An underlying theme for many items discussed on The Jaxson is the lack of City funding to pay for them.
Using this column this week by former Mayor Delaney and Jeanne Miller on behalf of the Jacksonville Civic Council to jump start a discussion on this issue.
Emphasis added.https://www.jacksonville.com/story/opinion/2021/03/07/guest-column-time-comprehensive-public-finance-solution/4595876001/ (https://www.jacksonville.com/story/opinion/2021/03/07/guest-column-time-comprehensive-public-finance-solution/4595876001/)
QuoteOPINION
Guest column: Time for a comprehensive public finance solution
Your turn
John Delaney and Jeanne M. Miller
With a host of advantages from climate and location to arts, culture, sports and recreation, Jacksonville is poised to realize its promise as one of the South's great cities. A major impediment, however, is the city's lack of an adequate and sustainable public funding structure.
Whenever Jacksonville's future is discussed, funding is the elephant in the room. The city's chronic capital and operational shortfalls have factored into countless issues of public debate, including education and public pension reform. That is why the Jacksonville Civic Council, a nonpartisan group of business and nonprofit CEOs focused on Jacksonville's success, has made strengthening Jacksonville's public finance structure a major focus of its strategic plan.
In a November 2019 letter to the Jacksonville City Council, JCC identified Jacksonville's need for revenue as a precipitating factor in the attempted sale of JEA. JCC also requested that the City Council initiate a "thorough, transparent process" to identify the city's financial requirements and determine how to meet them in a sustainable manner. Although that process has yet to take place, City Hall is still the appropriate place to convene it -- and our elected officials are the right people to lead the conversation.
The Civic Council has powerful data to contribute. In 2018, JCC collaborated with researchers at Jacksonville University and the University of North Florida to conduct a fiscal analysis of Duval County and comparable Florida cities and counties. Updated annually, the JCC-JU-UNF study revealed that Jacksonville has the lowest property tax rates and lowest property tax revenues of its peer cities. It also showed that while comparable Florida communities enjoy significant supplemental revenue from impact and other fees, as well as special taxing districts, Jacksonville receives little in the way of additional income except a dividend from owning JEA.
The combination of lower property rates, lower property values than peer cities, and a lack of alternative revenue sources leaves Jacksonville seriously underfunded. The city spends less per capita on municipal services than its comparable communities, negatively affecting law enforcement, public safety, landscaping, libraries, parks, downtown, the arts and more. Jacksonville typically spends less on public infrastructure as well, leading to a backlog of pressing capital needs such as septic tank removal and drainage improvements.
As we seek a fair and comprehensive solution to the city's finance woes, there is reason for hope. Conventional wisdom has always held that tax and fee increases would be rejected by Duval County residents. But over the past 45 years, our citizens have repeatedly shown their willingness to invest in Jacksonville at the ballot box, approving six of seven sales tax initiatives to meet infrastructure and education needs, with the seventh failing by a very slim margin.
Clearly, our citizens are ready to provide for local government when the case is presented in a way that makes sense. Now, it is up to our leaders to identify the city's needs, make the case for funding them, and put Jacksonville on the path to a financially sustainable future.
John Delaney, Chairman, Jacksonville Civic Council
Jeanne M. Miller, President & CEO, Jacksonville Civic Council
An hour ago Nate Monroe tweeted (https://twitter.com/natemonroetu/status/1369409071833550849?s=21) about a plan by Mayor Curry and other city leaders to double the gas tax in order to fund $1b in infrastructure and public works.
3 cents would go to City Hall, the other 3 to JTA. The City is planning $300m in road projects over the next five years. There will be a story about it in the coming days.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on March 09, 2021, 06:28:58 PM
An hour ago Nate Monroe tweeted (https://twitter.com/natemonroetu/status/1369409071833550849?s=21) about a plan by Mayor Curry and other city leaders to double the gas tax in order to fund $1b in infrastructure and public works.
3 cents would go to City Hall, the other 3 to JTA. The City is planning $300m in road projects over the next five years. There will be a story about it in the coming days.
