is estimated to be closer to $500 million now, with that number continuing to raise.

[Charles Hunter]

Just an observation about the FDOT letters. For FDOT staff to even write such letters indicates a high level of concern over the project, and perhaps the JTA. FDOT is historically averse to controversy or confrontation with agencies they partner with. FDOT has long regarded JTA as a way to get desired projects done that Tallahassee was less than enthusiastic about. This goes all the way back to the old Jacksonville Expressway Authority in the 1950s and 60s.

[marcuscnelson]

I've been looking closer at this recently, and some things stand out to me:

During his confirmation hearing in February 2022, Aundra Wallace said the following (Around 30:45) in response to questioning by LeAnna Cumber on concerns with the rising cost of the U2C and the nature of the single response bid:

From the standpoint of being at JTA, my job is going to be holding people accountable for the dollars that are being spent on respective projects. I've been doing that for 25 years; I know exactly what I'm doing from that perspective... I don't care whether or not you like me or not, one-plus-one still equals two.

Since then, the JTA Board has voted for millions of dollars in cost increases on Bay Street and more recently the contract to propose demolishing and reconstructing the Skyway's guideway for vehicles that again, cannot operate in the rain or at night.

The other thing: looking closer at JTA's response to FDOT, some of the language is very interesting (JTA's responses by Greer Johnson Gillis in red):

At the April 2021 MPO meeting, a MPO member, who is also a Jacksonville City Council Member and a public opponent of the U2C program, stated their opinion that New Starts funding could not be used for the U2C Bay Street Innovation Corridor (BSIC) project because it was not a BRT project.
[...]
Since that time, the FDOT's 2018 BUILD grant commitment of 50 percent of the non-federal share toward this transit project seems to be in jeopardy after multiple commitments in writing and approval of the allocation through the Florida Legislature.

Weird for a public agency to derisively refer to a member of City Council like that. Also to respond as such about the FDOT being concerned about the feasibility of their project.

As confirmed above, the District 2 Office requested the JTA update the ridership projection model in September 2021, using their preferred growth projection numbers instead of the prior, industry-accepted model approved by the State through the TCAR process and the USDOT FTA through the Build Grant Award process. Knowing that these models are only predictions of the future and not an exact science, the JTA agreed, in good faith, to rework the original numbers to current projected growth. The numbers referred above by Mr. Knight, only depicts estimated riders in the first year of the 3-mile BSIC project. It doesn't take into account the build out of the entire system and number of customers to be served over the lifetime of this transit system.

Is JTA suggesting that FDOT's growth projection model is inaccurate? And even if the estimated ridership of the Bay Street Innovation Corridor is for the first year, shouldn't it be immediately alarming that only 250 riders are anticipated when this will be connecting to venues that seat tens of thousands of people? Only a fraction of a percent of them would ride the $66 million line being proposed?

The JTA understands the FDOT's desire to evaluate certain components of the innovative BSIC project to its funding criteria for BRT, simply because the FDOT currently does not have new criteria to evaluate its participation in new and innovative projects.

This just sounds insulting.

JTA understands this is not the typical way that FDOT procures traditional transportation projects. However, based on industry feedback, the JTA proceeded in this innovative direction. As a result, this has led to an Agreement where the costs are not-to-exceed a total amount with the vendor. Since the time the BUILD grant was awarded, construction costs have significantly increased. The JTA does anticipate an increase in the project cost; however, the FDOT will bear no financial responsibility other than the $13 million of its matching grant funds. Any costs above and beyond the $44 million estimated in 2018 and awarded for the BSIC will be overseen and require approval by the JTA Board of Directors, who are appointed by the Mayor and Governor. It should also be noted the BSIC development contract is an open-book contract allowing for justification of all costs incurred.

The justification over and over again for this project is not that it would provide effective transit but that it is "innovative" which is somehow meaningful. It also seems worth nothing that basically all of the unlimited risk for this project is on local taxpayers via the JTA Board, because all of the other grant funding is capped.

