Metro Jacksonville

QuoteCity Council member LeAnna Cumber said whether the city should increase the gas tax should be open for debate, but as for using any of it for the Skyway, she opposes that "without reservation."

"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.

https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2021/03/29/proposed-jacksonville-gas-tax-increase-puts-spotlight-skyways-future/7013223002/

I don't know if I agree with her proposed uses and all of her reasoning with the Skyway.....but I'm struggling to support this know how much is going to the Skyway replacement.

JTA has quite a job of selling this to educating the public on this Skyway* project, before the vote on the gas tax.

* and if only 25% of it is going to be elevated (2.5 miles of around 10) they need to stop calling it "skyway" - and "U2C" isn't the right name, either.

I don't think this thing is anywhere near 10 miles if the conceptual bridge across the St. Johns River isn't included in that number. For a fact, that bridge isn't included in the $378 million figure. So we're really talking about 7-8 miles of something for the cost of $378 million....which makes it a bit more expensive than what it is being sold as now. I'm a fan of raising the gas tax and will even make an argument for not tearing down the Skyway, however, the U2C thing needs a much more transparent discussion, not a sales job. Whatever the case, whatever the technology desired, we certainly should not be spending nearly $400 million on something that will serve so few. The capacity numbers included in this article should more like that's the max capacity of the AVs that have been explored by JTA so far, not exactly tied to land use, development trends and leveraging TOD in select spots as a part of a community visioning goal.

I don't want us to end up doing nothing, but I don't see this system as proposed as a responsible use of taxpayer money. Jacksonville shouldn't have the burden of being the first city in America (as JTA has proudly proclaimed) to put autonomous vehicles into mixed urban traffic. We have too many other basics to get right, and they haven't made a solid case that the technology actually works in the proposed setting and is fully prepared for primetime. And for the proposed amount, we can work on other projects that have a chance to also impact people beyond downtown and its immediate surrounding neighborhoods. As I've suggested. (https://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,36131.msg510156.html#msg510156)

Lake, I think one possibility to consider is that the extra 2 miles includes the way they plan to loop around city blocks in some places. If I remember right, the Bay Street corridor route does stuff like loop around Lot J before turning back towards Bay. The renderings don't really show that.

Also, wouldn't we have to at least pay the feds back $2 million for going away from a peoplemover system, no matter what it's replaced by? Does that really only kick in if we decide to raze the entire thing to the ground?

So we're going to spend $400 million on a pilot transportation program to replace a defunct pilot transportation program.  Anyone else noticing a trend here?????

We already passed once on extending the people mover to the end of JTB when we declined/walked away from ROW discussions with FEC.  Why not replace the park and share lot with a parking garage/ multimodal stop, i.e. revamped skyway replacement station and BRT to east end of JTB?? The biggest problem/setback with skyway has always been that it does not serve a greater area (other than being a monorail).

Literally can think of so many uses for $400 million than clown cars. SMH

I think most here would argue that monorail/peoplemover systems aren't really designed to go that distance. Going from downtown to JTB is more suited for regional rail or rapid transit than a monorail. We should still develop the park & ride, and link it to whatever transit network we eventually send downtown, though. And I've previously argued (https://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,36131.msg510156.html#msg510156) for using some of the U2C money to add BRT to JTB or Southside Blvd, where bus service is less common.

Quote from: thelakelander on March 29, 2021, 10:16:55 AM
I don't think this thing is anywhere near 10 miles if the conceptual bridge across the St. Johns River isn't included in that number.

The article quotes the Bay Street extension from Hogan to the stadium as 3.2 miles - so it would seem they are counting both directions in the mileage. Maybe this explains the 10 miles.

Quote from: Charles Hunter on March 29, 2021, 09:59:13 AM

* and if only 25% of it is going to be elevated (2.5 miles of around 10) they need to stop calling it "skyway" - and "U2C" isn't the right name, either.

How about calling it "The never-ending boondoggle"

Cumber speaks the truth on this subject. Time to pull the plug on this failed experiment. 

In Jacksonville, we should do what we always do.  Go anti-anything that cost money.  To Hell with the future.  Let's train all of our future generations to do the same.  Bring more and more cars onto our roads, complain about parking, potholes, traffic jams, air pollution, and commute times.  Sit in traffic alone and look out at all the other single rider vehicles around you.  Don't plan for the future, wait until it's too late.  That way we can pay 5 times as much as it would have cost, and won't have any money to properly maintain it.  Yeah, let Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Orlando, Tampa Bay, Palm Beach, Fort Meyers, look ahead.  We can keep Cowford running like it always has, while everyone else passes us by.  After all, we don't deserve to be a top tier city.  Let all of the other cities progress, my grandchildren can continue our fine tradition.  Who wants to spend money on the future?  We can drive ourselves to Monster Truck competitions, tractor pulls, and the wresslin' matches.  Progress be damned.

From the article:

QuoteThe JTA says a Transit Concept and Alternative Review Plan projected that daily ridership on the Bay Street corridor would be an average 1,000 to 3,500 per day by 2035 and then 1,200 to 4,400 rides by 2045.

I'm totally fine with investing in the Skyway if the investment makes sense. It's a stretch to say no one is interested in investing in the future if they question the feasibility and expense of something that will move less people people a day in 2045 than the broken down Skyway did in 2010. Btw, those numbers likely reflect the max capacity of a system using minivan like vehicles, not the actual transit demand for a vibrant urban core.

I also think there's a difference between being okay with investing in the Skyway but not in the U2C proposal as currently being dreamed, pushed and sold to a community that has not bought in.