Subject to more details, maybe the Mayor finally got one right (as they say, even a blind pig finds acorns once in a while :) ). I have always thought raising gas taxes was appropriate for several reasons and wondered why we don't do it more often:
1. Puts burden of roadway costs on the users and may encourage them to consider mass transit or other more efficient modes of transit.
2. By increasing the cost of commuting, encourages more density and less urban sprawl.
3. The more expensive gas is the more frugal users will be using it. This drives more development of, or transition to, more efficient vehicles and encourages less driving which, in turn, reduces greenhouse gases and reduces other impacts on the environment in furtherance of dealing with climate change. It also reduces the need to rip up our environment in the name of oil extraction and delivery.
4. Less driving may also mean less road maintenance expense and infrastructure spending, particularly expanding or building more roads.
5. And, by encouraging less demand for oil, it reduces dependency on foreign countries, improves our trade balance and reduces revenues supporting those we deem our enemies, human rights violators and/or unreliable partners (Russian, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Venezuela, etc.).
Pending the details, I have no complaints about raising the gas tax to fund local projects. We can't squeeze blood out of a turnip. So if we want more, we'll need to find ways to locally finance local dream projects.
Someone also mentioned on Twitter that odds are, we may only have anther decade or so of being able to effectively use the gas tax before EV adoption demands a transition to some other sort of user fee for roadway use, so it's a good time to make the most of it.
I'm especially curious what exactly JTA would use their share for. Half a billion could go a long way for mass transit, or they could somehow spend it all to add another lane to JTB.
There's also the $2-4 trillion infrastructure bill that could pass later this year that attention is beginning to turn to, now that the American Rescue Plan is almost certainly on its way to the President's desk. Between Lawson, Rutherford, and perhaps Cammack, there's a chance we could get something out of that if we make a decent case for it. I'd like to think Rubio and Scott would acquiesce, although in Scott's case it's possible he'd demand cuts to anything that isn't the Jax-Tampa expressway.
An article is out now. (https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2021/03/09/jacksonville-mayor-lenny-curry-considering-doubling-local-gas-tax/4634350001/)
QuoteJacksonville Mayor Lenny Curry and the Jacksonville Transportation Authority have been meeting with City Council members about a possible increase and extension of the local gas tax that would pay for a $930 million list of transportation projects.
Apparently this increase would generate $1.08 billion over about thirty years, $539 million for each group. Personally, I doubt that number, again seeing as EV adoption will likely pick up during that time and begin reducing gas tax income.
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?
^ It's multiple times the original cost of the system. This is a huge waste of resources as the ROI will be very small if not negative. It will fail both because the Skyway has never produced due to numerous design and operating cost issues and, as discussed often here, the JTA version of AV is nonstarter. Adding the two together will get you a great big minus.
For a fraction of that money we could abandon the Skyway and tear it down (see Mayor Curry, he knows how to get that done!)/make it into the Jacksonville version of NYC's Highline and start over with trolleys or most anything else in mass transit, dedicated bike/pedestrian ways, 2 way streets, road diets, road maintenance/upgrades in the NW quadrant, etc. It's time to spread these dollars out and not concentrate them in a single proven boondoggle that, at best, will never serve a decent percentage of the population.
Next, we will find out a chunk of the proceeds are for Khan's projects. I hope this is not a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Did I miss it? The article refers to lists of projects from the City and JTA, but I didn't see a link to them.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on March 09, 2021, 06:59:18 PM
Subject to more details, maybe the Mayor finally got one right (as they say, even a blind pig finds acorns once in a while :) ). I have always thought raising gas taxes was appropriate for several reasons and wondered why we don't do it more often:
1. Puts burden of roadway costs on the users and may encourage them to consider mass transit or other more efficient modes of transit.
2. By increasing the cost of commuting, encourages more density and less urban sprawl.
3. The more expensive gas is the more frugal users will be using it. This drives more development of, or transition to, more efficient vehicles and encourages less driving which, in turn, reduces greenhouse gases and reduces other impacts on the environment in furtherance of dealing with climate change. It also reduces the need to rip up our environment in the name of oil extraction and delivery.
4. Less driving may also mean less road maintenance expense and infrastructure spending, particularly expanding or building more roads.