D2's last meeting with JTA was on November 2, 2021.  At the meeting FDOT requested that JTA revisit the scope to cut cost and JTA requested FDOT provide guidance on metrics for this type of  project. D2 also reiterated concerns about the bidding and the vehicle cost being extremely high but not capable of operating autonomously. JTA indicated that the vehicle will likely not operate autonomously the first year but felt by year two they would operate autonomously.

With regard to revisiting the scope to cut costs, the JTA is unable to do so based on the executed Grant Agreement with USDOT. The FDOT's funding share has been and still remains a not-to-exceed $13 million matching grant. As stated above, this $13 million will only go toward the elements within the proposed response that are traditional transit system elements. In hope, this will alleviate the concern by the FDOT District 2 Office associated with the project scope.

I'm wondering what the terms agreed to in the grant agreement are. Did JTA gamble their credibility with the federal government on the premise that they would invent autonomous transit? And is the offer here seriously that FDOT should simply ignore what JTA is doing with taxpayer money as long as FDOT's stake in that isn't directly connected to the riskiest portion?

[jaxlongtimer]

As confirmed above, the District 2 Office requested the JTA update the ridership projection model in September 2021, using their preferred growth projection numbers instead of the prior, industry-accepted model approved by the State through the TCAR process and the USDOT FTA through the Build Grant Award process. Knowing that these models are only predictions of the future and not an exact science, the JTA agreed, in good faith, to rework the original numbers to current projected growth. The numbers referred above by Mr. Knight, only depicts estimated riders in the first year of the 3-mile BSIC project. It doesn't take into account the build out of the entire system and number of customers to be served over the lifetime of this transit system.

^ Just WOW!  This is exactly the same fake logic that JTA used to build the original Skyway... Yes, we are 98% short of traffic projections but just keep pumping in more dollars to expand the system and the riders will come.  NOT!  The system grew in size, but not the ridership.  Overall, JTA only pays attention to prostituted studies that tell them what they want to hear, even if it defies all common sense and logic.

U2C is deja vu of the original Skyway except it is even a bigger waste of money.  USDOT, like FDOT now, never really believed in the Skyway and it only got funded through pork barrel politics.  JTA is trying the same game here.  This is really about the JTA "full employment act" than delivering an effective transit solution.  And, the JTA board is a rubber stamp just like JEA's board was when Zahn was there.  No lessons learned here since?

[thelakelander]

As confirmed above, the District 2 Office requested the JTA update the ridership projection model in September 2021, using their preferred growth projection numbers instead of the prior, industry-accepted model approved by the State through the TCAR process and the USDOT FTA through the Build Grant Award process. Knowing that these models are only predictions of the future and not an exact science, the JTA agreed, in good faith, to rework the original numbers to current projected growth. The numbers referred above by Mr. Knight, only depicts estimated riders in the first year of the 3-mile BSIC project. It doesn't take into account the build out of the entire system and number of customers to be served over the lifetime of this transit system.

^ Just WOW!  This is exactly the same fake logic that JTA used to build the original Skyway... Yes, we are 98% short of traffic projections but just keep pumping in more dollars to expand the system and the riders will come.  NOT!  The system grew in size, but not the ridership.  Overall, JTA only pays attention to prostituted studies that tell them what they want to hear, even if it defies all common sense and logic.

U2C is deja vu of the original Skyway except it is even a bigger waste of money.  USDOT, like FDOT now, never really believed in the Skyway and it only got funded through pork barrel politics.  JTA is trying the same game here.  This is really about the JTA "full employment act" than delivering an effective transit solution.  And, the JTA board is a rubber stamp just like JEA's board was when Zahn was there.  No lessons learned here since?

Yes, same old story, just a different day. To the Skyway's benefit, it did carry 5,000 riders a day a decade ago before JTA started running it into the ground. This nonsense is only predicted to carry 250 riders a day. Anywhere else, a project would have died a quick death years ago with those types of putrid estimates.

