QuoteJTA CEO Nathaniel Ford said Feb. 24 the authority plans to issue a request for proposals for the project JTA officials estimate will cost $350 to $400 million.
QuotePhase I, expected to be completed by 2025, is fully funded. JTA will spend $44 million to build a 3-mile, ground-level loop for the automated vehicles along Bay Street from the Skyway's Downtown Central Station at Julia Street to TIAA Bank Field — part of the proposed Bay Street Innovation Corridor.
QuotePhase II will convert the existing Skyway track into an elevated roadway for autonomous vehicles.
QuotePhase III will complete the 10-mile autonomous vehicle network into neighborhoods surrounding Downtown — north to Springfield and UF Health Jacksonville and south to Brooklyn/Riverside and San Marco.
Full article: https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/the-mendenhall-report-jta-planning-to-seek-bids-to-build-run-u2c
Quote from: thelakelander on February 28, 2020, 08:49:24 AM
QuoteJTA CEO Nathaniel Ford said Feb. 24 the authority plans to issue a request for proposals for the project JTA officials estimate will cost $350 to $400 million.
QuotePhase I, expected to be completed by 2025, is fully funded. JTA will spend $44 million to build a 3-mile, ground-level loop for the automated vehicles along Bay Street from the Skyway's Downtown Central Station at Julia Street to TIAA Bank Field — part of the proposed Bay Street Innovation Corridor.
QuotePhase II will convert the existing Skyway track into an elevated roadway for autonomous vehicles.
QuotePhase III will complete the 10-mile autonomous vehicle network into neighborhoods surrounding Downtown — north to Springfield and UF Health Jacksonville and south to Brooklyn/Riverside and San Marco.
Full article: https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/the-mendenhall-report-jta-planning-to-seek-bids-to-build-run-u2c
$44 million?!?!
Just as much as a streetcar but significantly less capacity and more risk! So much for saving money.
It sounds like they're banking on Lot J to succeed in a big way, because these things don't seem to be better for for anything other than shuttling around a happy hour crowd. Certainly not the amount of people that would be attending major events.
Is there anything more Jacksonville than:
1) Going all-in on a $44 million, low-speed clown car loop connecting the demolished Jacksonville Landing to a contaminated Shipyards/Lot J area that may never be developed
2) Dismantling the existing Skyway connection between our brand new Regional Transportation Center and our CBD to build a "proof on concept" test track for the clown cars
3) Patting ourselves on the back for our vision while insisting that the private sector will jump in to expand the system at some unspecified future date into the only areas (the urban neighborhoods) that make the system even reasonably useful.
What practical everyday need is being fulfilled by a $44 million Julia to TIAA Bank Field connector that can't be fulfilled by paying a drunk on a pedicab $25k a year? Where is this critical mass of clowns in hazmat suits who sleep by night in the rubble of the Landing but work by day in the desolate brownfields 1.4 miles down the street?
Really does feel like Skyway 2.0, connecting nothing with nothing.
As goofy as all the "barbell development" talk is, where developing Lot J is going to magically catalyze development straight down Bay Street into Brooklyn, a streetcar line between the two would at least provide some genuine utility and give TOD the best opportunity to spring up.
(https://i.imgur.com/VuCbo9s.gif)
Quote from: Ken_FSU on February 28, 2020, 01:28:05 PM
Is there anything more Jacksonville than:
1) Going all-in on a $44 million, low-speed clown car loop connecting the demolished Jacksonville Landing to a contaminated Shipyards/Lot J area that may never be developed
To be fair, phase one is anticipated to open in 2025. If this is the prediction date, it will likely be later. That's plenty of time to see what actually happens with Lot J and also kill or significantly modify this thing.
Quote2) Dismantling the existing Skyway connection between our brand new Regional Transportation Center and our CBD to build a "proof on concept" test track for the clown cars
This one is pretty boneheaded and I seriously hope that this doesn't happen prior to phase one being completed. We're finally getting people living in that area of LaVilla and a transit center up. That's the last segment of the Skyway that should be experimented with. Don't force the user to transfer or be a part of a test if they don't have to be. Screwing with the end user experience is the best way to land in failure territory.
Quote3) Patting ourselves on the back for our vision while insisting that the private sector will jump in to expand the system at some unspecified future date into the only areas (the urban neighborhoods) that make the system even reasonably useful.
Phases 2 and 3 are so far out in the future, that they'll probably never happen. So after years of modernization and expansion talk, we're no where closer to serving these neighborhoods than we were originally. My guess is that even by 2025, there will be a new gadget out there that will be the apple of the eye.
QuoteWhat practical everyday need is being fulfilled by a $44 million Julia to TIAA Bank Field connector that can't be fulfilled by paying a drunk on a pedicab $25k a year? Where is this critical mass of clowns in hazmat suits who sleep by night in the rubble of the Landing but work by day in the desolate brownfields 1.4 miles down the street?
Probably just latching on to the tails of the Jags, since they have the mayor's attention.
QuoteReally does feel like Skyway 2.0, connecting nothing with nothing.
Unfortunately, the more and more news that comes out, it does seem more like a Skyway 2.0 situation. Go big or go home, seems to be our traditional pattern. Unfortunately, we strike out swinging for the fences most of the time when something as simple as a bunt would have delivered the win.
QuoteAs goofy as all the "barbell development" talk is, where developing Lot J is going to magically catalyze development straight down Bay Street into Brooklyn, a streetcar line between the two would at least provide some genuine utility and give TOD the best opportunity to spring up.
For TOD, they don't need to extend anything. The Skyway already has eight existing stations and reliable headways. Any land or underutilized building adjacent to an existing station (ex. Rosa Parks, JRTC, Kings Avenue, etc.) should be a TOD priority. Another priority should be operating on weekends. That needs to happen now and not some unknown date after 2025.
Regarding #2 - track between JRTC and Julia - I may be imagining things, but seem to remember JTA was only going to convert one of the tracks for U2C testing, allowing the other to remain in service for the existing vehicles.
Hopefully. It would a disaster to sever that connection with the JRTC opening. Any updates on running in mixed traffic? For example, if running at max capacity at 12mph on Bay, what would the LOS of Bay be vs what it is today?
Quote from: thelakelander on February 28, 2020, 09:58:15 AM
Just as much as a streetcar but significantly less capacity and more risk! So much for saving money.
I'd bet there isn't a single trolley in this country built these days that cost so little for 3 miles. Not even close. Any takers?
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on February 29, 2020, 07:25:25 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on February 28, 2020, 09:58:15 AM
Just as much as a streetcar but significantly less capacity and more risk! So much for saving money.
I'd bet there isn't a single trolley in this country built these days that cost so little for 3 miles. Not even close. Any takers?
LMGTFY
http://www.heritagetrolley.org/artcileBringBackStreetcars7.htm
Quote from: Charles Hunter on February 28, 2020, 03:08:26 PM
Regarding #2 - track between JRTC and Julia - I may be imagining things, but seem to remember JTA was only going to convert one of the tracks for U2C testing, allowing the other to remain in service for the existing vehicles.
This is incorrect, unfortunately.
Both tracks are going to be gutted from the JRTC to Jefferson Station, and if you want to travel from either the existing Skyway to the JRTC, or from the JRTC to the existing Skyway, you'll need to download the JTA app, book a clown car, and get off and transfer at a modified Jefferson Station.
JTA plans to brand the JRTC to Jefferson stretch as "Autonomous Avenue."
Estimated cost of the test track is another $30 million+.
JTA has gone insane.
$30 million for four blocks of Skyway conversion? That is insane. That's more than LRT. If these are the numbers coming out, this plan should be stopped. We'd be better modernizing the skyway as a peoplemover, expanding where it really makes sense, aggressively adding TOD around its stations, and feeding it with riders via local bus and BRT lines.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 01, 2020, 08:15:59 AM
$30 million for four blocks of Skyway conversion? That is insane. That's more than LRT. If these are the numbers coming out, this plan should be stopped. We'd be better modernizing the skyway as a peoplemover, expanding where it really makes sense, aggressively adding TOD around its stations, and feeding it with riders via local bus and BRT lines.
Doing some digging, it looks like $32.2 million is JTA's estimate for the JRTC to Jefferson Station project (page 9 below).
https://cms7.dot.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/policy-initiatives/automated-vehicles/351541/63-jacksonville-transp-auth-part-1-only.pdf
I don't understand why they're pushing forward with no real public input. I'm confident that if I were to stop some random person on the street and asked whether they would prefer an expanded skyway or an autonomous bus they would pick the skyway.
If these buses had their own lane then that would be okay, but it doesn't seem that way. Now we have these buses going 15 mph intermingling with regular traffic? Sounds like an awful plan. I also don't get why we can't have both the skyway and the bus to run simultaneously...
Quote from: Tacachale on February 29, 2020, 08:03:15 PM
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on February 29, 2020, 07:25:25 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on February 28, 2020, 09:58:15 AM
Just as much as a streetcar but significantly less capacity and more risk! So much for saving money.
I'd bet there isn't a single trolley in this country built these days that cost so little for 3 miles. Not even close. Any takers?
LMGTFY
http://www.heritagetrolley.org/artcileBringBackStreetcars7.htm
Thank you for proving my point, nothing close. And I'm seroius. All those projects were more. San Pedro actually cost over $10million + was only that because of existing track.
^Evidently, it costs close to $30 million for four blocks of Skyway conversion. That's right up there with LRT.
JTA posted this video of an industry forum from February.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0J9KxUgb6I
The general attitude that stands out to me is "Jacksonville will be the very first city in the country to attempt implementing this as a mode of transit, and this is somehow a good thing because innovation."
Also, I assume someone here knew already, but Phase 1 (the Bay Street Innovation Corridor) is apparently scheduled to begin operation in 2023.
I'm an industry guy and I remain pretty skeptical for a variety of reasons. What I've heard and seen so far has Skyway 2.0 written all over it. This mode of transit is already out there. It's not rocket science how it works, what the pros are and what the cons are. The bigger question that people don't want to address is, is it right for Jax that we're selecting to be an experiment instead of doing the proven basics better and efficiently with the end user's/community's needs as the top priority in our decision making process?
The street lights & other "smart street" stuff would be interesting.
I can't wrap my mind around what they really think they're going to do with the Skyway. Not this high level fluff crap. If they're doing this in 2023, they need to have the vehicles they're going to use - that design - undergoing serious testing right now.
To date, I haven't seen anything from JTA that touches on how the system will work and testing that design. And you need to have that before you can have testing.
If this was something that could be bet on, I'd bet on them axing the hybrid skyway portion.
I don't understand how, especially in a city dominated by conservatives, the people in charge can look at this plan and think anything other than "dear God, you've made us the guinea pig!"
It's not that I don't believe there is a future where AVs will be running downtown, but the idea that we're going to be the very first in the nation to put this technology into production when there's so much basic fundamental stuff we haven't done right is just... wow.
This is technology that Tesla and Uber, companies that will make billions if they can figure this out, haven't figured out, and yet somehow JTA of all people is going to be the one that not only implements it, but makes it a backbone of urban transportation somehow necessary for economic development.
According to David Cawton in this Twitter thread (https://twitter.com/Davidcawton/status/1313157946302398465), Bay Street is under "active procurement as we speak." Apparently he also doesn't understand the difference between a streetcar and a bus or AV.
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on October 12, 2020, 01:36:27 PM
The street lights & other "smart street" stuff would be interesting.
I can't wrap my mind around what they really think they're going to do with the Skyway. Not this high level fluff crap. If they're doing this in 2023, they need to have the vehicles they're going to use - that design - undergoing serious testing right now.
To date, I haven't seen anything from JTA that touches on how the system will work and testing that design. And you need to have that before you can have testing.
If this was something that could be bet on, I'd bet on them axing the hybrid skyway portion.
The Skyway conversion component of this that appears to be the most expensive, challenging and puzzling for the use of small AVs, IMO. If the vision of the community is to densify downtown, then the selected mass transit mode will need to be able to have the long term capacity to do so. Especially, a system featuring an elevated fixed guideway. What's proposed appears to have less capacity than the Skyway.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Transportation/Lake-Nona-Autonomous-Shuttle/i-Q8WZsgc/0/ab4515e1/X2/20191129_140917-X2.jpg)
The technology under consideration could also be described as a driverless minivan with a max speed of around 12mph. Maybe it's something different a decade from now, but we're not there yet. So sharing lanes with regular traffic removes many of the safety benefits and likely leads to traffic congestion and choke points (see the Lake Nona example, where frustrated drivers recklessly speed around the slow moving vehicles) in an urbanized environment.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Transportation/Lake-Nona-Autonomous-Shuttle/i-bSxKmvh/0/30305e47/X2/20191129_134036-X2.jpg)
The AV technology highlighted so far appears to be a great first/last mile mobility solution because it offers the same flexibility as a car or bicycle by not having to conform to a fixed route. However, that flexibility goes away when they're installed on the Skyway's elevated infrastructure. Now you have a low capacity, slow moving vehicle in direct competition with Lyft, Uber, taxis and any other entity competing for passengers. I love Jax, but no way is JTA (no offense) figuring something out that won't be made obsolete and foolish fairly quickly by the private sector. If you need a ride from TIAA Bank Field to a Southbank hotel, why would you ride the U2C's circuitous route over Uber (which can drive faster and cross the Main Street Bridge)?
So, if we're not looking to help stimulate TOD for a denser urban environment, meaning we'll need to plan for a higher capacity system (or at least equal to the existing Skyway vehicles) and secure 100% dedicated ROW to efficiently move higher volume ridership, I'm not sure of what we're trying to do, regardless of the selected technology.
The questions and concerns I've mentioned above are just a few of many I have that we'll be sitting down with JTA to get their perspective on.
^I was just thinking about this a couple of days ago.
As someone who takes the Hart Bridge/Bay Street to and from work every morning, I would be FURIOUS to be stuck behind a clown car going 13 mph on a street where traffic can typically move in excess of 30 mph.
Can't imagine how uncomfortable it would be for the riders either, with vehicles swerving around you, honking, giving you the finger, etc.
Really hostile environment for this type of thing.
In Lake Nona, they now pull over on the side of the street to allow the line of cars that build up behind them, to pass safely. Nevertheless, during my AV ride, a driver still drove around in the opposing lane, through a four-way stop sign controlled intersection to get in front of us. Luckily, there were no pedestrians in the crosswalk. In an urbanized environment, this is a major reason why 100% dedicated ROW or lanes make most sense.
^I'm sure these vehicles all have AI systems in place to prevent them from running into other vehicles or objects, but I can't imagine they'd be good at avoiding being hit by other drivers in scenarios like this.
I question the overall safety and sanity, for all parties involved, of deploying small, slow moving, unmanned vehicles into mixed traffic that, at best, can go half the posted speed limit.
Feels like a terrible accident waiting to happen.
Gainesville is running these vehicles on SW 2nd Avenue connecting UF to downtown. From what I hear, it goes VERY slow through the roundabouts.