5. And, by encouraging less demand for oil, it reduces dependency on foreign countries, improves our trade balance and reduces revenues supporting those we deem our enemies, human rights violators and/or unreliable partners (Russian, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Venezuela, etc.).
I agree with your first point.
The rest, not so much. A six-cent gas tax increase is less than a 3% increase per gallon at today's gas prices, and will likely be an increasingly smaller percentage over the life of the tax. The pump price goes up and down that much frequently. Not enough of an increase to foster wholesale changes in commuting behavior, especially with the lack of alternatives in Jacksonville. A caveat to that statement is if JTA uses its three cents to truly improve transit - and that doesn't include sedan-sized AVs in mixed traffic. Also, IF the gas tax increase were to change driving behavior, the gas tax would not produce to projections, resulting in fewer projects.
Now, if you want to increase gas taxes by 50-cents per gallon, then you might see some systemic changes (or a noose).
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on March 09, 2021, 09:07:46 PM
^ It's multiple times the original cost of the system. This is a huge waste of resources as the ROI will be very small if not negative. It will fail both because the Skyway has never produced due to numerous design and operating cost issues and, as discussed often here, the JTA version of AV is nonstarter. Adding the two together will get you a great big minus.
For a fraction of that money we could abandon the Skyway and tear it down (see Mayor Curry, he knows how to get that done!)/make it into the Jacksonville version of NYC's Highline and start over with trolleys or most anything else in mass transit, dedicated bike/pedestrian ways, 2 way streets, road diets, road maintenance/upgrades in the NW quadrant, etc. It's time to spread these dollars out and not concentrate them in a single proven boondoggle that, at best, will never serve a decent percentage of the population.
Next, we will find out a chunk of the proceeds are for Khan's projects. I hope this is not a wolf in sheep's clothing.
370 million is the cost of the original system in today's dollars, which doesn't include the conversion to the newer cars. They are pretty much completely rebuilding the system with the exception of the stations, supports, and ROW. New cars, new guideways, and new expansion to other areas make the cost make sense to me, but that statement is also pretty vague in what that cost is going towards. Does someone want to ask for clarification?
Quote from: Charles Hunter on March 09, 2021, 10:16:16 PM
Did I miss it? The article refers to lists of projects from the City and JTA, but I didn't see a link to them.
No link to the actual list yet.
QuoteNow, if you want to increase gas taxes by 50-cents per gallon, then you might see some systemic changes (or a noose).
The later sounds a lot more likely in this state. Which is probably why state law limits it to 12 cents. Any increases beyond that would probably have to be federal, which means FTA oversight (which might not necessarily be a bad thing in this administration). A combination of increased gas taxes, aging highway removals (and not allowing states to go ham with federal dollars for new ones), and substantially improved transit would be very much transformational.
As others have said here, the per-gallon fuel tax has a limited life-span. With increasing fuel efficiency in petrol-engines, and increasing fleet share of hybrids and total electrics, with historic increases in vehicle miles traveled flattening, and perhaps declining, coupled with increasing costs to build and maintain infrastructure, the gas tax will fall farther and farther behind.
A new user-fee model is needed. Some jurisdictions have been experimenting with "per mile" fees, and there are several different models being tested. One stumbling block is the public's fear of intrusions into their privacy - they don't want the government to know where and when they have driven. On the other hand, the phone they carry in their pocket tracks their movements unless they take action to disable it. Several insurance companies now offer discounts for customers who allow their driving to be monitored by the company - either by a device plugged into the car's computer or their smartphone. This may increase acceptance of allowing someone else to monitor your movements. There are also simpler per-mile plans that just have the driver report their odometer readings periodically. This doesn't allow peak-hour or location pricing, but it eliminates the "Big Brother" aspect.
From what we know now, I'm in support of this. Details can be hammered out.
The best way to make sure this proposal is defeated at the polls is to spend a significant amount of the money on the skyway. It was a mistake from the beginning, and makes even less sense today than it did originally.
^They should fund the entire Emerald Trail network. That will be more popular to the average taxpayer and have more economic spin-off than something like the U2C. It is also something that should be tied to infrastructure projects that help resolve flooding. Perhaps it's included? I'll wait for the list.