Quote from: tufsu1 on March 29, 2021, 01:51:00 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on March 29, 2021, 10:16:55 AM
I don't think this thing is anywhere near 10 miles if the conceptual bridge across the St. Johns River isn't included in that number.

The article quotes the Bay Street extension from Hogan to the stadium as 3.2 miles - so it would seem they are counting both directions in the mileage. Maybe this explains the 10 miles.

Have they ever considered to run AV experiment down Bay Street and operating it separate from fooling around the the Skyway? After all, it is a demonstration project, moreso than something intended to meet the needs of a basic transit user. Might as well spend less on the demonstration and use the saved funds on transit and multimodal projects (hello....Emerald Trail system....) that bring a greater economic and quality of life benefit to a larger segment of the local population.

Quote from: Snaketoz on March 29, 2021, 05:10:08 PM
In Jacksonville, we should do what we always do.  Go anti-anything that cost money.  To Hell with the future.  Let's train all of our future generations to do the same.  Bring more and more cars onto our roads, complain about parking, potholes, traffic jams, air pollution, and commute times.  Sit in traffic alone and look out at all the other single rider vehicles around you.  Don't plan for the future, wait until it's too late.  That way we can pay 5 times as much as it would have cost, and won't have any money to properly maintain it.  Yeah, let Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Orlando, Tampa Bay, Palm Beach, Fort Meyers, look ahead.  We can keep Cowford running like it always has, while everyone else passes us by.  After all, we don't deserve to be a top tier city.  Let all of the other cities progress, my grandchildren can continue our fine tradition.  Who wants to spend money on the future?  We can drive ourselves to Monster Truck competitions, tractor pulls, and the wresslin' matches.  Progress be damned.

I think most of these responses have been pretty clear that few people are anti-anything that costs money (save for like, Rory Diamond and his ilk). The point of contention has largely been about whether autonomous vehicles are the best and highest use of that money, and JTA hasn't proven that to be the case. It's one thing to plan ahead, it's another to propose being the first city in the country to put a new technology that questionably suits its needs or is fully realized into revenue service. We can want to invest in the future without obsessively chasing after something that few other cities have chosen to even consider testing. Even with how relatively untested people movers were in the 70s and 80s, they were in active service in other places before we built one. That isn't the case here. On top of that, choosing not to spend half a billion dollars on our own autonomous vehicles doesn't mean we can't be open to allowing them once Uber or Tesla or Amazon or Google fully realize the technology.

Quote from: thelakelander on March 29, 2021, 06:07:16 PM

Quote from: tufsu1 on March 29, 2021, 01:51:00 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on March 29, 2021, 10:16:55 AM
I don't think this thing is anywhere near 10 miles if the conceptual bridge across the St. Johns River isn't included in that number.

The article quotes the Bay Street extension from Hogan to the stadium as 3.2 miles - so it would seem they are counting both directions in the mileage. Maybe this explains the 10 miles.

Have they ever considered to run AV experiment down Bay Street and operating it separate from fooling around the the Skyway? After all, it is a demonstration project, moreso than something intended to meet the needs of a basic transit user. Might as well spend less on the demonstration and use the saved funds on transit and multimodal projects (hello....Emerald Trail system....) that bring a greater economic and quality of life benefit to a larger segment of the local population.

Honest question:

Is there anything about what's being proposed with U2C on Bay Street (or elsewhere) that can't be done better by simply spending $1 million on three mid-sized city buses (like the old Riverside Trolley) and having them loop up and down Bay with 3-5 minute headways?

Higher capacity, higher top speed, ability to operate in mixed traffic, a lot of existing stops already in place.

No clown app necessary, you just step onto the shuttle and call it a day.

Won't spur TOD, but neither will U2C, and it least buses won't break the bank for the next 30 years.

Just can't fathom why we'd spend 200x more on a system to the sports complex that can't even move people at scale or speed to events.

^From what I can tell, mainly that it wouldn't be futuristic enough. I suppose there's something to be said for not having drivers. And I guess something about how they wouldn't be as integrated with all the "smart street" stuff. Maybe if we go with electric buses?

I think Bay Street is going to happen no matter what at this point, the federal money is already there, the procurement process is happening, all of that. But for all the other extensions, it's a question of whether enough of Council will refuse to approve the tax increase unless the money goes to an alternative.

Quote from: thelakelander on March 29, 2021, 06:07:16 PM
Have they ever considered to run AV experiment down Bay Street and operating it separate from fooling around the the Skyway? After all, it is a demonstration project, moreso than something intended to meet the needs of a basic transit user. Might as well spend less on the demonstration and use the saved funds on transit and multimodal projects (hello....Emerald Trail system....) that bring a greater economic and quality of life benefit to a larger segment of the local population.

Does the Emerald Trail count as something gas tax money can be spent on? I guess one thing worth remembering is how they at one point wanted to convert the Skyway from LaVilla to Jefferson station into a U2C track, but that kinda went away.

Their attitude the last few years has largely suggested they don't just consider it a demonstration or experiment, but an actual transportation solution. Having the audacity to go to taxpayers for $378 million really screams that.

Quote from: Ken_FSU on March 29, 2021, 08:23:58 PM
Honest question:

Is there anything about what's being proposed with U2C on Bay Street (or elsewhere) that can't be done better by simply spending $1 million on three mid-sized city buses (like the old Riverside Trolley) and having them loop up and down Bay with 3-5 minute headways?

Higher capacity, higher top speed, ability to operate in mixed traffic, a lot of existing stops already in place.