[jaxlongtimer]

As confirmed above, the District 2 Office requested the JTA update the ridership projection model in September 2021, using their preferred growth projection numbers instead of the prior, industry-accepted model approved by the State through the TCAR process and the USDOT FTA through the Build Grant Award process. Knowing that these models are only predictions of the future and not an exact science, the JTA agreed, in good faith, to rework the original numbers to current projected growth. The numbers referred above by Mr. Knight, only depicts estimated riders in the first year of the 3-mile BSIC project. It doesn't take into account the build out of the entire system and number of customers to be served over the lifetime of this transit system.

^ Just WOW!  This is exactly the same fake logic that JTA used to build the original Skyway... Yes, we are 98% short of traffic projections but just keep pumping in more dollars to expand the system and the riders will come.  NOT!  The system grew in size, but not the ridership.  Overall, JTA only pays attention to prostituted studies that tell them what they want to hear, even if it defies all common sense and logic.

U2C is deja vu of the original Skyway except it is even a bigger waste of money.  USDOT, like FDOT now, never really believed in the Skyway and it only got funded through pork barrel politics.  JTA is trying the same game here.  This is really about the JTA "full employment act" than delivering an effective transit solution.  And, the JTA board is a rubber stamp just like JEA's board was when Zahn was there.  No lessons learned here since?

Yes, same old story, just a different day. To the Skyway's benefit, it did carry 5,000 riders a day a decade ago before JTA started running it into the ground. This nonsense is only predicted to carry 250 riders a day. Anywhere else, a project would have died a quick death years ago with those types of putrid estimates.

^Just to add, the Skyway's first phase was supposed to yield 10,000 paying riders a day for Phase 1 per the prostituting consultants.  5,000 a day of "free" riders after an expansion is not close to the promises made.  All these projects are based on selling the promoted fantasies of those making a living off of them.  Seems they have no trouble finding gullible politicians and boards to seduce.  Meanwhile, "Rome burns."

[marcuscnelson]

I think I've said this before, but what's especially frustrating is that JTA were at least able to convince the federal government (or rather, our federal delegation) to make the bulk of the investment on the original Skyway. Not building up around the Skyway fell to us locally, but that initial investment had real buy-in, and at least the system built with that money could do what was promised.

Of the more than $300 million already declared for the U2C, over 90% of that funding is local. And yet it's for what they struggled to classify as a BRT system for funding purposes, and after 8 years of R&D (sorry, T&L) still can't function in basic conditions like nighttime or rain.

^ Just WOW!  This is exactly the same fake logic that JTA used to build the original Skyway... Yes, we are 98% short of traffic projections but just keep pumping in more dollars to expand the system and the riders will come.  NOT!  The system grew in size, but not the ridership.  Overall, JTA only pays attention to prostituted studies that tell them what they want to hear, even if it defies all common sense and logic.

U2C is deja vu of the original Skyway except it is even a bigger waste of money.  USDOT, like FDOT now, never really believed in the Skyway and it only got funded through pork barrel politics.  JTA is trying the same game here.  This is really about the JTA "full employment act" than delivering an effective transit solution.  And, the JTA board is a rubber stamp just like JEA's board was when Zahn was there.  No lessons learned here since?

Yes, same old story, just a different day. To the Skyway's benefit, it did carry 5,000 riders a day a decade ago before JTA started running it into the ground. This nonsense is only predicted to carry 250 riders a day. Anywhere else, a project would have died a quick death years ago with those types of putrid estimates.

It's such a shame, because I would be happy to support Skyway expansion to useful places. Brooklyn should have happened a decade ago, San Marco too. I would be perfectly content with spending $66 million on Bay Street if it meant building the capacity to actually move thousands of people from the Sports Complex around Downtown. Imagine if instead of having to try and layer a separate Gameday Xpress on top of the existing transit network, we could just run the First Coast Flyer as normal (better yet, at its originally promised frequency) and the Skyway could fulfill its mission by consistently and reliably moving those fans out of traffic and to and from the stadium. Maybe the service would be worth charging for at that point.