HART (the transit agency in Tampa) was supposed to start testing one 18 months ago, but it was delayed. The shuttle finally started running on the Marion Street Transitway in downtown this week. Top speed = 15 mph.
Quote from: Ken_FSU on October 13, 2020, 10:37:39 AM
^I was just thinking about this a couple of days ago.
As someone who takes the Hart Bridge/Bay Street to and from work every morning, I would be FURIOUS to be stuck behind a clown car going 13 mph on a street where traffic can typically move in excess of 30 mph.
Can't imagine how uncomfortable it would be for the riders either, with vehicles swerving around you, honking, giving you the finger, etc.
Really hostile environment for this type of thing.
This would be another reason for people to avoid downtown...
The block of Bay between Ocean and Main will be an interesting challenge when the AVs begin service. Currently, there are four westbound lanes, plus a parking lane along the north side of the street. The southernmost lane is left-turn only onto the Main Street Bridge. The next lane has a choice of turning toward the Bridge, or continuing west on Bay. The next 2 lanes continue west on Bay, with the northernmost, during the morning peak, backing up as people enter the garage just west of Main. Once the FDOT removes the Independent Drive on-ramp to the Main Street Bridge, there will be more traffic in the 2 lanes going to the Bridge.
Conceivably, the parking lane on the north side of Bay could be converted for westbound AV use. Where will the eastbound AVs go?
Will the 2 eastbound lanes that begin at Ocean Street be extended west to Pearl? to Broad? or all the way to Lee (where there is one lane coming from Myrtle Ave.)? Having only 2 westbound lanes between Ocean and Main might be a problem, especially with the diversion of the Independent Ramp traffic. While dealing with 15 MPH (max?) AVs.
Also, where will the AVs stop along Bay Street - causing even more traffic disruption?
Innovation!
Gamechanger!
Quote from: marcuscnelson on October 12, 2020, 08:37:02 PM
According to David Cawton in this Twitter thread (https://twitter.com/Davidcawton/status/1313157946302398465), Bay Street is under "active procurement as we speak." Apparently he also doesn't understand the difference between a streetcar and a bus or AV.
Found the Procurement Page (https://procurement.jtafla.com/solicitations/1324).
QuoteThe JTA is requesting sealed Statements of Qualifications ("SOQs") for the design, build, operation and maintenance of an autonomous vehicle project on approximately three miles of Bay Street in Jacksonville, Florida. The project is known as Phase I of the Ultimate Urban Circulator Program ("U2C") and called the Bay Street Innovation Corridor ("BSIC").
Apparently there's supposed to be some kind of "Evaluation Meeting" on November 12th, but I can't find any details about it.
The question for me right now is whether there's even
any company in existence capable of designing, building, operating, and maintaining autonomous vehicles in mixed traffic on Bay Street within three years.
QuoteThe question for me right now is whether there's even any company in existence capable of designing, building, operating, and maintaining autonomous vehicles in mixed traffic on Bay Street within three years.
So this Phase 1 is only for running AVs on Bay Street and not modifying and putting them up on Skyway infrastructure?
One can run these cars down the street now, like they do in Lake Nona already. The issue will be the urban setting where human movement and driver controlled moves can be unknown and getting them through traffic signals. If successful in having something on Bay within three years, the next challenge would be continuing to push for expansion when people will clearly see these things are either empty or clogging up the road in mixed traffic.
If you're talking about minibuses running on a street, there's quite a few. Heck, IIRC, there's quite a few in Vegas.
https://lasvegassun.com/news/2018/apr/05/how-does-downtowns-autonomous-bus-work/
personally, I haven't seen any that belong on our streets. They talk up their testing but to date it's practically bupkiss compared to how much actual driving + movement goes on.
In fact, as far as I know there are currently is not a single one of these minibus vendors that is able to certify that their quasi autonmous vehicles can detect black people as well as they detect white people. Not one.
^Interesting. Although it's not clear whether that is much more than a cool gimmick versus being an essential transit spine.
For once, I agree with you. There's not really any evidence that this is anywhere near enough testing compared to the sheer challenge that it is to run on a place like Bay Street. According to the article the max speed is 27mph, whereas I think the limit on Bay is 35, and people are probably driving 40-45.
The Vegas thing, like the Bay Street proposal is more a gimmick or experiment than raw, reliable transit. By its very nature, it will not be a transit spine. It's basically a Lake Nona type operation within a more urbanized environment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-j-r8sU8Ec
I've been bludgeoned to death by jargon. Now you can be too!
Nice video but it addressed very little in regards of granny with no cell phone, trying to use mass transit to get from the senior housing facilities in the Cathedral District to a bank or restaurant in Brooklyn or the Northbank. AVs are traveling in mixed traffic on an undivided four lane road configuration, which makes the transportation planner in me worry about safety. All parallel parking on Bay Street is removed for bicycle lanes, which suggests when that video was made, there had been very little to no public engagement with downtown property and business owners.
I assume this thing will have transit stations, shelters and seamless transferring between modes but that wasn't really addressed in the video either. The video is pretty high on promotion and marketing, suggesting the project imay place a higher priority on being an experiment built around testing and trying innovative and emerging technologies than something providing the mobility basics for residents.
Now, the video was very conceptual and promotional, so with everything stated above, I also believe the final product will look nothing like what was illustrated in the video.
(https://i.imgur.com/rxPnzSk.jpg)
Good to see this route won't screw with the Skyway infrastructure. Ambitious with some challenges. For example, it will be very interesting to see how they plan to safely get something that runs around 12mph, across an at-grade expressway to make that left turn into Lot J.
Quote from: thelakelander on November 12, 2020, 11:07:58 AM
Good to see this route won't screw with the Skyway infrastructure. Ambitious with some challenges. For example, it will be very interesting to see how they plan to get safely get something that runs around 12mph, across an at-grade expressway to make that left turn into Lot J.
(https://i2.wp.com/www.youngpioneertours.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/pyongyangtrafficgirl.jpg?fit=815%2C357&ssl=1)
Isn't the Lot J Entrance where one of the new signals on New Bay Street will be?
With all the money JTA is spending on this, they couldn't spend a few bucks to get an updated aerial and graphics to show the absence of the Landing, and the Lot J [concept] plans?
There may be a signal but the AVs will need to quickly cross three eastbound travel lanes, just east of an interchange at APR. I don't see how they can make it work without having their own dedicated lane in this stretch. This is a stretch that drivers will definitely be gunning it to not stop at one or two lights before ramping back up to either elevated expressway section on either end.
At JTA's evaluation meeting. Two proposals have been made. More info pending.
Meeting ended early. Correction, at least two proposals, there have been more meetings than this and it's not clear whether more proposals have been made. Balfour Beatty is leading one group and the other is a consortium with (I think) Haskell, they're being very vague.
Questions have been asked about diversity & inclusion of involved companies, operation in inclement weather, and other technical details.
Apparently at least Balfour Beatty is using multiple AV platforms. Balfour Beatty will have an "AV command center" in Orlando. (Perhaps Beep in Lake Nona is part of this one?) One group apparently has too much based on European standards, not in compliance with Buy America.
One proposal involves magnets for some reason? There's a question about if there are issues with the magnets when repaving.
One man says something about the need to "put our foot on the gas." Question about the possibility of a single point of failure for communication with the AVs. Final comment about looking for a "partner for the next 15 years."
Personally, this was not a confidence-inspiring meeting. I guess it's good to know proposals came in at all, but it sounds like JTA still has a looooooot of questions about how exactly this is all going to work, which to me is rather concerning for something that's supposed to be open in three years.
Side note: I just realized it's been three years now since JTA first announced they wanted to use AVs as a Skyway replacement. We're halfway to... not actually replacing the Skyway yet.
I wonder how things would have gone if they had decided on any other way to replace the system.
Not sure if this has been discussed here already, but downtown Tampa is already operating these AV transit shuttles. One-year trial service opened about 3 or 4 weeks ago...I haven't read up to see how that has been. Same operator as Lake Nona (Beep)
Edit: I called it a one-week trial instead of one-year.
I don't think there has been any discussion since the Tampa pilot started. I know they had been delayed for quite a while.
https://www.tampabay.com/news/transportation/2020/10/09/driverless-shuttle-launches-in-downtown-tampa/
QuoteMuch of the 12-block corridor is closed to regular traffic, but the shuttle will interact with cars and buses at the northern end, near the Marion Transit Center.
The route provides a much-needed connection between the county's most popular transit center and the TECO Line Streetcar. More than a dozen bus routes pass through Marion Transit Center, along with the Downtowner, Megabus and RedCoach. The streetcar, which eliminated fares two years ago, has a stop 100 feet from the shuttle's southern end point at Whiting Street. From there, riders can connect to Ybor City, the Channel District and other parts of downtown.
Burckard said there is opportunity for HART to expand the pilot, which has an additional two-year option. The agency will study ridership, safety and other data points through the year to determine how else the agency could use the technology, Burckard said. That could include expansions to the Riverwalk and other parts of downtown, supplementing bus service in lesser traveled parts of the county or creating new options in places like the University of South Florida innovation district.
See, this is all fine. Running these shuttles in mostly transit dedicated space (the article points out that at least 7% of the time it is still operated manually by on-board attendants), connecting to fixed transit (TECO streetcar) and creating a new option for a corridor that didn't have it is great!
But this also highlights just how problematic JTA's approach is. Where instead, by the time the expanded
study in Tampa is done (should it be expanded), JTA somehow expects to be running these down a busy corridor in mixed traffic
as the "fixed" transit in and of itself. It's not a bad thing bringing transit to a new corridor, but for that to be the
football stadium seems like a serious capacity challenge, which there is no evidence these are capable of addressing.
I think there was an idea mentioned on another thread to have run these from the JRTC down Park Street, instead of what they're doing. That seems to me like it would be the equivalent of this, instead of throwing $40 million in taxpayer money into Bay Street.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on November 16, 2020, 12:16:54 AM
https://www.tampabay.com/news/transportation/2020/10/09/driverless-shuttle-launches-in-downtown-tampa/
QuoteMuch of the 12-block corridor is closed to regular traffic, but the shuttle will interact with cars and buses at the northern end, near the Marion Transit Center.
The route provides a much-needed connection between the county's most popular transit center and the TECO Line Streetcar. More than a dozen bus routes pass through Marion Transit Center, along with the Downtowner, Megabus and RedCoach. The streetcar, which eliminated fares two years ago, has a stop 100 feet from the shuttle's southern end point at Whiting Street. From there, riders can connect to Ybor City, the Channel District and other parts of downtown.
Burckard said there is opportunity for HART to expand the pilot, which has an additional two-year option. The agency will study ridership, safety and other data points through the year to determine how else the agency could use the technology, Burckard said. That could include expansions to the Riverwalk and other parts of downtown, supplementing bus service in lesser traveled parts of the county or creating new options in places like the University of South Florida innovation district.
See, this is all fine. Running these shuttles in mostly transit dedicated space (the article points out that at least 7% of the time it is still operated manually by on-board attendants), connecting to fixed transit (TECO streetcar) and creating a new option for a corridor that didn't have it is great!
But this also highlights just how problematic JTA's approach is. Where instead, by the time the expanded study in Tampa is done (should it be expanded), JTA somehow expects to be running these down a busy corridor in mixed traffic as the "fixed" transit in and of itself. It's not a bad thing bringing transit to a new corridor, but for that to be the football stadium seems like a serious capacity challenge, which there is no evidence these are capable of addressing.
I think there was an idea mentioned on another thread to have run these from the JRTC down Park Street, instead of what they're doing. That seems to me like it would be the equivalent of this, instead of throwing $40 million in taxpayer money into Bay Street.
My friend and I actually shot a facebook live to discuss this, in which I more or less expressed what you're saying. Their system is operating in a different context...but still will be very interesting to see how it performs.
^I'd be highly interested in ridership performance/end user perception, although I assume Downtown Tampa has been hit just as hard as DT Jax when it comes to COVID's impact.
The FCC just voted to reallocate more than half of the bandwidth previously reserved for vehicle safety to WiFi. Wonder how this will affect the U2C?
Quote
The reallocation may have an impact on the future of autonomous vehicles, advocates say, because connected cars will need as much communication bandwidth as they can get to operate safely, beyond what their onboard cameras and sensors can provide without being able to communicate with other vehicles and with infrastructure.
https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/fcc-votes-to-scrap-existing-vehicle-safety-communications-tech-to-boost-wifi/
New Making Moves (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBMPgUllRJU) yesterday. Featuring Local Motors' Olli 2.0 AV.
I said this last month, but I really don't get why the insistence was on making this the actual urban transit system, when it's been said at length here that its best role seems to be
connecting to the urban transit system. Plus, the insistence that they're going to figure this out before Tesla or Uber do is just... remarkable. You'd think a "Citizens for Real Transit" PAC or something would have sprung up by now to just repeatedly point out what a dumb idea this is. Especially when the competitor (https://citizensforpersonalrapidtransit.org/) already exists.
They kept bringing up these "Golden 20" rules/requirements/standards, and yet I had no idea what they actually are. So I looked it up:
QuoteBelow is the list of the 20 critical needed items/capabilities identified by the Automation Division for Autonomous Shuttles also known as the "Golden 20".
- Full ADA Compliance
- Buy America/Buy American Compliance
- Cybersecurity
- Remote Route Programming with Low Latency
- NHTSA Approval to operate on Public Road
- Vehicle to Infrastructure and V2X Capabilities (DSRC & 5G)
- Traverse Slope of ± 12 Degrees w/ Full Passenger load (Sustained Acceleration/Deceleration)
- Operate bi-directionally up to 35 MPH
- ≥12 hours of battery life
- Operate at speeds of 15 MPH within ± 1 foot of Stationary Object
Operate at speeds of 15 MPH within ± 3 feet of Moving Object
- May Operate during Inclement Weather (Rain, Fog, Wind, and Extreme Heat)
- Internal Cab – Environment control with Rapid Cool capability
& Sustained temperature with Full Passenger Load - Ability to be towed; Push/Pull and Steer AV Manually or towed via another AV
- Crash Worthy up to 35 MPH
- Ability for Fast Charge/Opportunity Charging
- Ability to regulate passenger capacity
- System for recording/storing video for at least 30 days (Black Box)
- Emergency button to contact Authority/Agency control center
- Remote command & control operations of vehicles with low latency
- Complete Vehicle Monitoring system, including health monitoring
In other news, while I was looking for these Golden 20, I came across some files from a few years ago. It's strange, because the implication early on is that AVs didn't really make that much sense either & had too many unknowns, although there was the
hope of flexibility. Also, that at some point using the same system as Miami's MetroMover was considered. Yet later, there's a jump to AVs. So what changed?