No clown app necessary, you just step onto the shuttle and call it a day.

Won't spur TOD, but neither will U2C, and it least buses won't break the bank for the next 30 years.

Just can't fathom why we'd spend 200x more on a system to the sports complex that can't even move people at scale or speed to events.

Since TOD isn't a big concern, a bus would work just fine.

Quote from: marcuscnelson on March 29, 2021, 08:56:15 PM
^From what I can tell, mainly that it wouldn't be futuristic enough. I suppose there's something to be said for not having drivers. And I guess something about how they wouldn't be as integrated with all the "smart street" stuff. Maybe if we go with electric buses?

There are already driverless trains and buses. However, once you mentioned a mode as "not being futuristic enough" or not "smart street" enough, we're outside of the common sense approach for addressing a community's basic transit needs. We'll quickly learn that the average person could care less about whether the transit vehicle has a driver or not. Heck, even if they don't have a driver, they'll still need some type of security to make people feel safe being contained in vehicles with others they may not know. What will continue to remain important is reliability and being efficient enough for the end user.

QuoteI think Bay Street is going to happen no matter what at this point, the federal money is already there, the procurement process is happening, all of that. But for all the other extensions, it's a question of whether enough of Council will refuse to approve the tax increase unless the money goes to an alternative.

It will be interesting to see what the final result ends up being. My guess is that it won't be anything close to the Michael Jackson Billy Jean video renderings of Bay Street from a few years back.

QuoteDoes the Emerald Trail count as something gas tax money can be spent on? I guess one thing worth remembering is how they at one point wanted to convert the Skyway from LaVilla to Jefferson station into a U2C track, but that kinda went away.

Yes, trails, bike lanes, sidewalks, etc. and other forms of bike/ped infrastructure are transportation projects that gas tax money can be used for. I'm quite surprised that the Emerald Trail has not been included in the list of projects to receive significant funding. The community payback on something like that will be far more reaching and inclusive than most of the identified projects, including the U2C.

QuoteTheir attitude the last few years has largely suggested they don't just consider it a demonstration or experiment, but an actual transportation solution. Having the audacity to go to taxpayers for $378 million really screams that.

Unfortunately, this is a problem and could cost Jax taxpayers five or six times as much money as the Skyway did 30 years ago. My hope would be see the amount of funds dedicated to the Skyway reduced and to have those saved funds shifted to other worthwhile projects like the Emerald Trail system and actually brining back intercity rail downtown. I'd be willing to slice, dice and value engineer the U2C thing down to something less or something where locals provide the New Starts 25% funding with 75% coming from the state and feds.

QuoteIt will be interesting to see what the final result ends up being. My guess is that it won't be anything close to the Michael Jackson Billy Jean video renderings of Bay Street from a few years back.

Looking at the proposed list (http://thebayjax.com/projects/) of Bay Street Innovation Corridor projects, here's my guess.

• Integrated Data Exchange & Public Safety and Surveillance: This will happen, but in a way less impressive form than suggested. Half the city will be upset at the prospect of putting surveillance in a "good area," and the other will pretend that all crime happens downtown and surveillance is needed. I question how many companies will be scrambling to utilize the data until more is done to make using it worthwhile. They talk about the data being used to "increase value," but it's questionable what value there is to increase in the first place.
• Autonomous Shuttles: Some form of "autonomous" vehicle will eventually reach Bay Street, but it will be rarely used and likely not proceed past an experimental stage that goes incredibly slowly and requires an attendant of some kind. People will take Uber or use other forms of transportation instead. Mid-late 2030s it's either replaced by a more functional system or fades into history.
• Smart and Connected Signals: This will happen, but everyone will wonder what the difference was between this and the sensors that already exist.
• Pedestrian Sensors: This will be rendered nearly useless by the clashing philosophies of focusing on pedestrians vs getting as many cars through as quickly as possible. It's unclear whether mid-block crossings are actually being included or if this is just accommodating jaywalking.
• Street Flood Notification System: This will happen, but the challenge will be working with tech companies to immediately get the street closure/rerouting into their mapping apps.
• Smart Lighting: This will happen, it's a pretty standard solution.
• Wayfinding, Event Management, & Public Broadband Network: There will be too few kiosk signs, and the app will be riddled with bugs. The wifi and emergency call features will work fine if not a little slow, but the charging stations will be quickly abused and require repairs often.
• Solar Path: This is not going to happen. We'll have a few scattered panels on light posts, but little beyond that. Some system will exist to report power usage and "increase efficiency."
• Conversion to a Two-Way Road: This will take way longer than anyone expected, but people will be happy about it finally happening.
• Smart Waste Management: Everyone will laugh about how ridiculous the smart trash cans are, but will be happy trash cans exist.

Looking beyond Jax, one curious point is how Houston's "Innovation Corridor" is along a light rail line and connects multiple universities, hospitals, and entertainment destinations. And more importantly, demonstrates the idea of an innovation corridor as a hub to spur private development rather than just... a place where information is and people feel compelled to add value to data for some reason.

Compare the first paragraph for Bay Street's (http://thebayjax.com) Innovation Corridor:

QuoteImagine a city that connects people, places and information effortlessly. A city that uses data to make the most of our time and resources, and keep us safe. Imagine - a smart city that improves the lives of the people who live, work and visit there. The North Florida Smart Region Coalition partners are working together now to bring this idea of a smart city to life, right here in Jacksonville.