^Just to add, the Skyway's first phase was supposed to yield 10,000 paying riders a day for Phase 1 per the prostituting consultants.  5,000 a day of "free" riders after an expansion is not close to the promises made.  All these projects are based on selling the promoted fantasies of those making a living off of them.  Seems they have no trouble finding gullible politicians and boards to seduce.  Meanwhile, "Rome burns."

The question you have to ask is "who would be riding it where?" In the 80s the answer seemed to be office workers who would drive 90% of the way to work and then somehow take the Skyway instead of the plentiful parking in a garage or maybe convention guests, and obviously that wasn't accurate. Offices moved to the suburbs and conventions didn't get that busy. Then and now, transit hasn't actually been a factor in shaping downtown, as we see with how the DIA basically ignores it.

If we actually want people to ride transit, the use case for riders has to make sense. Making so we don't actually have to keep building new parking garages downtown (instead of proposing that and then building them anyway like in the 80s) could be one. Having a transit network that actually feeds riders into it is another. Building communities and destinations around those stations (or building them where there are destinations) is another. We've done basically none of that, made it as easy as possible to avoid it, and then asked why people don't use it. And instead of fixing that problem, we're throwing money at something even less usable and more expensive so that we can call ourselves innovators. I can't imagine the kind of person who would feel compelled to ride an autonomous shuttle over any other option, and that's probably why only 250 people a day are projected to use it.

[thelakelander]

^Just to add, the Skyway's first phase was supposed to yield 10,000 paying riders a day for Phase 1 per the prostituting consultants.  5,000 a day of "free" riders after an expansion is not close to the promises made.

How many people were working in downtown back in the 1970s and 80s verses now?

With that said, I wish they could promise 5k riders now. We're about to pay double the Skyway for a bus full of daily riders and can only use these vans when it doesn't rain.

[jaxlongtimer]

^Just to add, the Skyway's first phase was supposed to yield 10,000 paying riders a day for Phase 1 per the prostituting consultants.  5,000 a day of "free" riders after an expansion is not close to the promises made.

How many people were working in downtown back in the 1970s and 80s verses now?

A lot more than today.  That said, keep in mind these numbers came from "expert transit consultants" who were supposed to be qualified to give reasonably accurate estimates based on the circumstances of the times.  Being off some 98% tells me they were prostituting themselves for fees or were grossly incompetent.  My bet is on the former.

My beef it that if one took a true businesslike approach to Downtown transit, it would not be the Skyway but, most likely, to start, running plain 'ol buses.  Once transit numbers build, one could look at more capital intensive solutions like trolleys.  Far down the list, if it ever made it on it to begin with, would be an elevated Skyway with slow moving and small cars that will never have the ability to move large numbers of people in a short period of time to meet peak demands or to amortize the investment over large numbers of riders.  And, if Downtown ever approached Disney World's traffic count supporting a monorail, I would call Disney, not JTA  .

[thelakelander]

My beef it that if one took a true businesslike approach to Downtown transit, it would not be the Skyway but, most likely, to start, running plain 'ol buses.  Once transit numbers build, one could look at more capital intensive solutions like trolleys.

But this isn't how mass transit works. Buses don't grow into trolleys, LRT and monorails. They all serve a different purpose and type of trip. With that said, if we're not willing to integrate our transportation infrastructure investment with supportive land use decisions, then forget about anything other than buses.....which will also stay mostly empty.

[marcuscnelson]

My beef it that if one took a true businesslike approach to Downtown transit, it would not be the Skyway but, most likely, to start, running plain 'ol buses.  Once transit numbers build, one could look at more capital intensive solutions like trolleys.  Far down the list, if it ever made it on it to begin with, would be an elevated Skyway with slow moving and small cars that will never have the ability to move large numbers of people in a short period of time to meet peak demands or to amortize the investment over large numbers of riders.  And, if Downtown ever approached Disney World's traffic count supporting a monorail, I would call Disney, not JTA  .