The Daily Record finally posted a list of projects. (https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:6e32ee87-ec44-463d-b36f-18d8e018b80d#pageNum=1)
Skyway/U2C projects total
$378,840,000.
However, there's also $3.3 million marked for "JRTC Rail Terminal Project Development," which includes:
QuoteCoordinate and request the Federal Transit Administration to enter into the Project Development Phase
Complete PD&E/NEPA analysis and documentation
Produce 35 percent design plans for the track and associated infrastructure to support the PD&E/NEPA
Obtain commitments on the right‐of‐way required for the station
Develop defined capital cost estimates
More then a third for the Skyway. No Thanks. Negotiate a deal with the Feds to scrap the whole thing once and for all for about half that.
Semi-retired from caring and trying really hard to just appreciate Jacksonville for what it is and not be too negative, but this one takes the cake.
Curry floats the idea to double the gas tax through 2046 to offload infrastructure work from the general budget and free up more space to fullfill the broken promises of consolidation.
FANTASTIC idea on the surface. Love it. It's probably the most painless way to raise taxes, even though I've got some personal issues with how equitable it is and how it's going to disproportionately effect those lower on the income scale who often have to travel further to job centers and don't have the work-from-home flexibility of others.
Proceeds will be split equally with JTA? Again, great idea on the surface.
Then you see the details.
THREE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY MILLION DOLLARS for the clown cars.
A fully 85% of JTA's cut of the revenues over the next 25 years.
You can't make this shit up if you tried.
In a city with 800 square miles of transportation needs, we're diverting a full 85% of JTA's cut of the new gas tax into developing an autonomous first-mile/last-mile system that is going to be made redundent at best by the private sector in less than a decade.
Spoiler to JTA: Uber/Lyft already exist, and driverless rideshare is right around the corner.
How's it working for the taxi industry, or your own ReddiRide service, when you try to compete with big rideshare?
Our tiny fleet of clown shuttles will NEVER be able to match the efficiencies of scale and pricepoint of a national competitor, and by the time JTA actually figures this thing out and gets it up and running, they'll already have been left behind.
Why would anyone share a plodding roboshuttle with four other passengers in a post-pandemic world when tomorrow's rideshare will be able to quickly, cheaply, and privately whisk you from door to door for pennies on the dollar absent the labor cost of drivers.
This is what drives me fucking bonkers about this city.
We ignore what's logical and what's worked literally, LITERALLY everywhere and instead choose to jump in headfirst with some alternative hairbrained scheme to prove how much smarter we are than everyone else.
It kills me.
Cities all over the country are expanding their fixed transit and reaping the benefits and vibrancy of the TOD that has followed.
And we're talking about tossing a $3 million PD&E for fixed transit into a 25-year budget while directing $380 million toward an unproven, semi-secretive network of clown cars.
You cannot make this stuff up.
This gas tax plan is predicated on the idea that upcoming necessary transportation projects can be offloaded from the CIP to free up the general fund for these septic tank/sewer projects. Was the city planning on allocating $400 million from the general fund for this U2C lemon? If not, then the gas tax isn't found revenue for the septic tanks. It's found revenue for the clowns.
I only take solace in the fact that the Skyway has so much negative stigma attached to it already that this thing is gonna be DOA in the court of public opinion before it ever gets off the ground.
Quote from: Ken_FSU on March 10, 2021, 05:07:31 PM
THREE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY MILLION DOLLARS for the clown cars.
A fully 85% of JTA's cut of the revenues over the next 25 years.
You can't make this shit up if you tried.
Preach it! I mean come on ... Really, actually, truthfully ... what the actual F***?
It will be up to the taxpayers to put pressure on their Council members, as these taxes can be implemented with a "majority plus one" vote of the City Council (10 votes). A referendum is not needed.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on March 09, 2021, 09:07:46 PM
^ It's multiple times the original cost of the system. This is a huge waste of resources as the ROI will be very small if not negative. It will fail both because the Skyway has never produced due to numerous design and operating cost issues and, as discussed often here, the JTA version of AV is nonstarter. Adding the two together will get you a great big minus.