2015 Technology Assessment (https://www.jtafla.com/media/Documents/General/Skyway/1_draft_skyway_technology_assessment_report_082015/1001/1_draft_skyway_technology_assessment_report_082015.pdf)
2016 Public Forum (https://www.jtafla.com/media/Documents/Skyway/jta_skyway-forum-11_15_16-v3/1017/jta_skyway-forum-11_15_16-v3.pdf)
2017 Modernization Report (https://www.jtafla.com/media/1292/final-summary-document_031517.pdf)
Why is a transit agency trying to compete with Tesla or Uber? That type of technology competition has very little to do with the basic need of efficiently moving residents using transit from point A to point B.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on December 05, 2020, 01:31:24 PM
You'd think a "Citizens for Real Transit" PAC or something would have sprung up by now to just repeatedly point out what a dumb idea this is. Especially when the competitor (https://citizensforpersonalrapidtransit.org/) already exists.
There is a real need for a citizen's transit advocacy group in this town. Something is needed to reel some of this stuff back into the world of reality.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 05, 2020, 05:32:22 PM
Why is a transit agency trying to compete with Tesla or Uber? That type of technology competition has very little to do with the basic need of efficiently moving residents using transit from point A to point B.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on December 05, 2020, 01:31:24 PM
You'd think a "Citizens for Real Transit" PAC or something would have sprung up by now to just repeatedly point out what a dumb idea this is. Especially when the competitor (https://citizensforpersonalrapidtransit.org/) already exists.
There is a real need for a citizen's transit advocacy group in this town. Something is needed to reel some of this stuff back into the world of reality.
There used to be a provision in the federal transit law that prohibited transit agencies using federal funds from competing with the private sector. This pretty much put JTA (and others) out of the lucrative Charter Bus business. Could a case be made about U2C?
And, yes, we need a Citizens for Real Transit movement here.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on December 05, 2020, 06:55:36 PM
There used to be a provision in the federal transit law that prohibited transit agencies using federal funds from competing with the private sector. This pretty much put JTA (and others) out of the lucrative Charter Bus business. Could a case be made about U2C?
I was under the impression that U2C has received at least some federal funding. I'd be surprised if that provision hasn't been repealed by now.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on December 05, 2020, 06:55:36 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on December 05, 2020, 05:32:22 PM
Quote from: marcuscnelson on December 05, 2020, 01:31:24 PM
You'd think a "Citizens for Real Transit" PAC or something would have sprung up by now to just repeatedly point out what a dumb idea this is. Especially when the competitor (https://citizensforpersonalrapidtransit.org/) already exists.
There is a real need for a citizen's transit advocacy group in this town. Something is needed to reel some of this stuff back into the world of reality.
And, yes, we need a Citizens for Real Transit movement here.
Do we... want to start one? After some cursory research, Citizens for Modern Transit (https://cmt-stl.org) in St. Louis seems to be something possibly along the lines of a blueprint. They helped bring MetroLink light rail to the city and then kept going, with memberships for individuals and companies that are supportive of their efforts. Plus advocating for broader transit/rail connectivity in the state (although that may be a harder bargain here than in Missouri).
QuoteWe don't own or operate the transit system, but we work to champion it, challenge it, encourage it and advocate for it. We do this by helping to secure state and federal funding for transit projects; playing an active role in addressing safety and security issues; increasing ridership and raise awareness about the benefits of public transit; spearheading feasibility studies to examine the benefits of adding new light-rail stations, and furthering sustainability efforts. CMT also ensures the value of public transit is understood by elected officials, civic leaders, key stakeholders and the community at large – so the opportunity to fund, improve and expand public transit isn't missed.
Well, Uber is out of the self-driving development game. Too difficult & expensive. Yet another signal that the enthusiasm far outpaces the tech for the foreseeable future.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/07/uber-sells-atg-self-driving-unit-to-aurora-.html
But you see, JTA will figure it out! And have them running in mixed traffic with no problems within just three years!
Amazon-owned Zoox (https://zoox.com) unveiled its AV this week. No projected release date. But you know, JTA's totally got this all figured out, and they'll absolutely be ready to go in three years.
https://jalopnik.com/this-is-what-your-future-amazon-robotaxi-will-look-like-1845877588
Toyota will be running autonomous buses at the 2021 Summer Olympics in Japan. It looks like they will be in exclusive right-of-way, but this may just be the test track. (I couldn't figure out how to embed the video)
https://youtu.be/Nhju4lzP-9Q
Look Charles, I'm telling you that one of the largest car companies in the world is wrong on their timeline. JTA is gonna have this all figured out by 2023! For mixed traffic, too!
Quote from: marcuscnelson on December 22, 2020, 11:57:16 AM
Look Charles, I'm telling you that one of the largest car companies in the world is wrong on their timeline. JTA is gonna have this all figured out by 2023! For mixed traffic, too!
Thanks for the reality check. What could I have been thinking?!? :o
AV by the private sector is going to be a thing in the next decade, and the JTA will never, ever have the economies of scale to compete with whatever that is going to look like.
Their focus shouldn't be on competing with Amazon/Uber/Lyft/Toyota/etc on on-demand rideshare, but rather on providing what the private sector cannot - strategic, fixed transit with dedicated ROW.
Leave the AV where it belongs, as a first-mile/last-mile feeder system into your fixed mass transit.
It's just foolishness all around.
^Bingo Ken! Their focus should be on running efficient and effective mass transit that aligns with the desires, needs and future vision of the community as a whole. The U2C as an on-demand rideshare type thing will never be able to compete head to head with the private sector. From that perspective, the fixed transit infrastructure becomes a negative. The fixed infrastructure needs to be positioned to move high volumes of people. That requires more emphasis on land use coordination than on the type of technology and rolling stock being invested in.
Two interesting updates from JTA's Procurement site:
The Bay Street Innovation Corridor RFQ was awarded on December 11th, not sure to whom.
A RFI has just been put out for a "mini overhaul" of Skyway vehicles. This to me seems more interesting. It's been what, 5 years now since the initial talk of needing to replace the vehicles, but the replacement all the chips are on is so far out that they have to "mini overhaul" the vehicles anyway.
Looking at the document they're asking to replace quite a bit if possible. New doors, new cooling system, new electrical systems, new bogies, new HVAC from Sutrak. I remember seeing in documents from 5 years ago that overhauling the vehicles would get about 10-15 years of extra life out of them. I wonder what the expected addition is for this.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 22, 2020, 12:50:20 PM
Quote from: Ken_FSU on December 22, 2020, 12:15:26 PM
AV by the private sector is going to be a thing in the next decade, and the JTA will never, ever have the economies of scale to compete with whatever that is going to look like.
Their focus shouldn't be on competing with Amazon/Uber/Lyft/Toyota/etc on on-demand rideshare, but rather on providing what the private sector cannot - strategic, fixed transit with dedicated ROW.
Leave the AV where it belongs, as a first-mile/last-mile feeder system into your fixed mass transit.
It's just foolishness all around.
^Bingo Ken! Their focus should be on running efficient and effective mass transit that aligns with the desires, needs and future vision of the community as a whole. The U2C as an on-demand rideshare type thing will never be able to compete head to head with the private sector. From that perspective, the fixed transit infrastructure becomes a negative. The fixed infrastructure needs to be positioned to move high volumes of people. That requires more emphasis on land use coordination than on the type of technology and rolling stock being invested in.
I concur! So who's going to tell Nat Ford that?
I'd assume that a change in direction would have to come from the board. They've be better off just replacing the the Skyway vehicles, upgrading the system as is and really working together with the DIA to cluster TOD and infill around every existing Skyway station (along with getting that Brooklyn station open). That doesn't stop them from experimenting on Bay Street with the innovation corridor thing, which is more about testing emerging technologies than it is serving as a viable mass transit option.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 22, 2020, 02:49:39 PM
I'd assume that a change in direction would have to come from the board.
So these guys (https://www.jtafla.com/about-jta/leadership/board-of-directors/). Good to know.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 22, 2020, 02:49:39 PM
They've be better off just replacing the the Skyway vehicles, upgrading the system as is and really working together with the DIA to cluster TOD and infill around every existing Skyway station (along with getting that Brooklyn station open).
Back in 2015 (https://www.jtafla.com/media/Documents/General/Skyway/1_draft_skyway_technology_assessment_report_082015/1001/1_draft_skyway_technology_assessment_report_082015.pdf) this option was considered (at least the first half). They spent much of the report discussing a streetcar system, which is interesting.
On page 5, it appears JTA as of now has chosen Option 2, with the replacement system being U2C. You're suggesting Option 3a, but not necessarily with extensions (save for Brooklyn).
(https://i.imgur.com/6kK5bEg.png)
Page 11 shows what Lea+Elliott thought of replacing the vehicles:
QuoteOption 3 – System Replacement with Minimal Infrastructure Modifications
Option 3 was the only option that all four respondents offered proposed solutions for. However, each of them comes with its own risk that must be considered by the JTA when evaluating the proposed options. Each of these proposed solutions would also have major impact to existing Skyway operations and would likely need to shut down the system for an extended duration to implement.
Bombardier suggests that the monorail beam be removed and that they propose to use a vehicle technology that would closely match the original Skyway system technology, the Matra VAL 256. Bombardier states that they have experience in replacement of the Matra VAL 256 with their Innovia APM 256 vehicle technology in Taipei and are currently under contract to replace it again at Chicago O'Hare International Airport. Bombardier's experience with previously performing this work and utilizing a standard Bombardier APM vehicle should be noted as a benefit.
A potential concern with this proposed solution is that Bombardier would need to verify and confirm that the entire Skyway guideway (original/starter line and all extensions & MSF) is designed and constructed for the heavier Innovia APM 256 technology. If not, there may be extensive infrastructure re‐design and reinforcement requirements that must be considered. The JTA would need to do a complete cost benefit analysis on this proposed solution.
SDI recommends Option 3 and state that they could adapt their technology, vehicle and system and that will have minimal impact on the existing infrastructure and provide for a 30 year service life. It is suggested that detailed meetings be held with SDI to gain confidence and a higher level of comfort that SDI is capable of performing the replacement and to understand the extent of the required changes to the Infrastructure and to the Operating System. Also the JTA could consider sharing the technical contractual requirements of the Jacksonville Skyway monorail with SDI. Some of the project constraints are somewhat challenging (such as 8% grade, Y‐junction) and it would be advisable that the JTA makes sure that SDI fully understands the project requirement and is capable of delivering a reliable system.
Thales proposed to replace the ATC and communications system but offers no solution for the vehicle replacement. This is understandable given that Thales is a train control supplier.
Skyweb Express proposes a Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) System to replace the current trains with lighter, more private single vehicles. Skyweb Express strongly believes that the JTA's short‐term and long‐term solution (extending into historic neighborhoods) lie with a solution such as PRT. Skyweb Express discusses comparative cost per mile benefits that should be verified. Skyweb indicates that the Conversion of the current system would require alteration only at Rosa Park, King Street and Prime Osborn stations by allowing a balloon track to move cars from one side to the other on a two‐way track.
Skyweb express discussion of System capacity appears optimistic as the advertised headways may not have been proven in passenger service (see Lea+Elliott note on PRT headway included in Lea+Elliott Technology Assessment Report dated November 2014).
It is recommended that detailed discussions be held with Skyweb Express to determine the extent of the proposed changes, their impact on the infrastructure and the operations of the proposed system. Furthermore, the decision to implement a PRT requires a complete separate study by the JTA to determine alignment, station locations, fleet size, ridership, business case etc.
I remember that study quite well. Some of these studies pretty much come to the conclusion that the client wanted from the start. U2C is basically the PRT route. As then, I remain a fan of keeping the existing infrastructure and expanding where it makes sense and supports a community supported vision of what Downtown and various neighborhoods should be. The community didn't ask for AVs and the U2C. That's JTA's vision, so I've always had a concern from the true public engagement perspective of the planning effort. As a result, you end up with a project that connects to the sports district, but one that would fail even if it were successful because it won't have the capacity to move crowds from major events. Heck, the Skyway, which has more capacity now than the U2C will, could barely move One Spark crowds.
While a fan of expansion, it's not a good idea to spend money expanding when we can't implement ways to get more efficient utilization out of the existing infrastructure. Much of that revolves around a lack of complementary land use and development policies with downtown in general over the years. The Skyway ending up at a seldom used convention center or parking garage instead of the sports district or directly tying into UF Health Jax or Baptist are great examples of this. Still having no sound strategy within the downtown district around driving infill TOD to cluster around existing stations is another. There's nothing wrong with having a well used 2.5 mile system than underutilized, more expensive 4 mile system. So treat the existing as the "starter" line and go from there.
Then there's the reality of timeline. At this rate, it will be more than 10 years since that study was done before anyone ever takes an AV on the Skyway infrastructure across the Acosta. So we're going to really end up paying a lot more money for two of these options, when its all said and done (paying to keep the existing system running for +10 years and paying for whatever the replacement turns out to be).
Can the current Skyway fleet last more than a few more years?
It turns out JTA wants to perform a "mini" overhaul of the current fleet, so it seems they're expecting it to stick around longer than a few more years.
Quote from: fsu813 on December 07, 2020, 09:29:55 PM
Well, Uber is out of the self-driving development game. Too difficult & expensive. Yet another signal that the enthusiasm far outpaces the tech for the foreseeable future.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/07/uber-sells-atg-self-driving-unit-to-aurora-.html
Then a week later Lyft and Motional announced their plans to rollout entire fleets of autonomous vehicle taxis throughout the US by 2023. Maybe they won't succeed, but that's a bold declaration either way.
^Makes one wonder why would one believe that throwing autonomous minivans on fixed guideway makes in the short or term sense? Fixed guideway makes sense when moving large volumes of people to select destinations where large volumes of people can easily move by foot. Once you scale down to the person vehicle size, an entity that can use regular streets and take the rider anywhere they want to go is going to have the competitive advantage compared to a similar vehicle stuck to Skyway guideway. Driver or no driver.
According to documents JTA has released as part of the RFI for the "mini overhaul," the targeted lifetime of the overhauled system is another 10 years. Sounds like someone absolutely cracked open the now 6-year-old technology assessment report and circled option 2. It makes me think they must have gotten some bad news on feasibility last year.
Shame they can't give the streetcar option another look, I think that'd be pretty cool. Tampa seems on to something with how they're expanding their system now.
JTA has selected two teams to respond to their RFP for the U2C along Bay Street.
Quote
California-based Balfour Beaty Construction, LLC. will be the design lead and project manager. Superior Construction Company Southeast; Beep, Inc.; WGI, Inc.; Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. and Miller Electric will serve as sub-contractors.
The second proposal features Jacksonville-based The Haskell Company as the design lead, build contractor, project manager, transportation engineering, architect and engineer as well as project oversight firm. The subcontractors would be Transdev Services, Inc.; Oceaneering International, Inc; 2getthere; Siemens Mobility, Inc. and Metric Engineering.
"The release for that Request For Proposal is a major milestone for the (Ultimate Urban Circulator) project," Ford said. "It's Phase I, which the Bay Street Innovation Corridor. It took years of education and testing on the JTA side. It took years of working with the private sector to look at these technologies and determine what strategy is the best strategy for the JTA to develop this technology that is developing rapidly."
In December, Ford told the Business Journal he anticipates the RFP process to conclude this calendar year.