To that of Houston's (https://www.houston.org/innovation-corridor):

QuoteHouston's Innovation Corridor is at the center of an extraordinarily powerful social and economic convergence. The four-mile-long Corridor is linked by light-rail, bike lanes, and pedestrian thoroughfares, and offers easy access to key industry and institutional players along with an unparalleled array of amenities.

Really goes to show the difference in thinking.

Quote from: thelakelander on March 29, 2021, 11:30:20 PM
There are already driverless trains and buses. However, once you mentioned a mode as "not being futuristic enough" or not "smart street" enough, we're outside of the common sense approach for addressing a community's basic transit needs. We'll quickly learn that the average person could care less about whether the transit vehicle has a driver or not. Heck, even if they don't have a driver, they'll still need some type of security to make people feel safe being contained in vehicles with others they may not know. What will continue to remain important is reliability and being efficient enough for the end user.

Problem is, we're long past the common sense approach for addressing basic transit needs. JTA's messaging has long been "Transporting Jacksonville into the future!" and "reimagine the future of public transportation" and this blatant lie (emphasis mine):

QuoteNot only will AVs satisfy all of the program requirements, but they will also be the most cost-effective approach for new service extensions and are rapidly evolving in their capabilities.

Quote from: thelakelander on March 29, 2021, 11:30:20 PM
Yes, trails, bike lanes, sidewalks, etc. and other forms of bike/ped infrastructure are transportation projects that gas tax money can be used for. I'm quite surprised that the Emerald Trail has not been included in the list of projects to receive significant funding. The community payback on something like that will be far more reaching and inclusive than most of the identified projects, including the U2C.

QuoteTheir attitude the last few years has largely suggested they don't just consider it a demonstration or experiment, but an actual transportation solution. Having the audacity to go to taxpayers for $378 million really screams that.

Unfortunately, this is a problem and could cost Jax taxpayers five or six times as much money as the Skyway did 30 years ago. My hope would be see the amount of funds dedicated to the Skyway reduced and to have those saved funds shifted to other worthwhile projects like the Emerald Trail system and actually brining back intercity rail downtown. I'd be willing to slice, dice and value engineer the U2C thing down to something less or something where locals provide the New Starts 25% funding with 75% coming from the state and feds.

Interesting, I didn't think trails were included. And thinking about it, it really does say a lot that JTA decided to not bother seeking state or federal investment for U2C beyond the initial phase and instead ask for fully local funding. Nat Ford keeps saying that the whole country is watching Jax to see what U2C does, and I wonder if he'd ever considered why everyone is only watching while continuing to pour money into traditional transit like streetcars/LRT or BRT.

I'd been thinking previously about reducing AV funding and dedicating the rest to various other sources, including streetcar, but if the Emerald Trail can be funded with the gas tax, and seeing as the entire system is only $31 million, and remembering that transportation projects can be funded by other bodies of government, I'd change that plan to this:

• ~$20 million to return Amtrak downtown 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 designed 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.
• ~$31 million to fully build out the Emerald Trail Master Plan. Hopefully Groundwork Jax has a plan for maintenance.
• 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.
• ~$115 million as the local portion of a 15 mile streetcar/LRT system, using the New Starts program. 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. Ideally, any LRT system proposal would focus, after providing public service, on catalyzing private development in the neighborhoods it connects.
• ~$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.
• ~$40 million on complete streets downtown, ideally including two-way streets, improving lighting and sidewalks to encourage street-level activity.
• ~$45 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 at colleges if they can figure out traffic and pedestrians.

Quote from: marcuscnelson on March 30, 2021, 04:15:49 AMNat Ford keeps saying that the whole country is watching Jax to see what U2C does...

This may be spot on.  Maybe, this isn't about effective transportation but about one man trying to build a resume on our dime. Perhaps he wants to pour enough money into a obviously flawed system in hopes it doesn't fail on the public stage.

Quote from: icarus on March 30, 2021, 08:38:56 AM

Quote from: marcuscnelson on March 30, 2021, 04:15:49 AMNat Ford keeps saying that the whole country is watching Jax to see what U2C does...

This may be spot on.  Maybe, this isn't about effective transportation but about one man trying to build a resume on our dime. Perhaps he wants to pour enough money into a obviously flawed system in hopes it doesn't fail on the public stage.

Well, no. Nat Ford is the CEO, but he's not the only person who decides things. JTA has a board appointed by the Governor and Mayor, who ultimately decide on projects like these. I think it's more a matter of them being ironically short-sighted about the likelihood of autonomous vehicle technology being production ready within a few years, and having eyes bigger than wallets when it came to the cost of the projects. They've done this plenty of times before, including with BRT and the JRTC.

In this case, they got a mandate to "keep and extend" the Skyway, wrongly believed that AVs would be a cheap, magical jack of all trades to deliver on that mandate within a few short years, and when that proved incorrect, decided against starting over with a more realistic plan and barreled ahead. Think Brexit, in a sense, where people didn't really know what they were getting when it was initially proposed.

The question is whether what happened with BRT & JRTC happens here, in that public outcry and political pressure is severe enough to force them to reduce the scope of the project. There's much less of a timeline for it, seeing as the gas tax will get looked at this summer, but if the goal is to seek scrapping the monorail to replace with LRT, this is probably the best time to make that case.

Quote from: marcuscnelson on March 30, 2021, 04:09:40 AM

QuoteIt will be interesting to see what the final result ends up being. My guess is that it won't be anything close to the Michael Jackson Billy Jean video renderings of Bay Street from a few years back.

Looking at the proposed list (http://thebayjax.com/projects/) of Bay Street Innovation Corridor projects, here's my guess.