For a fraction of that money we could abandon the Skyway and tear it down (see Mayor Curry, he knows how to get that done!)/make it into the Jacksonville version of NYC's Highline and start over with trolleys or most anything else in mass transit, dedicated bike/pedestrian ways, 2 way streets, road diets, road maintenance/upgrades in the NW quadrant, etc. It's time to spread these dollars out and not concentrate them in a single proven boondoggle that, at best, will never serve a decent percentage of the population.
Next, we will find out a chunk of the proceeds are for Khan's projects. I hope this is not a wolf in sheep's clothing.
My worst fears confirmed. The amount for the Skyway represents about 41% of the total funds raised. As with the Better Jacksonville Plan and the River City Renaissance Plan, everyone gets a few trinkets (note the breakdown by Council district) in return for paying for one or more big projects almost nobody would agree to otherwise pay for. This is that MO on steroids.
I hope this isn't another one of Curry's schemes he thinks is baked and done behind closed doors. I see another Lot J controversy. Monroe is right that Curry is out of touch with reality.
Quote from: vicupstate on March 10, 2021, 05:01:08 PM
More then a third for the Skyway. No Thanks. Negotiate a deal with the Feds to scrap the whole thing once and for all for about half that.
I really hate to say it, but if that's what they're going to spend the money on, yeah.
Quote from: icarus on March 10, 2021, 05:35:44 PM
Quote from: Ken_FSU on March 10, 2021, 05:07:31 PM
THREE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY MILLION DOLLARS for the clown cars.
A fully 85% of JTA's cut of the revenues over the next 25 years.
You can't make this shit up if you tried.
Preach it! I mean come on ... Really, actually, truthfully ... what the actual F***?
I genuinely want to know what is going through the minds of Nat Ford and the JTA Board. Like, what is happening up there that makes this seem like a reasonable and logical ask of taxpayers? More importantly, I thought half the point of these was that they were supposed to be cheap. For this amount of money, we could (and should) do basically
anything else.
Just for posterity, here's JTA's technology 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) from 6 years ago on the various options they looked at, including streetcars.
And for convenience, here's the breakdown JTA has on the sheet, so we don't have to click over to the document:
LOGT Project | Estimated Cost | Project Scope |
Skyway Rehabilitation & Downtown Service Expansion ‐ Neighborhood Extensions | $131,890,000 | Downtown service expansion of Skyway providing neighborhood Circulators through use of autonomous vehicle network to five (5) key areas: (1) West Corridor ‐ access to the Riverside and Five Points neighborhoods, as well as the popular Riverside Arts Market and growing Brooklyn neighborhood; (2) East Corridor - extending eastward along Bay Street, these stations will annex the burgeoning Shipyards district and the popular Sports Complex with the downtown core; (3) North Corridor - serving the revitalizing historic Springfield area, UF Health Center and VA Outpatient Clinic, the North Corridor would provide more access to integral health‐related resources and services; (4) South/Medical Complex Corridor ‐ Historic San Marco, which has long been a destination for those seeking a live/work/play location; and (5) Southbank Corridor - the Southbank Corridor which has some of the greatest growth potential and expanded service will meet the transportation needs of future employees, residents and visitors. |
Skyway Rehabilitation & Downtown Service Expansion ‐ Fleet | $6,875,000 | Vehicle Fleet to support Skyway rehabilitation, downtown service expansion, and neighborhood extensions. |
Skyway Rehabilitation & Downtown Service Expansion ‐ Capital (Infrastructure, Systems) | $240,075,000 | Includes rehabilitation of the Skyway infrastructure, systems and IT network and expansion of services to support transition to autonomous vehicles. |
Quote from: marcuscnelson on March 10, 2021, 04:18:20 PM
The Daily Record finally posted a list of projects. (https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:6e32ee87-ec44-463d-b36f-18d8e018b80d#pageNum=1)
Skyway/U2C projects total $378,840,000.