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2021/01/15/jta-jan-14-2021-board-meeting.html?ana=e_me_prem&j=90546715&t=Morning&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWmprek9EZGtPV05pTTJOaSIsInQiOiJycTlOQm9JOEI3d1NZWEpVbEs3MGJJbU1KNG9kbFltTXFLdENKQnZtQnllbjlqUlB5ZTM4dEdzOVdiOXpKOFwvRlRTUnh5WmZlYXVhcTN0VnJ4NWlwajJOY0RFR2Y2NnY2cjFwUXpHc0VWVGNWeVU2VlJwajlZUnViMjFrenZOTVYifQ%3D%3D
Business Journal article, so there may be a paywall. And geez, that's a long URL.
Interesting, if nothing else. Based on the contractor lists, it looks like the Balfour Beaty plan involves Navya (https://navya.tech/en/solutions/moving-people/self-driving-shuttle-for-passenger-transportation/) and Olli (https://localmotors.com/meet-olli/) AVs, while Haskell involves EasyMile (https://easymile.com/vehicle-solutions/ez10-passenger-shuttle) and 2getthere (https://www.2getthere.eu/technology/vehicle-types/grt-vehicle-automated-minibus/) AVs. Still somewhat unclear how exactly they expect this to be ready for primetime, mixed traffic operation in
two years, but it seems pretty hell or high water that they're going to at least try.
Based on JTA's other activities with the Skyway, it looks like they're going to do Bay Street and see how it goes, then wait a decade in hopes that the technology will be mature enough to implement on the rest of the network. At the end of the day, I imagine the bigger deal with this project is going to be the "smart street" infrastructure rather than the AVs themselves.
Quote"We feel very competent in delivering this project," Ford said Thursday. "Why? Because we have learned a great deal over this time frame to be able to execute this new technology."
Is it just me or does this not really mean anything?
QuoteThe board also approved, by a 4-0 vote, for Ford to negotiate and execute a lease with the Corner Lot Development Group, LLC. For a 3.8-acre parcel of land between Montana Avenue and Broadcast Place near the Southbank.
The 40-year agreement calls for Corner Lot Development Group to build 340 multi-family residential units and retail space on the property. The first-year rent on the property would be $272,000 and increase 2 percent in each of the two years to follow.
The property is part of the Transit-Oriented Development model that the authority has pushed in recent years. The Montana Street project would be within walkable distance between the Kings Avenue Skyway station as well as other modes of public transportation.
Oh hey, they're finally developing that property between the Baptist offices and The District. And it's right next to a Skyway station. Hopefully they do the sensible thing and add as little parking as necessary, and encourage people to use the transit in the transit-oriented development.
So now there's an automated bus.
https://www.newflyer.com/bus/xcelsior-av/
https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/new-flyer-unveils-the-xcelsior-av-tm-north-america-s-first-automated-transit-bus-865145733.html
Assuming this technology actually works, I wonder if it'd make more sense to just have a fancy BRT lane with these going down the fancy smart street on Bay, vs trying to make the zillion tiny shuttles work. Of course, in theory you wouldn't actually need an automated bus for that but going with the assumption that JTA just has to be building "the transit system of the future," this seems a bit less silly.
The technology works. Heck, the Skyway now is technically driverless. For public transit, it would make more sense to have vehicles that move larger masses of people for a fixed system, regardless of the rolling stock, driverless or with a driver. I think we all know that the Bay Street Innovation Corridor is more about being a pilot of testing various emerging technologies in a real life urban environment, moreso than serving the basic need for public transit. I hope as far as the U2C goes, there's a plan for something larger than the AVs that have been tested in recent years. Those things will likely be irrelevant in the world of emerging technologies by the time the U2C project is actually operational.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on January 18, 2021, 05:50:41 PM
Based on JTA's other activities with the Skyway, it looks like they're going to do Bay Street and see how it goes, then wait a decade in hopes that the technology will be mature enough to implement on the rest of the network. At the end of the day, I imagine the bigger deal with this project is going to be the "smart street" infrastructure rather than the AVs themselves.
If that's the case, it sounds like they know that running those minibuses on the skyway will require a few metric shit tons of engineering and testing to ensure it's 100% safe. Having that be the nebulous "that's coming in another phase" is a way to avoid having to admit it was too expensive of a proposition + irresponsible to have been made to start with.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 01, 2020, 08:15:59 AM
$30 million for four blocks of Skyway conversion? That is insane. That's more than LRT. If these are the numbers coming out, this plan should be stopped.
LRT in the US is being built at $100million / mile. 4/10ths of a mile for $30M is actually cheap.
^LRT that's elevated, includes tunnels, bridges or includes complete comprehensive complete streets rebuilding of the streetscape and over the top landscaping is what will cost someone $100 million per mile. Get rid of the bells and whistles and stick with the no frills transit basics and you won't be anywhere near 1/2 that cost.
Hmmm... makes the I-10 widening seem worthwhile and cost effective...
^ You have to take bl8jaxnative's statement of LRT costing $100/million a mile with a grain of salt. The cost of light rail construction varies, depending on the amount of elevated structures, tunneling, street rebuilds, etc. required for the individual project. LRT projects built over the years have ranged from $15 million per mile to over $100 million. On average, LRT systems are closer to $30 million per mile, than $100 million. Salt Lake City, Sacramento, Camden, etc. are all examples of cities with LRT lines built for less than $20 million per mile. Jump into the streetcar world and the prices drop more. With that said, none of it has anything to do with widening I-10. They shouldn't be viewed as projects that compete against each other. I'd argue that they serve two different markets and that a project like I-10, is just about as much as upgrading safety on an obsolete facility, as it is increasing capacity. Plus I-10 already exists and the ROW is already in place, so it's not a project where things will start from scratch.
Another day, another contract to overhaul the existing Skyway. This time (https://procurement.jtafla.com/solicitations/1352) it's for the traction motors.
Quote from: thelakelander on February 08, 2021, 08:06:18 PM
^ You have to take bl8jaxnative's statement of LRT costing $100/million a mile with a grain of salt. The cost of light rail construction varies, depending on the amount of elevated structures, tunneling, street rebuilds, etc. required for the individual project. LRT projects built over the years have ranged from $15 million per mile to over $100 million. On average, LRT systems are closer to $30 million per mile, than $100 million. S\
You only have to look at the sources for the source I cite.
There is no US LRT system in the last 2 decades that has built for $30M / mile. You're huffing glue.
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on February 09, 2021, 10:52:02 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on February 08, 2021, 08:06:18 PM
^ You have to take bl8jaxnative's statement of LRT costing $100/million a mile with a grain of salt. The cost of light rail construction varies, depending on the amount of elevated structures, tunneling, street rebuilds, etc. required for the individual project. LRT projects built over the years have ranged from $15 million per mile to over $100 million. On average, LRT systems are closer to $30 million per mile, than $100 million. S\
You only have to look at the sources for the source I cite.
There is no US LRT system in the last 2 decades that has built for $30M / mile. You're huffing glue.
Hmm, who to trust, Ennis or this guy.
Lol.....
Here are five examples of light rail, ranging from LRT and modern streetcar, to DMUs that average out closer to $30 million per mile, than $100 million. All were built within the last 20 years. I even added links so no one would have to take my word for it:
El Paso Streetcar (completed 2018) $97 million / 4.8 miles = $20 million per mile
https://www.elpasotimes.com/story/news/local/2016/09/23/streetcar-work-remains-time-budget/90869508/
Oceanside Sprinter (completed 2008) $477 million / 22 miles = $22 million per mile
https://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/article.aspx?id=14634
RiverLine (New Jersey) (completed 2004) $1.1 billion / 34 miles = $32 million per mile
https://reason.org/commentary/end-of-the-line-for-river-line/#:~:text=This%2034%2Dmile%20stretch%20of,whopping%20%241.1%20billion%20to%20construct.
Norfolk Tide LRT (completed 2011) $318 million / 7.4 miles = $43 million per mile
https://www.webcitation.org/61AGo7IdD?url=http://www.railwaygazette.com/index.php?id=44&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=13828&cHash=bdc9f64434
Houston METRO LRT (completed 2004) $324 million / 7.5 miles = $43 million per mile
https://web.archive.org/web/20111210053421/http://lightrailnow.org/news/n_hou005.htm
.....and the systems at $43 million per mile do include the bells and whistles like LRT running through water fountains and features.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Houston-November-2018/i-qd4hvhh/0/3c885655/XL/20181117_124223-XL.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Houston-November-2018/i-9PXqCXm/0/9c3afd6e/XL/20181117_123902-XL.jpg)
Now show us something with the links to the source included suggesting any type of LRT, that isn't elevated or underground, costing anywhere near $100 million per mile to construct.
I wish this were in person to help convey that, at least from my point of view, this is a __friendly__ pissing match.
That's the tricky thing with online crap... how does one convey that sort of thing?
OK, note that if the first example you pick for LRT is not LRT, you may not be thinking this thing through well enough. There are important reasons why to seperate out LRT from trolleys and commuter rail. Experts in the industry didn't just accidentally stumble into those distinctions.
Restoring ol' Mandy the Mule to go 8 mph down the middle of a street has a lot less requirements ( costs ) than an LRT vehicle with full grade separation able to go 55MPH inbetween stations.
BTW, that ol' riverline project is 38% higher cost than what you cited. The further one goes back, especially given the size of these project, the more important it is to factor in inflations. In 2020 constant dollars it's more like $1.55B.
Oceanside sprinter is a wonderful edge case. They had an unusual case where an existing, lightly used freight railroad was willing to sell it's existing line. They kept their costs down because they didn't have to build it from scratch.
They also kept down further by not front loading the project with requirements. They didn't double track it. They didn't electrify the line. They kept it to a minimum.
I'd love to see transit do that sort of thing more. But there aren't many corridors with lines like that. And, much worse, the agencies are notorious for gold plating.
Now, if we were casually having a beer ( masks down of course, can't drink a beer with a mask one ), there's a lot that could be communicated about this to convey things.
I'll grant you that it's not literally none. But why latch onto the precision of that claim? So 3% of the projects out there did it. And they all happened before Obama was in office. So what?
At the heart of it though is the claim of that lower cost is tone deaf. The mass transit communities been wringing it's hands for years about the high costs of rail transit. They're in the middle of trying to sort out if the US is higher than Western Europe and, if so, why.
I have yet to anyone in the industry claim the $100M / mile mark is not the standard for LRT. Guadalajara just completed an LRT line. Ottawa just opened a LRT line for $2+ billion and, IIRC, I'm not sure if it was much more than 5 or 6 miles. Edmonton's new LRT line was a little longer and similar is overall cost. Denver's token SE line extension was somehow ~$100M / mile. The same with Phoenix's recent extension.
Charlotte's blue line was billion and a quarter project for less than 10 miles. Metro Transit is saying their planned 15 mile SW LRT line woudl cost $2 billion. But that was before they recently said ooopsie, not quite done with the planning on that one. We didn't take into account a crash wall and full cost of the tunnel. Look for tht one to come in again ~$2.3B. This isn't much different thn the billion they spent on their University Avenue line, 11 miles. But what do you exepect from an organization, Metro Transit, that they spent $130M for zero miles of LRT recently. $130 and they got none. Apparently no one could be bothered to make sure that BNSF was on board before spending all that money. Surely people knew that their proposal would only work w/ BNSF on board.
ANywhooooo.... I get it. It's crazy money. And if you think it through some more you may even notice the trick I played, dragging things to LRT when some lil' line like that in heart of downtown wouldn't need an LRT line, a tram would work quite well.
If you a dig into it more, there aren't lot of LRT projects. ~$100M / mile is the going rate
one source
www.publicpurpose.com/ut-lrt00capcost.htm
IIRC this was the previous one. CityLab's sometimes got some good stuff like this
.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-26/the-u-s-gets-less-subway-for-its-money-than-its-peers
In the United States, most recent and in-progress light-rail lines cost more than $100 million per mile. Two light-rail extensions in Minneapolis, the Blue Line Extension and the Southwest LRT, cost $120 million and $130 million per mile, respectively. Dallas' Orange Line light rail, 14 miles long, cost somewhere between $1.3 billion and $1.8 billion. Portland's Orange Line cost about $200 million per mile. Houston's Green and Purple Lines together cost $1.3 billion for about 10 miles of light rail.
Yea, neglecting to factor in the inflated cost of a construction project is pretty disingenuous. Also, you're not showing a trend or average of all projects, you're cherry picking projects that confirm your argument, and as bl8 pointed out, don't match apples-to-apples with the LRT being discussed here.
Misleading post, lake.
Quote from: Peter Griffin on February 10, 2021, 09:36:16 AM
Yea, neglecting to factor in the inflated cost of a construction project is pretty disingenuous. Also, you're not showing a trend or average of all projects, you're cherry picking projects that confirm your argument, and as bl8 pointed out, don't match apples-to-apples with the LRT being discussed here.
Misleading post, lake.
I'm not cherry picking anything. I just answered the comment that nothing had been built in the range of $30 million per mile in the last two decades. It's not my responsibility to explain or break down a trend or average of all projects built in the last two decades. It's also not my responsibility to take the time to explain how bells and whistles items typically thrown into the most recent projects can dramatically raise the overall cost. Palm trees, complete streets rebuilds, cream of the crop materials, and fancy and expensive rolling stock have nothing to do with the creation of a no-frills system. That's why these projects range in price dramatically. To me this is common sense, so taking an average of things that include projects with extensive elevated or underground sections and claiming that's the going cost of a type of transportation is actually disingenuous.
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on February 10, 2021, 08:47:08 AM
I wish this were in person to help convey that, at least from my point of view, this is a __friendly__ pissing match.
That's the tricky thing with online crap... how does one convey that sort of thing?
No worries, this is all fun and games and good debate. I don't take anything on discussion boards serious or harbor ill will to anyone.
QuoteOK, note that if the first example you pick for LRT is not LRT, you may not be thinking this thing through well enough. There are important reasons why to seperate out LRT from trolleys and commuter rail. Experts in the industry didn't just accidentally stumble into those distinctions.
I figured you'd go here. I'd argue that streetcars are a form of light rail. Since I knew this likely be an issue, I added a few LRT starter lines built in the last two decades to show they were no where near the $100 million per mile mark.
QuoteRestoring ol' Mandy the Mule to go 8 mph down the middle of a street has a lot less requirements ( costs ) than an LRT vehicle with full grade separation able to go 55MPH inbetween stations.
These things are not so cut and clear from my transportation planning perspective. There are streetcar systems that move a lot faster than 8mph and there are LRT systems that don't have full grade separation, going 55mph in between stations. San Diego's is a good example. The initial line was built as a no-frills at-grade corridor. Today, LRT and streetcars operate on the same infrastructure. With that said, I do agree 100% with you on grade separation. Full grade separation makes a project really expensive, no matter what type of technology selected. However, I mentioned that already.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/San-Diego-March-2018/i-28MqxrF/0/752fa600/X3/20180320_133353-X3.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/San-Diego-March-2018/i-qrn7Wzb/0/6fb8ed2f/X3/20180320_132251-X3.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/San-Diego-March-2018/i-VShbv9R/0/75f5326f/X3/20180320_133422-X3.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/San-Diego-March-2018/i-fMGZP2d/0/3b7f35c9/X3/20180320_185807-X3.jpg)
QuoteBTW, that ol' riverline project is 38% higher cost than what you cited. The further one goes back, especially given the size of these project, the more important it is to factor in inflations. In 2020 constant dollars it's more like $1.55B.