• Integrated Data Exchange & Public Safety and Surveillance: This will happen, but in a way less impressive form than suggested. Half the city will be upset at the prospect of putting surveillance in a "good area," and the other will pretend that all crime happens downtown and surveillance is needed. I question how many companies will be scrambling to utilize the data until more is done to make using it worthwhile. They talk about the data being used to "increase value," but it's questionable what value there is to increase in the first place.
• Autonomous Shuttles: Some form of "autonomous" vehicle will eventually reach Bay Street, but it will be rarely used and likely not proceed past an experimental stage that goes incredibly slowly and requires an attendant of some kind. People will take Uber or use other forms of transportation instead. Mid-late 2030s it's either replaced by a more functional system or fades into history.
• Smart and Connected Signals: This will happen, but everyone will wonder what the difference was between this and the sensors that already exist.
• Pedestrian Sensors: This will be rendered nearly useless by the clashing philosophies of focusing on pedestrians vs getting as many cars through as quickly as possible. It's unclear whether mid-block crossings are actually being included or if this is just accommodating jaywalking.
• Street Flood Notification System: This will happen, but the challenge will be working with tech companies to immediately get the street closure/rerouting into their mapping apps.
• Smart Lighting: This will happen, it's a pretty standard solution.
• Wayfinding, Event Management, & Public Broadband Network: There will be too few kiosk signs, and the app will be riddled with bugs. The wifi and emergency call features will work fine if not a little slow, but the charging stations will be quickly abused and require repairs often.
• Solar Path: This is not going to happen. We'll have a few scattered panels on light posts, but little beyond that. Some system will exist to report power usage and "increase efficiency."
• Conversion to a Two-Way Road: This will take way longer than anyone expected, but people will be happy about it finally happening.
• Smart Waste Management: Everyone will laugh about how ridiculous the smart trash cans are, but will be happy trash cans exist.

Cool stuff but this is the definition of a pilot featuring all the bells and whistles. A $30k watch is nice but not required to tell time. That's how I'd compare the Bay Street Innovation Corridor with the basic end user necessities of mass transit. I don't need to know about street flood notification if I need a ride from Kings Avenue Station to Central Station. I want to know that I can get to where I need to get, as fast and efficient as possible.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Quote from: marcuscnelson on March 30, 2021, 09:39:59 AM
The question is whether what happened with BRT & JRTC happens here, in that public outcry and political pressure is severe enough to force them to reduce the scope of the project. There's much less of a timeline for it, seeing as the gas tax will get looked at this summer, but if the goal is to seek scrapping the monorail to replace with LRT, this is probably the best time to make that case.

LRT hasn't been on this city's radar in 20 years now. I think the goal of the political naysayers is to just kill the Skyway. There won't be any gas tax money going to a +$100 million project or idea that has not been pushed by JTA or COJ to date.  That's what makes this thing so crazy. Only in Jax can we find local funding opportunities (a major challenge everywhere) but screw it up it with crazy, half-baked, and super expensive risky proposals. Somehow, we find ways to make even the biggest local transit advocates seriously question things. Yes, others from the country are definitely looking. However, it could be equivalent to waiting to watch the train wreck.

Quote from: marcuscnelson on March 30, 2021, 09:39:59 AM
Well, no. Nat Ford is the CEO, but he's not the only person who decides things. JTA has a board appointed by the Governor and Mayor, who ultimately decide on projects like these. I think it's more a matter of them being ironically short-sighted about the likelihood of autonomous vehicle technology being production-ready within a few years, and having eyes bigger than wallets when it came to the cost of the projects. They've done this plenty of times before, including with BRT and the JRTC.

I think you underestimate the trust the JTA Board puts into the CEO.  Someone (not me) would have to go back and look at Board minutes, but I would be willing to wager that it has been a long time since the Board last rejected a major proposal from staff (through the CEO).  With the exception of the FDOT District 2 Secretary, the Board members are not required to have any transportation background. And they don't. The current Board has 2 lawyers, 2 bankers, an accountant, and an apartment builder. So, they are going to trust their staff, especially when they aren't hearing any conflicting information.

PS - the FDOT representative is a "highway guy" not a "transit guy"; one of the 'bankers' is Abel Harding, who was active in earlier versions of this forum. (He may still be for all I know.)

The board makeup is definitely a flaw. It would help to have more board members with transit and transportation experience. It would be beneficial to the board, staff, Ford and the community as a whole.

Quote from: thelakelander on March 30, 2021, 10:23:18 AM

Quote from: marcuscnelson on March 30, 2021, 09:39:59 AM
The question is whether what happened with BRT & JRTC happens here, in that public outcry and political pressure is severe enough to force them to reduce the scope of the project. There's much less of a timeline for it, seeing as the gas tax will get looked at this summer, but if the goal is to seek scrapping the monorail to replace with LRT, this is probably the best time to make that case.

LRT hasn't been on this city's radar in 20 years now. I think the goal of the political naysayers is to just kill the Skyway. There won't be any gas tax money going to a +$100 million project or idea that has not been pushed by JTA or COJ to date.  That's what makes this thing so crazy. Only in Jax can we find local funding opportunities (a major challenge everywhere) but screw it up it with crazy, half-baked, and super expensive risky proposals. Somehow, we find ways to make even the biggest local transit advocates seriously question things. Yes, others from the country are definitely looking. However, it could be equivalent to waiting to watch the train wreck.

I suppose you're probably right. Although I wonder what else they would use the money for if they couldn't use it for this.