However, there's also $3.3 million marked for "JRTC Rail Terminal Project Development," which includes:
QuoteCoordinate and request the Federal Transit Administration to enter into the Project Development Phase
Complete PD&E/NEPA analysis and documentation
Produce 35 percent design plans for the track and associated infrastructure to support the PD&E/NEPA
Obtain commitments on the right‐of‐way required for the station
Develop defined capital cost estimates
LOL huh? Put $25-50 million into getting that JRTC rail terminal actually built, replace the Skyway cars and call it a day. That's one I can definitely see the public tar and feather this thing. If they're so sold on having untested technology, wait for it become commonplace enough for it to run on the existing streets. No need to spend hundreds of millions retrofitting the Skyway at the cost of traditional LRT system construction numbers. If it's that much, I'd then fall on the side of scrapping the Skyway, Harbor Island Peoplemover style and building something proven from scratch.
Really seems like something that would have come up already if they'd sought public input.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 10, 2021, 07:40:19 PM
Quote from: marcuscnelson on March 10, 2021, 04:18:20 PM
The Daily Record finally posted a list of projects. (https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:6e32ee87-ec44-463d-b36f-18d8e018b80d#pageNum=1)
Skyway/U2C projects total $378,840,000.
However, there's also $3.3 million marked for "JRTC Rail Terminal Project Development," which includes:
QuoteCoordinate and request the Federal Transit Administration to enter into the Project Development Phase
Complete PD&E/NEPA analysis and documentation
Produce 35 percent design plans for the track and associated infrastructure to support the PD&E/NEPA
Obtain commitments on the right‐of‐way required for the station
Develop defined capital cost estimates
LOL huh? Put $25-50 million into getting that JRTC rail terminal actually built, replace the Skyway cars and call it a day. That's one I can definitely see the public tar and feather this thing. If they're so sold on having untested technology, wait for it become commonplace enough for it to run on the existing streets. No need to spend hundreds of millions retrofitting the Skyway at the cost of traditional LRT system construction numbers. If it's that much, I'd then fall on the side of scrapping the Skyway, Harbor Island Peoplemover style and building something proven from scratch.
According to 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), replacement vehicles would cost about $170 million on the high end, and I don't think that includes extension. Supposing we added 3 miles at $30 million per mile, we could then spend $40 million on a new rail terminal and still end up with $78 million in the bank, that could be used for anything else, or even to let them play with the AVs for other reasons.
I wonder, could we somehow draft up an alternative plan for that money, either for the thing I just said or streetcar or something else, and start campaigning for them to do that instead?
What is the timeline for the projects identified? I do wonder how we can collect nearly $1 billion but can only fund a PD&E for relocating the rail station back downtown?
Also, keep in mind, no one wants elevated Skyway track penetrating into their neighborhoods. So other than an extension to San Marco, which could be dropped to grade after it crosses the FEC, you're not getting into Riverside or Springfield with elevated track. So, you'll need something like an AV or streetcar that can operate on both. However, as identified in the Technology Assessment Report, most of your rail based systems have rolling stock that can't run on the lightweight Skyway infrastructure. Now you're down to AV, a few heritage streetcar vehicles and something like a tram that you see in Europe, moreso than here.
I did notice that the Haskell team does include 2getthere as a subcontractor. I recall that they have an AV that is a bit larger than the minivans being driven in a parking lot at Metropolitan Park. What would be your view on the U2C if larger vehicles and 100% dedicated ROW for the system became a thing?
What do you think about this? Almost double the size and three times as fast as the things tested locally to date:
Quote2getthere's GRT vehicles are automated minibuses accommodating 22 passengers (8 seated, 14 standing). The maximum speed is 60km/hr and are unique as they are the only autonomous vehicles that are bi-directional and feature doors on both sides. The GRT vehicle allows for easy access through accurate docking at the stations, enabled by the 'crabbing' capability of the front and rear wheel steering.
https://www.2getthere.eu//technology/vehicle-types/grt-vehicle-automated-minibus/
Nate Monroe appears to be all in on Curry's gas tax increase and is unusually effusive about Curry in this column. Hope he isn't getting sucker punched. He does allude to possible push back on the Skyway proposal but, overall, whitewashes over it.