I don't have time to verify it being 38% higher. However, even taking your word, $1.55 billion is still $45.6 million per mile, which is significantly less than the $100 million per mile quote. At $46 million per mile, we could built an entire urban core system for less than we'd pay to incentivize Lot J.
QuoteOceanside sprinter is a wonderful edge case. They had an unusual case where an existing, lightly used freight railroad was willing to sell it's existing line. They kept their costs down because they didn't have to build it from scratch.
They also kept down further by not front loading the project with requirements. They didn't double track it. They didn't electrify the line. They kept it to a minimum.
I'd love to see transit do that sort of thing more. But there aren't many corridors with lines like that. And, much worse, the agencies are notorious for gold plating.
This proves my point. I said if you did a no-frills system, you could do something significantly less than building something with all the bells and whistles from scratch. There are more examples like this out there. I agree with the no-frills approach to transit, regardless of the technology. I hate the gold plating the agencies do. I believe this does these systems more harm than anything else.
"It's not my responsibility" and "I don't have the time to..." don't really match with your incessant desire to try and prove people wrong on the forum. If you've got the time to post and to make these big sprawling posts with pictures and multi-quotes of users, making a complete and compelling argument with accurate numbers, actual inflated project costs, etc. doesn't seem to be out of your reach.
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on February 10, 2021, 09:21:41 AM
I have yet to anyone in the industry claim the $100M / mile mark is not the standard for LRT. Guadalajara just completed an LRT line. Ottawa just opened a LRT line for $2+ billion and, IIRC, I'm not sure if it was much more than 5 or 6 miles. Edmonton's new LRT line was a little longer and similar is overall cost. Denver's token SE line extension was somehow ~$100M / mile. The same with Phoenix's recent extension.
Charlotte's blue line was billion and a quarter project for less than 10 miles. Metro Transit is saying their planned 15 mile SW LRT line woudl cost $2 billion. But that was before they recently said ooopsie, not quite done with the planning on that one. We didn't take into account a crash wall and full cost of the tunnel. Look for tht one to come in again ~$2.3B. This isn't much different thn the billion they spent on their University Avenue line, 11 miles. But what do you expect from an organization, Metro Transit, that they spent $130M for zero miles of LRT recently. $130 and they got none. Apparently no one could be bothered to make sure that BNSF was on board before spending all that money. Surely people knew that their proposal would only work w/ BNSF on board.
QuoteIIRC this was the previous one. CityLab's sometimes got some good stuff like this
.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-26/the-u-s-gets-less-subway-for-its-money-than-its-peers
In the United States, most recent and in-progress light-rail lines cost more than $100 million per mile. Two light-rail extensions in Minneapolis, the Blue Line Extension and the Southwest LRT, cost $120 million and $130 million per mile, respectively. Dallas' Orange Line light rail, 14 miles long, cost somewhere between $1.3 billion and $1.8 billion. Portland's Orange Line cost about $200 million per mile. Houston's Green and Purple Lines together cost $1.3 billion for about 10 miles of light rail.
Most of the above are results of gold plating. It's pretty obvious that the Charlotte example (top picture) would be significantly higher to construct and maintain, compared to the original Houston and San Diego examples:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Charlotte-November-2019/i-nDq3QZm/0/b8cf8b7c/X3/20191110_180209-X3.jpg)
Charlotte LRT extension(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Houston-November-2018/i-sBthgzN/0/3ec8464f/X3/20181117_101136-X3.jpg)
Houston(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/San-Diego-March-2018/i-GnGvnb2/0/a4e5385b/X3/20180321_114555-X3.jpg)
Downtown San DiegoMoral of the story, at least from my perspective, is just because someone else decides to gold plate doesn't mean you have too. Gold plating should also not be used as the industry standard. Evaluate your own community on its own merits, goals and landscape, then select and develop a no-frills solution that helps achieve your long term vision.
Quote from: Peter Griffin on February 10, 2021, 10:29:18 AM
"It's not my responsibility" and "I don't have the time to..." don't really match with your incessant desire to try and prove people wrong on the forum. If you've got the time to post and to make these big sprawling posts with pictures and multi-quotes of users, making a complete and compelling argument with accurate numbers, actual inflated project costs, etc. doesn't seem to be out of your reach.
I've provided enough to support my perspective. However, it's totally okay for you not to agree. Most likely, both of us will still sleep like babies tonight.
In this month's Making Moves (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=La4Sc90NOCM?t=674), JTA finally admits that the Bay Street Innovation Corridor's revenue AV service has been pushed back to "no later than" 2025. Selection of which project group, Balfour Beatty or Haskell, will oversee the project is supposed to be finalized this summer, followed by 18-24 months of designing the system.
An aside, there's a 10-second clip in that same video (separated for your convenience (https://youtu.be/GpNKMcK5V20)) that displays the Avenues Walk Flyer station with commuter rail (represented by an EMD F59PHI with an undetermined number of Bombardier BiLevel Coaches) and autonomous vehicles. I'd like to imagine that the purpose of that is for perhaps shuttling people around Avenues Walk, which actually seems like a great usage for those if they work. It's a shame that instead they're trying to hamfist it into mass transit.
I saw that episode a few days ago. I know JTA claimed it was an example of TOD but I wouldn't call that apartment complex going up at Avenues Walk as being TOD. Perhaps TAD (Transit Adjacent Development) but I can't imagine a bus stop being there (or not being there) as a major factor in the property being feasible for a garden style autocentric multifamily development. Nothing about that apartment complex layout indicates that it is designed on that site to interact seamlessly with JTA's bus stop at the pedestrian scale. In any event, the Avenues Walk area would be a great location for a commuter or intercity rail stop though.
^ That could be where the AVs come in, again, assuming they work.
I don't remember what the current plans are for Avenues Walk at this point, did that suggest any degree of walkability? What about the apartment in Palm Beach they said this is based on?
I'll post the site plan later. I'll need to download it. In the meantime, here is what was originally proposed for this property.
https://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2008-sep-the-evolution-of-avenues-walk
Quote from: thelakelander on February 10, 2021, 10:37:54 AM
Moral of the story, at least from my perspective, is just because someone else decides to gold plate doesn't mean you have too. Gold plating should also not be used as the industry standard. Evaluate your own community on its own merits, goals and landscape, then select and develop a no-frills solution that helps achieve your long term vision.
Maybe it's gold plating but there's a lot that has to be done to meet regulations. One would need to sit down and sort that out. For example, Metro Transit's new LRT project it's not obvious where the gold plating is coming into play. About a 1/3 of the projects costs are coming from having to meet regulatory requirements stemming from choosing to share a very tight corridor with freight railroads.
I appauld that approach though. Like I said some of those low cost projects you pointed to weren't LRT. They made use of existing rail, didn't double track, etc. Good for them.
At the end of the day though, modern LRT projects in the US are costing $100MM - $200MM / mile. There's a lot of disagreement in the industry as to why that is. More so on how bring those costs down. It's probably going to be quite some time for we better understand why + actually start to fix it.
Maybe never. Remember, 90+% of these agencies revenues come from government $$$$, not ridership. It's not clear how they'd have a _deep_ desire to carry out those sort of reforms.
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on March 09, 2021, 09:57:28 AM
I appauld that approach though. Like I said some of those low cost projects you pointed to weren't LRT. They made use of existing rail, didn't double track, etc. Good for them.
At the end of the day though, modern LRT projects in the US are costing $100MM - $200MM / mile.
I veer from traditional methods of placing these systems into boxes because there are ways to reduce costs when we don't box ourselves into believing a service can only be done one way and operate in such a manner. For Jax specifically, what we'll call "traditional LRT" that will run you upwards of $100 million, really makes no sense locally. We don't have the density or population requiring such a significant type of investment. We don't need anything requiring significant grade separation outside of getting over the FEC to tie in San Marco.
I believe there are more affordable options out there that will meet the needs of a community Jax's size for the foreseeable future. Anything rail-based other than a form of intercity rail (ex. Brightline, Amtrak Pacific Surfliner, etc. with only a stop or two in Jax) doesn't make sense outside of Jax's urban core (ex. preconsolidated city limits).
For something that is likely less than 10 miles in length, other options should be explored. The U2C thing doesn't make much sense from a capacity perspective, putting personal vehicle sized AVs on elevated Skyway infrastructure or the desire to mix them in with regular auto traffic. I do believe some success could be found with a streetcar service (modern-tramlike or even heritage) that runs in its own lanes/ROW, that also doesn't stop every other block. I also believe that we'd be better off with the Skyway by getting new peoplemover rolling stock and aggressively building up the density around existing stations, with limited no frills expansion (ex. like the Brooklyn Station) and eliminating all duplicate bus services as opposed to converting it into a lower capacity PRT system running in mixed traffic conditions.
^ I see a possible nearer-future of autonomous vehicles, just not JTA's. Rather, closer to today's cars/SUV's and shared, Uber-style. With the right algorithms to manage travel, we could increase efficiencies enough to provide an ROI that works for less dense cities like Jax while catering to the cultural demand for point to point travel embedded here.
Aside from flexibility, scalability and lower initial capital outlays, this solution could also be implemented on a much faster timeline by using existing infrastructure.
Shared vehicles should also reduce the number of vehicles on the road, extending the capacity-life of said existing infrastructure.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on March 09, 2021, 03:25:34 PM
^ I see a possible nearer-future of autonomous vehicles, just not JTA's. Rather, closer to today's cars/SUV's and shared, Uber-style. With the right algorithms to manage travel, we could increase efficiencies enough to provide an ROI that works for less dense cities like Jax while catering to the cultural demand for point to point travel embedded here.
Without investing billions in roadway infrastructure, signals, etc., you won't see this on a large scale. You'll likely see AVs that are still human operator controlled.....some of which is already out there. From a transit perspective, I still struggle to see what JTA is proposing, going mainstream. Restricting an AV the size of an SUV to fixed Skyway infrastructure and stops will only put that system at a competitive disadvantage against ride share. For it to be effective as mass transit, we'll need bigger vehicles. However, that's not necessarily a technology issue.
QuoteAside from flexibility, scalability and lower initial capital outlays, this solution could also be implemented on a much faster timeline by using existing infrastructure.
AV technology aside, what type of capacity vehicles /rolling stock are you talking about?
QuoteShared vehicles should also reduce the number of vehicles on the road, extending the capacity-life of said existing infrastructure.
I wouldn't count on this, at this point. Any true reduction vehicles on the road will happen later down the line. The technology has to become common amongst the general population or somewhat regulated by the government before that day comes.
I have seen some articles (that I can't find right now) that predict that widespread use of AVs could increase vehicle miles traveled. There are two scenarios. First, if you own your AV, and are going to work at an office, you (it) would drive to the door of your office and you would get out and walk into your office. The AV would then go park itself. Since the site design would not have to accommodate you walking from your parked car to the office, the AV parking could be farther away. When you get ready to go home, you would summon your AV as you leave your desk, meeting it in front of your office. Here, the distance between your office door and the AV parking is "added miles" not currently driven. Now, the AV parking area may or may not require driving on public roads, but it will drive on some pavement that has to be maintained.
If you don't own the AV, and it has to come from some parking area, or off of another trip, before it picks you up in the morning or evening, these are even more "new" miles on the road.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on March 08, 2021, 11:29:51 PM
^ That could be where the AVs come in, again, assuming they work.
I don't remember what the current plans are for Avenues Walk at this point, did that suggest any degree of walkability? What about the apartment in Palm Beach they said this is based on?
Here's the Bainbridge apartment development across from Walmart in Avenues Walk that JTA claims to be TOD.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Bainbridge-Avenues-Walk/i-BN3rTnw/0/66f0910f/XL/bainbridge-1-21_1200xx1430-804-0-19-XL.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Bainbridge-Avenues-Walk/i-LqxWtDv/0/02134d70/X3/7096815_Page_05-X3.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Bainbridge-Avenues-Walk/i-XjNX5wF/0/1082559b/X3/7096815_Page_06-X3.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Bainbridge-Avenues-Walk/i-zQwbBV2/0/1a91ca9f/X3/7096815_Page_07-X3.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Bainbridge-Avenues-Walk/i-T36d8pX/0/7dfdbe7e/X3/7096815_Page_08-X3.jpg)
This is a carbon copy of recently built apartment complexes that have been constructed all over the Southside. While having a bus stop within walking distance of the entrance to the long winding complex access drive is an amenity, that's not the driver of this project anymore than the railroad being a significant draw for Walmart to locate at Avenues Walk.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 09, 2021, 04:36:18 PM
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on March 09, 2021, 03:25:34 PM
^ I see a possible nearer-future of autonomous vehicles, just not JTA's. Rather, closer to today's cars/SUV's and shared, Uber-style. With the right algorithms to manage travel, we could increase efficiencies enough to provide an ROI that works for less dense cities like Jax while catering to the cultural demand for point to point travel embedded here.
Without investing billions in roadway infrastructure, signals, etc., you won't see this on a large scale. You'll likely see AVs that are still human operator controlled.....some of which is already out there. From a transit perspective, I still struggle to see what JTA is proposing, going mainstream. Restricting an AV the size of an SUV to fixed Skyway infrastructure and stops will only put that system at a competitive disadvantage against ride share. For it to be effective as mass transit, we'll need bigger vehicles. However, that's not necessarily a technology issue.
QuoteAside from flexibility, scalability and lower initial capital outlays, this solution could also be implemented on a much faster timeline by using existing infrastructure.
AV technology aside, what type of capacity vehicles /rolling stock are you talking about?
QuoteShared vehicles should also reduce the number of vehicles on the road, extending the capacity-life of said existing infrastructure.
I wouldn't count on this, at this point. Any true reduction vehicles on the road will happen later down the line. The technology has to become common amongst the general population or somewhat regulated by the government before that day comes.
Ennis, I think you are missing my point. I agree that JTA's plan is a waste of money and not the future.
I am talking about a consumer-"manged" Uber-style arrangement, not a JTA mass transit operated one, that would use vehicles essentially akin to today's personal autos/suvs/pickups. As such,these vehicles only carry your "party" (single to family/friends) at a time, not other unrelated people .
Implementation of intelligent transportation systems (ITS) is already underway and will only accelerate as the technology gets perfected and drops in price. ITS will be implemented even with today's vehicles so, at the margin, it won't be much of an additional cost over what is destined to get built. It's destiny because even human controlled vehicles will more and more play off of ITS platforms.