Quote from: Charles Hunter on March 30, 2021, 11:20:50 AM

Quote from: marcuscnelson on March 30, 2021, 09:39:59 AM
Well, no. Nat Ford is the CEO, but he's not the only person who decides things. JTA has a board appointed by the Governor and Mayor, who ultimately decide on projects like these. I think it's more a matter of them being ironically short-sighted about the likelihood of autonomous vehicle technology being production-ready within a few years, and having eyes bigger than wallets when it came to the cost of the projects. They've done this plenty of times before, including with BRT and the JRTC.

I think you underestimate the trust the JTA Board puts into the CEO.  Someone (not me) would have to go back and look at Board minutes, but I would be willing to wager that it has been a long time since the Board last rejected a major proposal from staff (through the CEO).  With the exception of the FDOT District 2 Secretary, the Board members are not required to have any transportation background. And they don't. The current Board has 2 lawyers, 2 bankers, an accountant, and an apartment builder. So, they are going to trust their staff, especially when they aren't hearing any conflicting information.

PS - the FDOT representative is a "highway guy" not a "transit guy"; one of the 'bankers' is Abel Harding, who was active in earlier versions of this forum. (He may still be for all I know.)

Perhaps I do. I feel like it's not unrealistic for a bunch of people without transit backgrounds to get caught up in a "ooooh that fancy autonomous stuff looks cool, let's do that" funk. But I guess I hoped for better from the guy who ran MARTA and SFMTA for a decade and a half.

Quote from: marcuscnelson on March 30, 2021, 12:08:28 PM

I suppose you're probably right. Although I wonder what else they would use the money for if they couldn't use it for this.

Finding ways to spend money won't be a challenge. The Emerald Trail system, East Coast Greenway, two-waying one way streets, dedicated busways, bringing Amtrak to the JRTC, additional complete street and road improvements throughout the city, etc. are all potential alternatives that immediately come to mind.

Considering there is a multi-trillion Infrastructure bill about to be announced, wouldn't it behoove JAX to see what amount of THAT money would cover some of these projects before moving forward with this vote?

It would behoove Jax to not lock itself in to the draft list of projects that have been provided.

Which raises the question - what is the process for changing the project list once it is adopted?

Looking at the 2014 Ordinance (http://cityclts.coj.net/docs/2013-0820/Current%20Text/JTA%20AND%20COJ%20%23NONE%20Gas%20Tax%20Sales%20Tax.Constitutional%20Gas%20Tax%20Allocations.2016-2036.pdf), revisions and amendments to the project list must be approved by City Council. The scope of projects already on the adopted list can only be changed without Council if the budget changes by less than 20% in either direction from the original allocation.

Can a simple majority amend The List, or does it take a super-majority, like a mid-year CIP change?

I haven't found anything indicating it would require a super-majority, but I could be wrong.

Marcus, great letter in today's Times Union pushing for reallocating Skyway dollars.

Below are real knives through JTA's AV-Skyway heart in connection with the CEO of Google's AV division, Waymo, resigning this past week.  If every City Council member would read these quotes they would have a very difficult time supporting JTA's AV-Skyway plans.  JTA is being less than candid about their chances for success.  This gaming is reminiscent of JEA's recent debacle.

I think it is super clear that JTA is in way over its head and this current project will make the original Skyway failure look like child's play. They need to put their egos away and do the right thing by killing it.

Quote
Krafcik has overseen the company's biggest milestones, its rebranding to Waymo, partnerships and raised outside funding all while leading enthusiasm through the ranks. But Krafcik's departure signals a long and arduous reality check to early hype and hope of scaling self-driving vehicles.

"If you look at the past year and a half — there's been a growing realization within almost all the companies in autonomous vehicle development that this is a much harder problem than we thought," Sam Abuelsamid, principal analyst at Guidehouse Insights told CNBC Friday. "It wasn't that long ago people were projecting we'd have robotaxis everywhere by 2020. That hasn't panned out quite, clearly."...

...Krafcik's departure comes ahead of expected federal regulations in the U.S. around self driving cars.

The National Transportation Safety Board recently called on its sister agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, to impose stricter standards on automated vehicle tech. NHTSA solicited comments from the public in advance of proposed rule-making, and closed the comments period on April 1....

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/03/waymo-ceo-tenure-filled-with-milestones-hurdles-and-hype.html[ (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/03/waymo-ceo-tenure-filled-with-milestones-hurdles-and-hype.html[)

Quote....While Waymo has established itself as a leading developer of autonomous-vehicle technology with more than 20 million miles driven on public roads and more than 20 billion miles driven in simulation, the company's conservative approach to expanding operations has frustrated those hoping to see self-driven vehicles all around the country. That deliberate approach was a central part of Krafcik's tenure as CEO....

....The Waymo One autonomous ride-hailing service has been providing rides in the Phoenix area since 2017. As it has grown from a pilot program with a limited number of pre-selected customers into a ride-hailing service open to the public, utilizing a fleet of vehicles that operate without a driver. While Waymo has discussed expanding the Waymo One autonomous ride-hailing program to other cities for public use, the company has not given a definitive plan for doing so....

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/02/waymo-ceo-john-krafcik-steps-aside-as-co-ceos-take-over.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/02/waymo-ceo-john-krafcik-steps-aside-as-co-ceos-take-over.html)

Good letter, Marcus.

Jaxlongtimer - put your post into a letter and send it to the JTA Board and City Council members.

I fear the U2C albatross will kill the - in my opinion - the necessary gas tax increase.

Thank you! I had no idea when they were going to get around to publishing that, honestly wasn't sure if they'd publish it at all. I think making it clear ASAP that there are alternatives, and that we can do a lot more, a lot better with this much money is important if preventing this disaster is the goal.