Someone needs to reach out to him and better educate him on some of the issues herein and convince him that the Skyway portion, at about $380 million (41% of funds raised), is way out of line and needs a reallocation to better projects - or this proposal risks going down in flames.
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/columns/nate-monroe/2021/03/10/nate-monroe-one-jacksonville-mayors-lenny-curry-final-acts-gas-tax-proposal-might-turn-out-his-best/6937340002/ (https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/columns/nate-monroe/2021/03/10/nate-monroe-one-jacksonville-mayors-lenny-curry-final-acts-gas-tax-proposal-might-turn-out-his-best/6937340002/)
Quote...There might be some debate about JTA's modernization of the Skyway, but the agency is also set to piggyback on the city roadwork by upgrading more than 100 bus stops in Northwest Jacksonville and ensuring 800 more throughout the city are brought into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act standards....
Quote from: marcuscnelson on March 10, 2021, 09:41:31 PM
I wonder, could we somehow draft up an alternative plan for that money, either for the thing I just said or streetcar or something else, and start campaigning for them to do that instead?
This is what we suggested six years ago, based off the findings of the Technology Assessment Report:
https://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2015-nov-9-reasons-to-expand-the-skywayas-a-streetcar
Quote from: thelakelander on March 10, 2021, 11:26:52 PM
What is the timeline for the projects identified? I do wonder how we can collect nearly $1 billion but can only fund a PD&E for relocating the rail station back downtown?
Also, keep in mind, no one wants elevated Skyway track penetrating into their neighborhoods. So other than an extension to San Marco, which could be dropped to grade after it crosses the FEC, you're not getting into Riverside or Springfield with elevated track. So, you'll need something like an AV or streetcar that can operate on both. However, as identified in the Technology Assessment Report, most of your rail based systems have rolling stock that can't run on the lightweight Skyway infrastructure. Now you're down to AV, a few heritage streetcar vehicles and something like a tram that you see in Europe, moreso than here.
It's not clear what the proposed timeline is for the U2C yet, some of the other infrastructure projects could be funded as soon as this year. And yeah, disappointing that JTA apparently prioritized U2C to such a blatant extent over existing passenger rail.
The Report also indicates that demolishing the existing system would only cost $25 million. At which point, building a few stronger ramps at key points like the JRTC (assuming you'd even put a streetcar stop at that platform level), the FEC, and the Acosta approaches could be possible, with the remaining portions at grade. (Although, this doesn't account for whatever federal payback requirements could exist, whatever they are. Frankly, I'm surprised replacing the fixed vehicles with AVs would still count from that point of view.)
Quote from: thelakelander on March 10, 2021, 11:26:52 PM
I did notice that the Haskell team does include 2getthere as a subcontractor. I recall that they have an AV that is a bit larger than the minivans being driven in a parking lot at Metropolitan Park. What would be your view on the U2C if larger vehicles and 100% dedicated ROW for the system became a thing?
What do you think about this? Almost double the size and three times as fast as the things tested locally to date:
Quote2getthere's GRT vehicles are automated minibuses accommodating 22 passengers (8 seated, 14 standing). The maximum speed is 60km/hr and are unique as they are the only autonomous vehicles that are bi-directional and feature doors on both sides. The GRT vehicle allows for easy access through accurate docking at the stations, enabled by the 'crabbing' capability of the front and rear wheel steering.
https://www.2getthere.eu//technology/vehicle-types/grt-vehicle-automated-minibus/
That would still introduce several questions regarding the capacity issue you mentioned in that article, and things like their ability to couple (I recognize that it's larger than what's currently out there, but it's still not as good as the existing system). I suppose dedicated ROW technically fixes the larger autonomy and TOD challenges, although at that point you're speeding towards basically rail anyway. And seeing as JTA has been very insistent that they're not dedicating ROW beyond elevated portions, and haven't shown any renderings of such since like 2018, it's probably not a realistic factor. Not to mention that it's still something like $38 million per mile, which is a ridiculous amount of money to spend on that. And probably some other issues that other people will bring up.