The end result will be evolutionary, incrementally moving from more human control to more autonomous control over a number of years as the technology expands and humans get more comfortable turning over their control to the technology. (Consider that planes are often flown on autopilot already - albeit with human oversight.).
I have never expected this to be quick, just quicker (and cheaper and more popular) than perhaps building a mass transit rail system (which, to be clear, I fully support if the AV option is not feasible or ultimately also saturates our existing infrastructure) in a city like Jacksonville.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on March 09, 2021, 04:55:54 PM
I have seen some articles (that I can't find right now) that predict that widespread use of AVs could increase vehicle miles traveled. There are two scenarios. First, if you own your AV, and are going to work at an office, you (it) would drive to the door of your office and you would get out and walk into your office. The AV would then go park itself. Since the site design would not have to accommodate you walking from your parked car to the office, the AV parking could be farther away. When you get ready to go home, you would summon your AV as you leave your desk, meeting it in front of your office. Here, the distance between your office door and the AV parking is "added miles" not currently driven. Now, the AV parking area may or may not require driving on public roads, but it will drive on some pavement that has to be maintained.
If you don't own the AV, and it has to come from some parking area, or off of another trip, before it picks you up in the morning or evening, these are even more "new" miles on the road.
Charles, I am envisioning "shared" vehicles where the vehicle moves from "ride" to "ride" and rarely stays idle, just as a taxi does. Basically, an automated Uber. It's why Uber also has interest in AV technology. On this basis, there are far less cars needed on the roads.
By example, lets say you commute from home to Downtown. Car drops you off. A couple of blocks over, an office worker needs to go to a doctor's appointment. Car goes a couple of blocks, picks them up and takes them to the doctor. Someone is leaving the doctor and needs to head home. Once in the patient's neighborhood, a neighbor needs to run to the grocery store.... and so on. Eliminates most "return trips" thus taking vehicles off the road. With thousands of requests at any given time, vehicles should be pretty efficient at reducing unnecessary mileage.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on March 09, 2021, 06:02:50 PM
Ennis, I think you are missing my point. I agree that JTA's plan is a waste of money and not the future.
I am talking about a consumer-"manged" Uber-style arrangement, not a JTA mass transit operated one, that would use vehicles essentially akin to today's personal autos/suvs/pickups. As such, these vehicles only carry your "party" (single to family/friends) at a time, not other unrelated people .
Got it! I don't see these happening any time soon
without a human attendant for a variety of reasons. But yes, a ride share situation would work much better than what JTA is proposing and would literally put JTA's current proposal out of business.
QuoteImplementation of intelligent transportation systems (ITS) is already underway and will only accelerate as the technology gets perfected and drops in price. ITS will be implemented even with today's vehicles so, at the margin, it won't be much of an additional cost over what is destined to get built. It's destiny because even human controlled vehicles will more and more play off of ITS platforms.
It's (a 100% driverless situation without a human attendant) not close to being anywhere on the streets in mass. We'll need to invest billions in our public infrastructure for that day to come. That's what I getting from the TSM&O guys intimately involved. Part of the appeal of JTA's plan is that it would basically be a pilot/test of these things in limited, but real life conditions. As of now, we still need to get them through a traffic signal safely.
QuoteThe end result will be evolutionary, incrementally moving from more human control to more autonomous control over a number of years as the technology expands and humans get more comfortable turning over their control to the technology. (Consider that planes are often flown on autopilot already - albeit with human oversight.).
I have never expected this to be quick, just quicker (and cheaper and more popular) than perhaps building a mass transit rail system (which, to be clear, I fully support if the AV option is not feasible or ultimately also saturates our existing infrastructure) in a city like Jacksonville.
Some fixed mass transit systems will go autonomous before anything large scale taking place in mixed traffic. The systems will need their own dedicated lanes or grade separated ROW. The most effective and reliable mass transit systems will need their own dedicated ROW/infrastructure regardless of what the technology happens to be. From that perspective, the general idea of retrofitting the Skyway is interesting, assuming the capacity of the system can actually move masses of people.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Transportation/Miscellaneous-Transit/i-PnRQLJ7/0/f2dbd8da/XL/file-20180924-129850-1dek0jy-XL.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Transportation/Miscellaneous-Transit/i-vvmhvxD/0/90e235e6/X2/171101-china-train-crrc-mn-1130_8bddefb0df9f4f3eb65468ba00861b29-X2.jpg)
Quote from: thelakelander on March 09, 2021, 05:16:58 PM
Here's the Bainbridge apartment development across from Walmart in Avenues Walk that JTA claims to be TOD.
This is a carbon copy of recently built apartment complexes that have been constructed all over the Southside. While having a bus stop within walking distance of the entrance to the long winding complex access drive is an amenity, that's not the driver of this project anymore than the railroad being a significant draw for Walmart to locate at Avenues Walk.
Oh. I see. Yeah, that looks a lot more like happenstance than anything else. I suppose the AVs would be useful as shuttles in that case.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 09, 2021, 06:32:58 PM
Some fixed mass transit systems will go autonomous before anything large scale taking place in mixed traffic. The systems will need their own dedicated lanes or grade separated ROW. The most effective and reliable mass transit systems will need their own dedicated ROW/infrastructure regardless of what the technology happens to be. From that perspective, the general idea of retrofitting the Skyway is interesting, assuming the capacity of the system can actually move masses of people.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Transportation/Miscellaneous-Transit/i-PnRQLJ7/0/f2dbd8da/XL/file-20180924-129850-1dek0jy-XL.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Transportation/Miscellaneous-Transit/i-vvmhvxD/0/90e235e6/X2/171101-china-train-crrc-mn-1130_8bddefb0df9f4f3eb65468ba00861b29-X2.jpg)
Oh yeah, I forgot about these. I'm struggling to remember what exactly the difference is between this and an articulated BRT system. I guess just the autonomy? You're still pretty much building roads for them, so it's not like you save much money on infrastructure.
^ Like LRT, streetcar, BRT, etc., the best hope for cost savings would be the retrofit of existing ROW and roadway infrastructure. Like repurposing a four lane road into two dedicated transit lanes and two lanes for automobiles and trucks. Mixing transit systems (that really need to move masses of people in a reliable and efficient manner) with regular traffic puts these systems at a disadvantage.
Realized what I said in another thread should probably also be here.
Article about a proposed gas tax increase. (https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2021/03/09/jacksonville-mayor-lenny-curry-considering-doubling-local-gas-tax/4634350001/)
QuoteJTA would direct its share of the gas tax money for transit projects such as modernization of the elevated Skyway structure in downtown, making hundreds of bus stops compliant with Americans with Disability Act standards, and putting in place the "complete streets" concept that designs road corridors for motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians and transit riders.
The single most costly JTA item involves the Skyway system of elevated tracks and stations in downtown. JTA wants to eventually retire the Skyway trains and replace them with smaller automated vehicles that would travel the elevated structure and at street level.
The list shows JTA would spend $378 million to rehabilitate that existing system and make it ready for autonomous vehicles while also expanding the Skyway network into the downtown area neighborhoods of Riverside and Five Points, the sports complex, the Springfield neighborhood and UF Health Jacksonville, San Marco, and a route into the Southside.
"The Skyway obviously had its challenges over the years, but it clearly is an asset for downtown going into the future if we're truly to develop downtown," Ford said.
Uh...
what? Isn't this like, double the cost of the entire existing system? The proposed system is something like 10 miles long, right? That makes AVs nearly $38 million per mile? Am I taking crazy pills, or are they?
Quote from: marcuscnelson on March 09, 2021, 08:44:19 PM
Realized what I said in another thread should probably also be here.
Article about a proposed gas tax increase. (https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2021/03/09/jacksonville-mayor-lenny-curry-considering-doubling-local-gas-tax/4634350001/)
QuoteJTA would direct its share of the gas tax money for transit projects such as modernization of the elevated Skyway structure in downtown, making hundreds of bus stops compliant with Americans with Disability Act standards, and putting in place the "complete streets" concept that designs road corridors for motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians and transit riders.
The single most costly JTA item involves the Skyway system of elevated tracks and stations in downtown. JTA wants to eventually retire the Skyway trains and replace them with smaller automated vehicles that would travel the elevated structure and at street level.
The list shows JTA would spend $378 million to rehabilitate that existing system and make it ready for autonomous vehicles while also expanding the Skyway network into the downtown area neighborhoods of Riverside and Five Points, the sports complex, the Springfield neighborhood and UF Health Jacksonville, San Marco, and a route into the Southside.
"The Skyway obviously had its challenges over the years, but it clearly is an asset for downtown going into the future if we're truly to develop downtown," Ford said.
Uh... what? Isn't this like, double the cost of the entire existing system? The proposed system is something like 10 miles long, right? That makes AVs nearly $38 million per mile? Am I taking crazy pills, or are they?
I think we need a better quote from JTA before jumping to any conclusions here. That whole sentence is rife with vagueness as to what that money is for.
I wouldn't be surprised if the cost for an AV conversion is well above the original cost of the Skyway. What they are proposing is unconventional and certainly not cheap or affordable.
Don't forget that part of going to a full U2C system on the elevated guideway and at-grade will require some way of getting the AVs from the elevated guideway down to ground level. That can't be cheap. If the U2C vehicles are designed to have standing passengers, I think that would limit the slope of the ramps between the skyway and the ground. Ramping down from Central Station to Bay Street will be difficult with the existing driveways along Bay and the closeness of Hogan and Laura Streets.
Its simply mind numbing to me that we are even still moving ahead with U2C. In what world, was this ever a viable project?
Converting the skyway as a track for unproven autonomous cars???? Really??? It is vaguely reminiscent of an old Mattel car and track set I played with as a child and about as useful for mass transportation.
^ Not only are we apparently still moving ahead, JTA is honest-to-God asking that we spend $378,840,000 (https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A6e32ee87-ec44-463d-b36f-18d8e018b80d#pageNum=4) on it.
In a way, this is actually worse than the original people-mover idea, because at least people-movers were a proven, working technology when JTA decided to build one. This literally does not exist as a production mass transit system in any other city on Earth, and they are asking for nearly $400 million for it.
It's the sheer audacity for me.
Pretty sure the locals only paid 25% of the original Skyway cost. Let's not forget that it was a federal demonstration project that we won.
^ Even better!
Quote from: marcuscnelson on March 10, 2021, 04:31:46 PM
^ Not only are we apparently still moving ahead, JTA is honest-to-God asking that we spend $378,840,000 (https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A6e32ee87-ec44-463d-b36f-18d8e018b80d#pageNum=4) on it.
In a way, this is actually worse than the original people-mover idea, because at least people-movers were a proven, working technology when JTA decided to build one. This literally does not exist as a production mass transit system in any other city on Earth, and they are asking for nearly $400 million for it.
It's the sheer audacity for me.
I wouldn't say that the original people mover project was a proven, working technology at the outset. As Ennis notes, it was a demonstration project.
I believe it has always been a maintenance headache on some level and the fact that it is no longer supported by the manufacturer tells you it wasn't so "proven."
It definitely hasn't been "proven" from the standpoint of the public using it* and it has only survived due to unplanned or optional revisions/additions, free fares (was supposed to be tolled) and subsidies far beyond other mass transit options along with using an overblown excuse that we might have to pay the Feds back a few million to kill it. It's clear it is far cheaper to kill it, even with the penalty (and I an not convinced that the Feds, politically, wouldn't cancel the penalty) than to continue the charade that it has any real value other than, as was set out originally, to demonstrate, in this case, that it is a failed concept.
*I know some will say it failed because it was not built to enough areas and/or the City/JTA failed to support it properly. I am not convinced. It never had anywhere near the ridership consultants promised for any phase of it. It never made sense to me that anyone would drive from the suburbs or take mass transit from the burbs and then offload to the Skyway for the last mile. The torture of commuting is in the 10 to 20 mile in, not the last mile. By then, you might as well go all the way to the finish line. And, as demonstrated, any expansions are just putting good money after bad. It is slow, uncomfortably cramped, low capacity (if large numbers want to use it, it couldn't handle it. Just trying using it after a Downtown event lets out.) and, again, far more expensive than alternatives.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on March 10, 2021, 06:19:51 PM
Quote from: marcuscnelson on March 10, 2021, 04:31:46 PM
^ Not only are we apparently still moving ahead, JTA is honest-to-God asking that we spend $378,840,000 (https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A6e32ee87-ec44-463d-b36f-18d8e018b80d#pageNum=4) on it.
In a way, this is actually worse than the original people-mover idea, because at least people-movers were a proven, working technology when JTA decided to build one. This literally does not exist as a production mass transit system in any other city on Earth, and they are asking for nearly $400 million for it.
It's the sheer audacity for me.
I wouldn't say that the original people mover project was a proven, working technology at the outset. As Ennis notes, it was a demonstration project.
It was a demonstration project in that it used peoplemover technology in urban conditions. Typically peoplemovers are used in places like airport terminals. Overall, other technologies like LRT, streetcar and buses were proven to be better solutions for urban conditions.
QuoteI believe it has always been a maintenance headache on some level and the fact that it is no longer supported by the manufacturer tells you it wasn't so "proven."
Definitely a challenge when you have something that is not used commonly. This could be a long term problem with the U2C as well. Because we're trying to force this on Skyway infrastructure, the type of AV vehicles used will always be limited by the constraints of the Skyway infrastructure. As time goes on, that could easily spawn into a maintenance and parts replacement problem.
QuoteIt definitely hasn't been "proven" from the standpoint of the public using it* and it has only survived due to unplanned or optional revisions/additions, free fares (was supposed to be tolled) and subsidies far beyond other mass transit options along with using an overblown excuse that we might have to pay the Feds back a few million to kill it. It's clear it is far cheaper to kill it, even with the penalty (and I an not convinced that the Feds, politically, wouldn't cancel the penalty) than to continue the charade that it has any real value other than, as was set out originally, to demonstrate, in this case, that it is a failed concept.
This is where I disagree from a transit technology perspective. Literally anything will fail if you do everything from a land use perspective to not support it. The Metromover (same technology) has attracted significantly higher ridership in South Florida because they've continued to build density around and even directly over it. Metrorail also feeds it with thousands of daily riders from suburban Miami-Dade County.
Jax has failed the Skyway, not the other way around. Downtown is a shell of itself, compared to what it was when the Skyway was originally proposed. If I were the feds, I wouldn't give Jax one red cent on any other form of transit until it makes right with what it already has. There are ways to significantly increase ridership and the value of the system. However, they have to do more with land use policy and investment more so than the type of transit technology.
Quote*I know some will say it failed because it was not built to enough areas and/or the City/JTA failed to support it properly. I am not convinced. It never had anywhere near the ridership consultants promised for any phase of it. It never made sense to me that anyone would drive from the suburbs or take mass transit from the burbs and then offload to the Skyway for the last mile. The torture of commuting is in the 10 to 20 mile in, not the last mile. By then, you might as well go all the way to the finish line.
From what I've seen, it was supposed to fed ridership from a citywide fixed transit system.....that was never built. The idea of suburbanites fighting congestion for 20 miles, only to park a few blocks from their destination and hop on the Skyway for a stop or two has never made any sense.