Side note, Jobs for Jax has a swanky new logo now:

(https://www.jtafla.com/media/2868/jobs4jax_color_medium2.png)

New Nate Monroe column, featuring Lake:

https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/columns/nate-monroe/2021/04/07/nate-monroe-skyway-looms-over-mayor-lenny-currys-gas-tax-plan/7122768002/

QuoteThe Skyway, downtown's screeching monorail imposter, is Jacksonville's troubled soul taken physical form, as if some higher power, to teach us a lesson, imbued all this city's neuroses into a single, tangible, unsolvable thing: The Skyway is too expensive to maintain; it's too expensive to tear down; it's too expensive to modernize. The mercurial citizenry hates all the options. The path of least resistance is and has always been to simply look the other way. And this, not by coincidence, is the Jacksonville Way.

Nate Monroe hits another home run.
I share his concern that the huge ask for the U2C will sink the entire gas tax proposal.

And, can we stop calling it "Skyway Expansion"? The U2C is not the Skyway - most of it will be at grade in mixed traffic.  The complete opposite of what the Skyway was developed as.

^ For whatever reason, JTA called it Skyway Expansion on the formal project list, so that seems to be what everyone's going along with.

Quote from: Charles Hunter on April 07, 2021, 04:03:19 PM
And, can we stop calling it "Skyway Expansion"? The U2C is not the Skyway - most of it will be at grade in mixed traffic.  The complete opposite of what the Skyway was developed as.

I agree. They aren't mutually exclusive. It muddles the discussion and hurts the overall idea of investing in the transit system altogether.

I have been pretty 100% on the Skyway funding, but I think a good point was brought up in that column on funding sources. These types of projects tend to only have a 25-50% contribution from localities with the remainder coming from the Federal and State governments. This isn't always true of course. Some local governments pay for it exclusively, but I think JTA should definetely look for alternative sources of funding to decrease the amount necessary from the gas tax proposal.

Let's use the difference on fully funding the Emerald Trail network, expanding the Riverwalk, road diets, etc.

I'm worried that the cost per mile is on par with transit technologies that move a lot more people, so some fat should be trimmed. I also agree that the gas tax paying the local share, while using state and federal dollars to fund the rest would be good. Spread the wealth to create transformative projects for a larger cross section of the local community.

Quote from: marcuscnelson on April 07, 2021, 03:25:37 PM
New Nate Monroe column, featuring Lake:

https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/columns/nate-monroe/2021/04/07/nate-monroe-skyway-looms-over-mayor-lenny-currys-gas-tax-plan/7122768002/

QuoteThe Skyway, downtown's screeching monorail imposter, is Jacksonville's troubled soul taken physical form, as if some higher power, to teach us a lesson, imbued all this city's neuroses into a single, tangible, unsolvable thing: The Skyway is too expensive to maintain; it's too expensive to tear down; it's too expensive to modernize. The mercurial citizenry hates all the options. The path of least resistance is and has always been to simply look the other way. And this, not by coincidence, is the Jacksonville Way.

Usual great column from Nate but I wished he had put a good bit more focus on the absurdity of the autonomous vehicle solution as the Achilles heal of both the Skyway "modernization" project and, as he discusses, the overall prospects for the gas tax.

Aside from the shortcomings (expensive, low capacity, slow, questionable routing, etc.) of the solution as noted regularly on the Jaxson, he needs to look into quotes about the high risk of AV tech, generally, as I previously posted here:

Quote from: jaxlongtimer on April 04, 2021, 09:03:24 PM

Quote
Krafcik has overseen the company's biggest milestones, its rebranding to Waymo, partnerships and raised outside funding all while leading enthusiasm through the ranks. But Krafcik's departure signals a long and arduous reality check to early hype and hope of scaling self-driving vehicles.

"If you look at the past year and a half — there's been a growing realization within almost all the companies in autonomous vehicle development that this is a much harder problem than we thought," Sam Abuelsamid, principal analyst at Guidehouse Insights told CNBC Friday. "It wasn't that long ago people were projecting we'd have robotaxis everywhere by 2020. That hasn't panned out quite, clearly."...

...Krafcik's departure comes ahead of expected federal regulations in the U.S. around self driving cars.

The National Transportation Safety Board recently called on its sister agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, to impose stricter standards on automated vehicle tech. NHTSA solicited comments from the public in advance of proposed rule-making, and closed the comments period on April 1....

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/03/waymo-ceo-tenure-filled-with-milestones-hurdles-and-hype.html[ (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/03/waymo-ceo-tenure-filled-with-milestones-hurdles-and-hype.html[)

Quote....While Waymo has established itself as a leading developer of autonomous-vehicle technology with more than 20 million miles driven on public roads and more than 20 billion miles driven in simulation, the company's conservative approach to expanding operations has frustrated those hoping to see self-driven vehicles all around the country. That deliberate approach was a central part of Krafcik's tenure as CEO....

....The Waymo One autonomous ride-hailing service has been providing rides in the Phoenix area since 2017. As it has grown from a pilot program with a limited number of pre-selected customers into a ride-hailing service open to the public, utilizing a fleet of vehicles that operate without a driver. While Waymo has discussed expanding the Waymo One autonomous ride-hailing program to other cities for public use, the company has not given a definitive plan for doing so....