And another thing: aren't the platforms too high? They were designed for vehicles that are pretty tall:
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-7001-p1150861.JPG)
And their monorail replacements have the beam above the height of the original guideway:
(https://alchetron.com/cdn/jacksonville-skyway-510fba06-53c5-4aaf-8984-8c2527d406c-resize-750.jpeg)
How is something like this:
(https://www.2getthere.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/GRT.png)
supposed to reach that?
Quote from: marcuscnelson on March 11, 2021, 12:17:08 AM
It's not clear what the proposed timeline is for the U2C yet, some of the other infrastructure projects could be funded as soon as this year.
I suspect that it's a timeline not completely controlled by JTA. We're asking a lot of things that just haven't been figured out yet. I was thinking timeline more so of the projects on the overall list. My view with the rail station at the JRTC is if we're getting this much money for transportation, why are we not funding the rail station? That's much more critical from a long term economic perspective, IMO. So if we're only funding a study, are we saying we're not bringing rail back downtown until sometime well after 2030, 2035? That's pretty crazy.
QuoteThe Report also indicates that demolishing the existing system would only cost $25 million.
The report is pretty limited. For the streetcar part, they only evaluated one model that most in the industry already knew could not operate on the existing Skyway infrastructure for various technical reasons. I think the costs are off too. If it only cost $25 million to take the Skyway down, then that is something that needs to be considered. That would suggest, even going with the U2C, if the entire thing was at-grade, we'd save a pretty penny not attempting an expensive retrofit of the Skyway infrastructure, that will only serve to limit the flexibility of a driverless car that some hope will mix with regular traffic.
QuoteQuote from: thelakelander on March 10, 2021, 11:26:52 PM
I did notice that the Haskell team does include 2getthere as a subcontractor. I recall that they have an AV that is a bit larger than the minivans being driven in a parking lot at Metropolitan Park. What would be your view on the U2C if larger vehicles and 100% dedicated ROW for the system became a thing?
What do you think about this? Almost double the size and three times as fast as the things tested locally to date:
Quote2getthere's GRT vehicles are automated minibuses accommodating 22 passengers (8 seated, 14 standing). The maximum speed is 60km/hr and are unique as they are the only autonomous vehicles that are bi-directional and feature doors on both sides. The GRT vehicle allows for easy access through accurate docking at the stations, enabled by the 'crabbing' capability of the front and rear wheel steering.
https://www.2getthere.eu//technology/vehicle-types/grt-vehicle-automated-minibus/
That would still introduce several questions regarding the capacity issue you mentioned in that article, and things like their ability to couple (I recognize that it's larger than what's currently out there, but it's still not as good as the existing system). I suppose dedicated ROW technically fixes the larger autonomy and TOD challenges, although at that point you're speeding towards basically rail anyway. And seeing as JTA has been very insistent that they're not dedicating ROW beyond elevated portions, and haven't shown any renderings of such since like 2018, it's probably not a realistic factor. Not to mention that it's still something like $38 million per mile, which is a ridiculous amount of money to spend on that. And probably some other issues that other people will bring up.
No matter what the solution is, it's going to be at a cost per mile that's just expensive as various forms of rail. I don't see a way around that. However, I would not accept a price of $38 million per mile at face value. There's likely some bells and whistles in those numbers that could be taken out. Capacity wise 22 passengers per vehicle gets you much closer to what's out there today than 8 to 12 passengers per vehicle. The larger model also suggest that the industry will evolve to include much larger vehicles than the things we've considered to date. At a minimum, the U2C should be designed with much larger vehicles in mind.
QuoteAnd another thing: aren't the platforms too high? They were designed for vehicles that are pretty tall:
They will have to modify the platforms to accommodate new vehicles. That's something that will have to happen regardless of the technology selected. That's one of the reasons a Skyway retrofit will be expensive.
This is a rare opportunity to increase city revenues. This guy evidently has seen from behind the scenes that Jax is struggling to fulfill the needs of the community within the current revenues. I'm all for it.
It's not ideal, but Jax needs to deal with better solutions because the perfect one never arrives.
On one point, they should include full funding for the Emerald Trail in the plan as well. Take one of those proposed Skyway extension routes and instead invest in something that will get near universal support. Either way, I don't know Jax politics, but I doubt this doesn't pass.