QuoteAnd, as demonstrated, any expansions are just putting good money after bad.
Brooklyn is an excellent expansion. It's a no frills solution that cost $1.2 million. They spend more than that with studies that never get implemented. Alone, it can probably generate as many additional riders as extending the system a mile into San Marco at the cost of $20-$30 million. Expanding to TIAA Bank Field as the U2C concept also makes little sense. That one will cost millions and even if successful, won't even be able to move large event crowds efficiently. So I think expansion can be good or bad, depending on the details. With this in mind, I fall in the camp of maximizing what's already in place before getting too crazy with expansion.
QuoteIt is slow, uncomfortably cramped, low capacity (if large numbers want to use it, it couldn't handle it. Just trying using it after a Downtown event lets out.) and, again, far more expensive than alternatives.
Lol, just wait to that U2C AV vehicle is blocking your car, traveling in front of you at a max speed of 12mph and only carrying a family of five. As a kid on a tricycle flies by you and that AV at Star Wars-style light speed, you'll think the Skyway was Chicago's El in comparison.
^ So Ennis, regardless of how we get there, when can we agree it is time to cut bait on the Skyway?
Of course, I say it is long overdue. To me, aside from the obvious costs, it also gives both Downtown and mass transit an ongoing black eye with the public. This gas tax proposal is about to greatly magnify that and just highlight to suburbanites that maybe Downtown isn't worth the investment if this is what we get for $380 million. As long as it runs, it also seems JTA feels compelled to support it at all costs, no matter how ridiculous it gets to be. Seems someone may need to make the decision for them (i.e if the Mayor and City Council said kill it, JTA would have a hard time saying no).
What would it take for you to come around to giving up on it?
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on March 10, 2021, 07:48:58 PM
^ So Ennis, regardless of how we get there, when can we agree it is time to cut bait on the Skyway?
I'd cut bait (or significantly modify) on the U2C, based on what I know so far. I wouldn't cut bait on the Skyway infrastructure though. I think there's a lot that can be done with it. However before doing anything, it's important to figure out what that downtown master plan is and then see what the best role mass transit can play in that picture.
QuoteWhat would it take for you to come around to giving up on it?
I would need to know that there is no other affordable options out there for some type of streetcar, tram or AV based system that can utilize the Skyway infrastructure, while also operating at ground level with equal or more capacity than the existing system. I'm not sold that other alternatives have been fully and thoroughly vetted.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 10, 2021, 07:57:51 PM
I'd cut bait (or significantly modify) on the U2C, based on what I know so far. I wouldn't cut bait on the Skyway infrastructure though. I think there's a lot that can be done with it. However before doing anything, it's important to figure out what that downtown master plan is and then see what the best role mass transit can play in that picture.
Problem is, the downtown master plan won't be ready until the fall, and from the sound of things the funding for this could be approved as soon as summer along with or before the budget cycle.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 10, 2021, 07:57:51 PM
I would need to know that there is no other affordable options out there for some type of streetcar, tram or AV based system that can utilize the Skyway infrastructure, while also operating at ground level with equal or more capacity than the existing system. I'm not sold that other alternatives have been fully and thoroughly vetted.
The big challenge here seems to be that it's unclear what the mentality or logic is among JTA executives that makes them so dedicated to AVs as a concept. We can go and look at the studies JTA itself conducted on replacing with streetcars or alternative technologies, but that won't mean much if the board and Nat Ford are really going to AVs or bust.
(You know this, Lake, but just to have them here) From 2014 to 2015 JTA procured multiple studies on the state of the Skyway.
Load factors on the guideways (https://www.jtafla.com/media/Documents/General/Skyway/6_draft_infrastructure_lrfr_report_111814/1004/6_draft_infrastructure_lrfr_report_111814.pdf) and Acosta (https://www.jtafla.com/media/Documents/General/Skyway/5_draft_infrastructure_sjr_bridge_lrfr_report_052015/1002/5_draft_infrastructure_sjr_bridge_lrfr_report_052015.pdf), conditions of the infrastructure (https://www.jtafla.com/media/Documents/General/Skyway/4_draft_infrastructure_existing_conditions_report_111814/1005/4_draft_infrastructure_existing_conditions_report_111814.pdf), the potential for overhauling (https://www.jtafla.com/media/Documents/General/Skyway/2_draft_mid-life_overhaul_report_111814/1007/2_draft_mid-life_overhaul_report_111814.pdf) the system, and assessing the potential for replacement (https://www.jtafla.com/media/Documents/General/Skyway/1_draft_skyway_technology_assessment_report_082015/1001/1_draft_skyway_technology_assessment_report_082015.pdf).
So the $378 million dollar question is, how did we get here? And how can we get out, if that's still possible?
Quote from: marcuscnelson on March 10, 2021, 09:28:16 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on March 10, 2021, 07:57:51 PM
I'd cut bait (or significantly modify) on the U2C, based on what I know so far. I wouldn't cut bait on the Skyway infrastructure though. I think there's a lot that can be done with it. However before doing anything, it's important to figure out what that downtown master plan is and then see what the best role mass transit can play in that picture.
Problem is, the downtown master plan won't be ready until the fall, and from the sound of things the funding for this could be approved as soon as summer along with or before the budget cycle.
That's the tale of Jax and why things end up being so screwed up. Although if approved now, it doesn't mean work starts right a way for something that can't be built at this point. 20 years ago, taxpayers approved $100 million for ROW for a rapid transit system. Out of that, we got nothing.
QuoteQuote from: thelakelander on March 10, 2021, 07:57:51 PM
I would need to know that there is no other affordable options out there for some type of streetcar, tram or AV based system that can utilize the Skyway infrastructure, while also operating at ground level with equal or more capacity than the existing system. I'm not sold that other alternatives have been fully and thoroughly vetted.
The big challenge here seems to be that it's unclear what the mentality or logic is among JTA executives that makes them so dedicated to AVs as a concept. We can go and look at the studies JTA itself conducted on replacing with streetcars or alternative technologies, but that won't mean much if the board and Nat Ford are really going to AVs or bust.
It's not the first time. They were going bonkers for their original BRT and JRTC plan 20 years ago as well. Both eventually got the plug pulled and revamped into more realistic products. I suspect the same will happen with the U2C as well. Just hoping it happens before we blow through $400 million on something that won't even reach the Eastside or Durkeeville.
I'd also say, that the Skyway's name and current concept has been poison for 30 years locally. The idea of innovation and the transportation engineering and planning industry's wet dreams about AV technology were things that presented a much better image than the hulking and expensive system we have today. The JTA board was very favorable towards further exploration back then, so it's not totally out of the blue to see Ford and the JTA staff take the direction they have in recent years.
The challenge isn't the technology, which most seem to make it to be. It's the common sense things that generally go overlooked with mass transit. Coordinating land use policy (we clearly don't have this yet and it's not JTA's fault) with the transit infrastructure investment. For example, if we have no idea of what and where we want to be 20 years from now, then how can we logically select and invest in a transit system that will properly serve this future population? It's figuring out how to secure dedicated transit ROW, regardless of the desired technology and realizing that not mixing things in with regular auto traffic is a good thing, in terms of capacity and system reliability.
Quote(You know this, Lake, but just to have them here) From 2014 to 2015 JTA procured multiple studies on the state of the Skyway.
Load factors on the guideways (https://www.jtafla.com/media/Documents/General/Skyway/6_draft_infrastructure_lrfr_report_111814/1004/6_draft_infrastructure_lrfr_report_111814.pdf) and Acosta (https://www.jtafla.com/media/Documents/General/Skyway/5_draft_infrastructure_sjr_bridge_lrfr_report_052015/1002/5_draft_infrastructure_sjr_bridge_lrfr_report_052015.pdf), conditions of the infrastructure (https://www.jtafla.com/media/Documents/General/Skyway/4_draft_infrastructure_existing_conditions_report_111814/1005/4_draft_infrastructure_existing_conditions_report_111814.pdf), the potential for overhauling (https://www.jtafla.com/media/Documents/General/Skyway/2_draft_mid-life_overhaul_report_111814/1007/2_draft_mid-life_overhaul_report_111814.pdf) the system, and assessing the potential for replacement (https://www.jtafla.com/media/Documents/General/Skyway/1_draft_skyway_technology_assessment_report_082015/1001/1_draft_skyway_technology_assessment_report_082015.pdf).
So the $378 million dollar question is, how did we get here? And how can we get out, if that's still possible?
We got there through a situation where a desired technology was selected before thorough vetting and inclusive public participation. I recall many here were for the option to retrofit and expand the Skyway at street level. However, people didn't beg or ask for a solution that carries less than the Skyway does today or one that costs twice as much as what was sold to the public in 2014.
There's a few ways to get out. 1) It can turn out that what's dreamed, can't be done and the plan is modified (ex. like what happened with the JTA Flyer and JRTC). 2) Spending $400 million on the Skyway causes significant public push back on the funding proposal, causing the allocation to change (ex. this happened with getting the first Mobility Plan and Fee passed a decade ago). 3) We blow a bunch of money on Bay Street and figure out it isn't what we thought it would be, so we abandoned the rest of the plans (ex. the original Skyway plan going up in smoke). 4) By the time we implement, answers to the biggest obstacles are found, making the plan more realistic and feasible.
At this point, all four options are still open.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 10, 2021, 07:57:51 PM
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on March 10, 2021, 07:48:58 PM
^ So Ennis, regardless of how we get there, when can we agree it is time to cut bait on the Skyway?
I'd cut bait (or significantly modify) on the U2C, based on what I know so far. I wouldn't cut bait on the Skyway infrastructure though. I think there's a lot that can be done with it. However before doing anything, it's important to figure out what that downtown master plan is and then see what the best role mass transit can play in that picture.
QuoteWhat would it take for you to come around to giving up on it?
I would need to know that there is no other affordable options out there for some type of streetcar, tram or AV based system that can utilize the Skyway infrastructure, while also operating at ground level with equal or more capacity than the existing system. I'm not sold that other alternatives have been fully and thoroughly vetted.
I know you did a lot of work on some of this years ago in some threads and stories. Might be time to dig a lot of it up on what would be able to work on the current infrastructure.
I'm planning to sit down with Nat Ford and hear him out on the U2C. I'll also give him my concerns about the proposal, which have little to do with switching to AV technology and more to do with the non sexy things that can make or break any type of transit system.
Can you also ask about making sure the reconstruction of the current system allows for larger vehicles to be used as AV technology develops? We don't want to be stuck with the 1st generation of this technology without a way to upgrade easily.
Of course! That's probably my biggest gripe. In no way do you want to spend that much money on something that could be obsolete by the time it's built.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 11, 2021, 03:16:23 PM
I'm planning to sit down with Nat Ford and hear him out on the U2C. I'll also give him my concerns about the proposal, which have little to do with switching to AV technology and more to do with the non sexy things that can make or break any type of transit system.
Please ask Mr. Ford (1) on what projection/analysis is JTA is relying on to justify this project (upfront costs, operating costs, usage projections, lifespan/obsolescence projections, competitive market, risk factors, etc.) and will the public be able to see that to see if it has any holes in it (just like the Jags and JEA were asked for their financial projections) and (2) what alternatives to this project were looked at and why they were not more viable.
Would also like to know how he thinks he is going to sell this to a skeptical public? Are we going to get a PR campaign like JEA mounted?
JTA put out a video about the history of the Skyway:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZttIaaNdBM8
A few things I'm unclear about based on it.
- How much would expanding it to at least most of the places discussed (Sports Complex, Springfield in some way, Riverside) actually cost using an improved monorail system? They've repeatedly said it would be too expensive, but surely that assumes they actually ran cost estimates on it? I don't see how new cars and extra track alone (without the cost of having to completely redesign the existing stations that U2C will require) could cost more than $378 million.
- If we'd no longer be operating a people-mover system, and instead hosting an elevated road for autonomous vehicles, why would we not have to pay back the federal government anyway? Is that payback only for the concrete pillars and guideway? How much would that actually be, anyway? There seems to be a weird trend here of "trust us the other way is really expensive and we shouldn't do it" with little proof of how exactly that's the case.
- Declaring "the future has finally arrived" seems a little premature, or is it just me? Somehow it's supposed to take 5-7 years for an actual full system to be operational, after already spending 4 years working on it.
- Maybe I'm just a pessimist, but I still can't help but seriously wonder if this is the time, and downtown Jacksonville is the place, for residents and visitors to serve as guinea pigs for an autonomous vehicle network. We're still struggling to get so many fundamentals right, but we're going to be the world's first city to use these in mixed traffic revenue service? Are we sure?
Quote from: marcuscnelson on March 26, 2021, 12:58:47 PM
JTA put out a video about the history of the Skyway:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZttIaaNdBM8
A few things I'm unclear about based on it.
- How much would expanding it to at least most of the places discussed (Sports Complex, Springfield in some way, Riverside) actually cost using an improved monorail system? They've repeatedly said it would be too expensive, but surely that assumes they actually ran cost estimates on it? I don't see how new cars and extra track alone (without the cost of having to completely redesign the existing stations that U2C will require) could cost more than $378 million.
- If we'd no longer be operating a people-mover system, and instead hosting an elevated road for autonomous vehicles, why would we not have to pay back the federal government anyway? Is that payback only for the concrete pillars and guideway? How much would that actually be, anyway? There seems to be a weird trend here of "trust us the other way is really expensive and we shouldn't do it" with little proof of how exactly that's the case.
- Declaring "the future has finally arrived" seems a little premature, or is it just me? Somehow it's supposed to take 5-7 years for an actual full system to be operational, after already spending 4 years working on it.
- Maybe I'm just a pessimist, but I still can't help but seriously wonder if this is the time, and downtown Jacksonville is the place, for residents and visitors to serve as guinea pigs for an autonomous vehicle network. We're still struggling to get so many fundamentals right, but we're going to be the world's first city to use these in mixed traffic revenue service? Are we sure?
Watching the video, consider the source. Increased ridership cited? They failed to say they had to make it free to get that bump. Citizens advisory committee? Likely stacked to favor JTA's desires. Why is it that a majority of the "citizens" in this town want it killed but JTA committees and surveys show otherwise? Come on.
Interestingly, JTA admits in the video they looked at killing the Skyway and giving Uncle Sam "millions" back or converting it to a pedestrian walkway (see the Highline in NYC). Both would be a fraction of the cost of the $372 million (plus the typcial cost overruns of millions more these projects often encounter) "solution" they have now come up with. Then, you look at the AV's and see they are even smaller than the already too-small Skyway cars and run just as slow and you have to wonder where is the real improvement here? You can run the system to California but if it doesn't satisfy users if it isn't going to get used.
And, the nod to Downtown losing lots of workers as a reason the passenger numbers fell short ignores the inherent shortcomings of the technology. Further, I don't see where Downtown is on the way to getting those numbers of workers back anytime soon. So, why will things be different now? The residential numbers pale in comparison to over "100,000 workers" cited in the video at one time.