If you were starting from scratch and in a vacuum, perhaps. For better or worse, we have to exist in the context of the history of both American transit funding and the City of Jacksonville. Should we have taken a different course of action historically? Probably, not just in terms of transit technology but of our overall development practices.

But we didn't, and despite everything I still struggle to believe that attempting to demolish everything and start over completely from scratch now would be ideal. We absolutely need to end the practice of chasing options just because the technology could be cool one day, but that means we should be attempting to build & operate a transit system based on the context of the city that effectively moves people and enhances quality of life. In some cases that could and probably should still justify fixed transit options.

Brightline is a business, and they didn't start by trying to run buses between Miami and West Palm Beach. They had a vision, didn't depend on hypothetical tech, and built the consensus around building out a system. Their numbers started out small too, but they've increased because they started with strong bones and the ambition to actually improve, not with the cheapest possible thing or futuristic fantasies.

[marcuscnelson]

My beef it that if one took a true businesslike approach to Downtown transit, it would not be the Skyway but, most likely, to start, running plain 'ol buses.  Once transit numbers build, one could look at more capital intensive solutions like trolleys.

But this isn't how mass transit works. Buses don't grow into trolleys, LRT and monorails. They all serve a different purpose and type of trip. With that said, if we're not willing to integrate our transportation infrastructure investment with supportive land use decisions, then forget about anything other than buses.....which will also stay mostly empty.

Again, the fact that transit never even gets mentioned in the context of downtown development other than the U2C getting tossed in to pump up the investment statistics should be a sign that we're doing this wrong, but it seems our leaders might not be able to recognize that.

You've mentioned before the simple start of actually coordinating TOD around existing transit stations, which I agree with. The next step if we can manage that is to actually plan to grow around where we might build transit.

[jaxlongtimer]

My beef it that if one took a true businesslike approach to Downtown transit, it would not be the Skyway but, most likely, to start, running plain 'ol buses.  Once transit numbers build, one could look at more capital intensive solutions like trolleys.

But this isn't how mass transit works. Buses don't grow into trolleys, LRT and monorails. They all serve a different purpose and type of trip. With that said, if we're not willing to integrate our transportation infrastructure investment with supportive land use decisions, then forget about anything other than buses.....which will also stay mostly empty.

True, but if there is not demand for buses circulating in the urban core which require a lower threshold for ridership to justify the investment, I don't see how you jump over that and say urban transit requiring far more investment (e.g. trollies, elevated options, etc.) is justified.  Crawl before you walk, walk before you run.  Not comparing to transit solutions that run outside the urban core.... agree, those are different options to consider.

[thelakelander]

^You don't know what the demand is. Demand is dependent on several factors and ranges, depending what is being served, where, frequency, quality of ride, access, reliability, etc. Marcuscnelson's quote about Brightline is a good example. You can't base the demand of the market they are serving and catering too with the demand of a bus. They are two totally different animals. These days, you can't even tie it to the cost of infrastructure. As JTA is proving, autonomous minivans driven by humans, can cost you more than the Skyway, LRT, trolleys and a host of other forms of transit. Btw, I'd define urban core by density and character of the built environment, not what the DIA considers to the Downtown. At the very least, we're looking at the 30-square-mile pre-consolidated city. Being able to connect the real destinations like medical centers, colleges and walkable neighborhoods, will make or break any type of transit system. In Jax, we're broken and JTA isn't helping the issue.

[thelakelander]

You've mentioned before the simple start of actually coordinating TOD around existing transit stations, which I agree with. The next step if we can manage that is to actually plan to grow around where we might build transit.

^We tried doing that with the original COJ 2030 Mobility Plan back in 2010. Naturally, most of it has not been followed. The transit projects identified back then have all been put on the backburner for the U2C.