The Skyway proponents continue to whitewash this white elephant as evidenced by this type of PR. The fact that they have to go to these extremes is evidence of the continued uphill battle they have to fight to justify this project. Grabbing at straws.
^ At least personally, I'm generally in favor of keeping the Skyway, but that assumes we're using cost-effective, proven technologies to provide car-free public transit, not to experiment with technology that billion-dollar companies haven't figured out yet. If we're really going to play amateur hour, then we might as well toss the mess. I'm still thinking about the idea I had in another thread:
Quote from: marcuscnelson on March 18, 2021, 11:08:16 PM
^ Removed is maybe a strong word, I imagine they're not going to cut two cents from the gas tax. And I'm not 100% opposed to using a little bit of the money to play with the technology. But for $378 million they could do a lot of other stuff that would likely be more impactful than the world's first urban self-driving taxi network.
If it were up to me, with my amateur opinion, I'd say use it like so (some of these numbers are probably larger or smaller than they actually would be):
- ~$40 million to build an Amtrak terminal per this (https://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2010-jul-bringing-amtrak-to-downtown-jacksonville-inexpensively), perhaps with support from this (https://www.greatamericanstations.com/) program if possible. Make sure it's ready for the obvious possibility of Brightline coming to town. Ideally somewhere along the way we'd have figured out a convention center solution.
- ~$20 million to overhaul the existing Skyway (which JTA already seems to be doing). Just to get another 10-15 years out of the existing system. This might actually be budgeted somewhere else already.
- ~200 million to build streetcar extensions into the areas already planned for U2C. Long-term, I'd seek to either use vehicles capable of using the Skyway guideways or eventually just demolishing them in favor of the streetcar, assuming that's another ~$25 million (the cost of actually building the streetcar connectors would have to come from somewhere else). Since we don't actually know how much the federal government would want, I'm not including it in these numbers.
- ~$15 million on establishing a RiverLink (https://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php?topic=36698.0) between Orange Park Mall and Avenues Walk. (I'd like to think this is too much, I'm just not sure.)
- ~$30 million to establish BRT (or just better bus service) to places we haven't historically connected, like the beaches via JTB or on Southside Blvd.
- ~$51 million (the remainder) on further AV development, in hopes of it eventually serving as a circulator for places we wouldn't traditionally build heavier transit services in, like master planned communities or college campuses. I've always thought they would be a great replacement for safe rides if they can figure out traffic and pedestrians.
So I'm confused about exactly what the end result/goal is - especially as it applies to the autonomous vehicles. When they talk about expanding from 2.5 miles to 10, how much of that includes the actual skyway? And, taking the stadium leg for example, would they ultimately leverage the train at street level? Are they looking to extend elevated tracks anywhere? Would love to see what this thing looks like with the middle cars added in too......
JTA coming out and stating new gas tax money is going to skyway is NOT how you get Duval County citizenry behind the tax.
Quote from: blizz01 on March 26, 2021, 04:49:21 PM
So I'm confused about exactly what the end result/goal is - especially as it applies to the autonomous vehicles. When they talk about expanding from 2.5 miles to 10, how much of that includes the actual skyway? And, taking the stadium leg for example, would they ultimately leverage the train at street level? Are they looking to extend elevated tracks anywhere? Would love to see what this thing looks like with the middle cars added in too......
For something they're now asking for the neighborhood of half a billion dollars for, they've been surprisingly mum on details of how
exactly this is all supposed to work. Part of that seems to be that they haven't actually designed the system yet, which seems to be what their chosen contractor for the Bay Street corridor is supposed to do.
The idea is that eventually the 2.5 mile Skyway is going to be converted to support autonomous vehicles, plus an additional 7.5 miles of roadway... adapted, I guess? to serve as mixed traffic guideways at street level. Somewhere along the way there are going to be ramps from the old elevated guideway to street level. In the end, the old monorail will be gone, replaced entirely with the pods. There would be no additional elevated tracks.
I just watched the video and went one step further to measure the length of the proposed segments. At best, everything adds up to 8 miles, without the bridge over the St. Johns, which isn't remotely feasible and can't be done within the $378 million figure. So we're really talking about 8 miles at $378 million or close to $50 million per mile. That's an insane price to pay for an affordable option.
Quote from: blizz01 on March 26, 2021, 04:49:21 PM
So I'm confused about exactly what the end result/goal is - especially as it applies to the autonomous vehicles. When they talk about expanding from 2.5 miles to 10, how much of that includes the actual skyway? And, taking the stadium leg for example, would they ultimately leverage the train at street level? Are they looking to extend elevated tracks anywhere? Would love to see what this thing looks like with the middle cars added in too......
Blizz, if you go back over multiple threads here you will find many details about this.
In short, all extensions beyond the 2.5 miles of the current elevated system essentially entail ramps (or elevators - can you imagine that?!) off the existing elevated portions to grade where the autonomous vehicles will continue their journey. If you watch the video link posted earlier in this thread, you will see just how small and slow these vehicles are. Further, I haven't seen any evidence that multiple AV's can be "chained" together so don't expect "middle" anything.
Aside from the outrageous $372 million JTA thinks (expect overruns) it will take to convert the existing system to AV's, the AV's duplicate many of the issues of the existing Skyway: Carries very few passengers, moves slowly and utilizes unproven technology that may be years before being perfected. Keep in mind, Google, Uber, Tesla and others have spent years and billions of dollars getting this right so don't expect JTA to figure this out anytime soon.
Further, what JTA will end up with is a system that will have Uber, Lyft and other private-sector AV's as viable and likely better options to compete with.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on March 26, 2021, 06:01:42 PM
Quote from: blizz01 on March 26, 2021, 04:49:21 PM
So I'm confused about exactly what the end result/goal is - especially as it applies to the autonomous vehicles. When they talk about expanding from 2.5 miles to 10, how much of that includes the actual skyway? And, taking the stadium leg for example, would they ultimately leverage the train at street level? Are they looking to extend elevated tracks anywhere? Would love to see what this thing looks like with the middle cars added in too......
For something they're now asking for the neighborhood of half a billion dollars for, they've been surprisingly mum on details of how exactly this is all supposed to work. Part of that seems to be that they haven't actually designed the system yet, which seems to be what their chosen contractor for the Bay Street corridor is supposed to do.
They likely don't know. The contractor will probably have to attempt to figure it out. However, some of the links are super challenging. For example, how are you dropping down to grade at San Marco Station and getting into San Marco on San Marco Boulevard. An elevator is not a realistic option (if capacity is important) and crossing the FEC at grade and in mixed traffic doesn't sound really viable either.
QuoteThe idea is that eventually the 2.5 mile Skyway is going to be converted to support autonomous vehicles, plus an additional 7.5 miles of roadway... adapted, I guess? to serve as mixed traffic guideways at street level. Somewhere along the way there are going to be ramps from the old elevated guideway to street level. In the end, the old monorail will be gone, replaced entirely with the pods. There would be no additional elevated tracks.
From Kings Avenue Station to Atlantic Boulevard would need to be elevated, at least until you get over the FEC tracks. No way, the railroad is letting these plastic things cross at-grade.
Thanks for the detailed response. Regarding middle cars, I suppose I meant monorail coaches as I was thinking about how the current setup is basically the front and rear only.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on March 26, 2021, 06:11:35 PM
Further, what JTA will end up with is a system that will have Uber, Lyft and other private-sector AV's as viable and likely better options to compete with.
What you describe is a potential issue of forcing a square peg into a round hole. If we're going with personal vehicle sized AVs with elevators, we've lost the ability for the Skyway to move masses of people efficiently. Instead, we've turned it into some publicly operated rideshare service. At that point, the fixed Skyway infrastructure and slow speeds become a detriment. Uber, Lyft, etc. will make the $378 million project obsolete before its complete.
Quote from: blizz01 on March 26, 2021, 06:16:28 PM
Thanks for the detailed response. Regarding middle cars, I suppose I meant monorail coaches as I was thinking about how the current setup is basically the front and rear only.
They don't want to keep it a monorail. I don't this option has seriously been explored. Revisiting it may show that it is a cheaper option, although it is also an option that won't be feasible for extension to Riverside and Springfield.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 26, 2021, 06:23:40 PM
Quote from: blizz01 on March 26, 2021, 06:16:28 PM
Thanks for the detailed response. Regarding middle cars, I suppose I meant monorail coaches as I was thinking about how the current setup is basically the front and rear only.
They don't want to keep it a monorail. I don't this option has seriously been explored. Revisiting it may show that it is a cheaper option, although it is also an option that won't be feasible for extension to Riverside and Springfield.
If I remember right, the manufacturers didn't want to support a monorail-based system. The real alternative would be a conversion to a typical APM system, like at airports, Metromover, Detroit, etc., that has broad usage. That'd require the removal of the monorail guideway.
^ I wonder why, monorails still seem pretty common. And funnily enough, they definitely looked at APMs at some point, there are still reports and powerpoint slides out there with renderings of the APM tracks on the guideway structures, and discussions of the Metromover. Yet for whatever reason JTA decided they wanted to be Uber instead.
Maybe this is a stupid question, but they really didn't think through the challenge of potential future extensions to places that weren't big fans of elevated guideways? Obviously it was probably too early to consider regular old streetcars again, but that seems like a big oversight, especially seeing as they expected it to connect to a rapid transit system.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on March 28, 2021, 01:02:22 AM
^ I wonder why, monorails still seem pretty common. And funnily enough, they definitely looked at APMs at some point, there are still reports and powerpoint slides out there with renderings of the APM tracks on the guideway structures, and discussions of the Metromover. Yet for whatever reason JTA decided they wanted to be Uber instead.
They didn't go APM because you can't run an APM system at grade. Riverside and Springfield are two neighborhoods they want to extend the system too. Both would likely oppose an elevated transit system penetrating their historic districts.
QuoteMaybe this is a stupid question, but they really didn't think through the challenge of potential future extensions to places that weren't big fans of elevated guideways? Obviously it was probably too early to consider regular old streetcars again, but that seems like a big oversight, especially seeing as they expected it to connect to a rapid transit system.
Streetcars were not seriously evaluated by JTA back then. Basically one version of a streetcar was selected for that study and it was well known the vehicle selected could not operate on the existing Skyway infrastructure.
^ First quote kinda leads into the second quote. My point was that rather than more seriously study actual alternatives they just jumped to "become Uber" when AV technology was even more undeveloped than it is now. Clearly there's a reason no one else is just running these things in mixed traffic everywhere. And again, it's pretty bonkers that of all places, Jacksonville is supposed to be the first.
Re: streetcars, I meant when they originally devised the system in the 70s and 80s. I guess the point was getting the UMTA money, but still, weird UMTA didn't seem to consider that as a possible issue. But even now, I wonder if there's a way to demonstrate that the public probably doesn't want to pour half a billion dollars into pod cars, and argue for at least considering a different distribution of the money. Obviously I'm happy to offer one (https://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,36131.msg510101.html#msg510101), but in general it seems reasonable that this kind of mistake should be preventable, even if we only have a few months to make a case for it.
UMTA did fund streetcar, heavy rail and LRT in other communities. The Skyway was specifically a demonstration project funded by UMTA to see if that particular type of technology could be effective within congested urbanized settings. Jax competed with cities nationwide and was one of the three cities to win. If Jax wanted to consider a streetcar, then they would have had to pursue a different program and funding strategy and let the APM demonstration project money go to another community.
In the original "Downtown People Mover" UMTA Demonstration Project, the vehicles were APMs. It was converted to monorail when the Southbank extension was built. That is a big reason the guideway is as big as it is, instead of just the slim guide-beam like the Disney monorails - it carried bus-like vehicles.
According to this (https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2021/03/29/proposed-jacksonville-gas-tax-increase-puts-spotlight-skyways-future/7013223002/), demolishing the existing system and paying back the feds would cost about $92 million.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on March 18, 2021, 11:08:16 PM
For $378 million they could do a lot of other stuff that would likely be more impactful than the world's first urban self-driving taxi network.
If it were up to me, with my amateur opinion, I'd say use it like so (figures are estimates):
- ~$15 million to build an Amtrak terminal per this (https://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2010-jul-bringing-amtrak-to-downtown-jacksonville-inexpensively), perhaps with support from this (https://www.greatamericanstations.com/) program if possible. Make sure it's ready for the obvious possibility of Brightline coming to town, and prepared to support infill and complementary uses. Ideally somewhere along the way we'd have figured out a convention center solution.
- Optional~$20 million to overhaul the existing Skyway (which JTA already seems to be doing). Just to get another 10-15 years out of the existing system. This might actually be budgeted somewhere else already, and as such I am not including it in this figure.
- ~190 million to build streetcar extensions into the areas already planned for U2C. This is based on the Technology Assessment Report (https://www.jtafla.com/media/Documents/General/Skyway/1_draft_skyway_technology_assessment_report_082015/1001/1_draft_skyway_technology_assessment_report_082015.pdf), assuming a $30 million per mile cost and requiring the use of existing Acosta bridge lanes for the vehicles. For the purpose of this estimate, I assume the existing system would be demolished.
- ~$92 million to demolish the existing Skyway system and pay back the federal government.
- ~$10 million on establishing a RiverLink/I-295 Express Bus (https://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php?topic=36698.0) between Orange Park Mall and Avenues Walk. (I'd like to think this is too much, I'm just not sure.)
- ~$25 million to establish BRT (or just implement improved bus service) in new corridors, such as the beaches via JTB or on Southside Blvd.
- ~$46 million (the remainder) on further AV development, in hopes of it eventually serving as a circulator for places we wouldn't traditionally build heavier transit services in, like master planned communities or college campuses. Seeing the potential for private sector competition in the AV space, it'd be important to distinguish JTA AVs as providing unique public transit services that the private sector can't or won't provide. I've always thought they would be a great replacement for safe rides in colleges if they can figure out traffic and pedestrians.
QuoteAccording to this, demolishing the existing system and paying back the feds would cost about $92 million.
If Sen. Nelson or some other Congressman with some heft were representing NE FL then you could probably negotiate that figure down by 10-20 million. Even if JAX had to pay the full $92 million, it should be seriously considered. The 'experiment' failed and it needs to be shut down, IMO.
I don't know what kind of pull Lawson or Rutherford has for that. Meanwhile JTA keeps fearmongering about how returning this money would somehow make them less likely to win federal money in the future. Not sure how desperately attempting to make something that isn't working work accomplishes that, but clearly they're trying.
And CM Cumber is the first (besides Rory Diamond, who just refuses to consider changing taxes at all) to publicly stand in opposition.
Quote"To spend more money on a system that has never worked since (opening) and was a pilot program is astonishing to me, to be honest with you," she said. "The idea that 40 percent of the proposed gas tax increase is going to this system, I don't understand it."
She said it would be better to pay the one-time cost for tearing down the elevated structure and use the hundreds of millions of dollars of proposed Skyway spending for other transportation projects like the bus system, sidewalks, bike lanes and road work.