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/02/waymo-ceo-john-krafcik-steps-aside-as-co-ceos-take-over.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/02/waymo-ceo-john-krafcik-steps-aside-as-co-ceos-take-over.html)

When taxpayers understand that $379 million (plus millions in likely overruns and millions more in operating losses for a likely under-utilized service) will be spent on a still-unproven technology that Google and other AV leaders still haven't figured out after over a decade, billions of test miles and billions of dollars, we are going to have another Jax controversy on par with JEA and Lot J.

Curry and Ford should pull this project back while they still can before it blows up on them with collateral damage to both of their reputations and the prospects for their dream project list.

There's multiple storylines blending together in this Skyway discussion and unfortunately, it's shaping up like Lot J......a take the proposal as currently planned or leave it. However, I see several different issues that need to be phased and discussed independently.

1. Gas Tax Funding - Regardless of the technology, should locals be asked to spend 100% of the project's capital cost or should the gas tax cover a percentage of locally generated funding that would be matched with state and federal dollars. The gas tax funding 25% of the Skyway figure locally ($90 million), would free up $289 million in local gas tax funds to pay for a variety of other needs and legacy projects throughout the city.

2. U2C - To a degree, the U2C expansion plan should be viewed independently as well. Before paying to convert the Skyway system over, it would make sense to run AVs in dedicated lanes on Bay Street between the JRTC and Stadium and/or the JRTC and Five Points via Park Street. This will give you a good idea of the appeal to the public in a more affordable manner. So more of a phased approach or pilot that actually serves as the extension lines of two corridors that are planned for expansion anyway.

3. Skyway - As much as some people hate it, the Skyway is a visible symptom of a sick, dead downtown and one with no real plan to deliberately cluster high density development around its stations. No matter the technology, it will struggle for ridership with no immediate attempt to funnel ridership into it or develop around it's existing stations. In the meantime, while they attempt to figure out what to do with it long term, upgrade it to keep it running in the short term, start running it on the weekends again and aggressively build more stuff around it's existing stations. Also consider no frills approaches for limited expansions and connectivity opportunities that can grow ridership more affordably. Three of these potential opportunities are listed below:

A. Brooklyn - This one is a no-brainer and one we've discussed prior to Nat Ford even showing up in town. Finally, years after being told it wasn't feasible to do an at-grade station at the maintenance yard, they are doing it on the cheap for $1.2 million. Great example of cutting the fat for a no-frills expansion solution.

B. San Marco - Dating back to the late 2000s Mobility Plan, extending from Kings Avenue to Atlantic Boulevard, made sense from a traffic analysis perspective. It's one of the cheapest options for a grade separated connection between San Marco and Downtown over the FEC. Once you get over the FEC, you can drop it to grade and run it parallel to the tracks, ending with a cheap, no-frills stop next to Southern Grounds Coffee. That would put the Skyway within a short walk of San Marco Square, the new San Marco Publix, and just about everything on Hendricks Avenue through the neighborhood.

C. Rosa Parks / FSCJ - No extension needed immediately. Just open of the jail house like gate that surrounds FSCJ's campus and create an inviting pedestrian scale entrance to the campus, immediately north of Rosa Parks Station. As FSCJ expands that campus, they should coordinate and infill on the big surface parking lot immediately adjacent to Rosa Parks Station.

In the event that an AV conversion is ultimately feasible in the future, all three of these things would be needed anyway.

Long Term, is a conversion to Light Rail anywhere remotely feasible cost-wise? I recognize that if we tear it down it's a $90M bill.

I agree with the sentiment that short term we may not want to touch the thing aside from perhaps the San Marco connection to Atlantic Blvd.

LRT isn't feasible.....if trying to use the existing Skyway infrastructure. LRT would need to be looked at as a system serving a different purpose, stretching further out into the city (ex. SJTC, Beaches) than the Skyway (DT circulator). Like Miami's heavy rail line, LRT would be the thing to feed riders into the Skyway. If trying the salvage the Skyway infrastructure, you'll likely be limited to peoplemover technology, AVs, small heritage trolleys/streetcars or a lightweight tram. If you want to use the infrastructure and expand outward at-grade, eliminate the peoplemover option from that list.

Quote from: thelakelander on April 08, 2021, 08:49:41 AM
There's multiple storylines blending together in this Skyway discussion and unfortunately, it's shaping up like Lot J......a take the proposal as currently planned or leave it. However, I see several different issues that need to be phased and discussed independently.

Ennis, I don't see on your list an explicit question about JTA's ability to successfully implement AV's in the first place, at least anytime in the next few years or with a reasonable ROI.  As I have posted, others that are far more invested in AV's than JTA have yet to arrive at their destination so why does JTA think they are better?  This is my very first concern before all the issues about routes and user acceptance.  If the AV technology is not ready nothing else matters after that.

I'll keep your questions in mind. I'm meeting with JTA on Monday afternoon.

Quote from: thelakelander on April 08, 2021, 03:27:00 PM
I'll keep your questions in mind. I'm meeting with JTA on Monday afternoon.

Great.  Looking forward to how they justify the AV's based on where that technology (for everyone else) is now and for the foreseeable future.  Why do they think they have the "magic sauce" to pass far more experienced and vested others by?

I think a big issue with JTA is they also are in charge of the road network and local expressways. While in some instances this may seem like a good idea, especially for coordination with roadways like the First Coast Flyer and bus system, it also hampers any serious discussions of the mass transit side.

I don't believe other cities with large mass transit networks do this. MTA, CTA, BART, MARTA, DC Metro all have dedicated structures and organizations to plan, lobby, construct and operate mass transit. JTA has to keep all parties happy. It's a difficult juggling act.

It does seem to me like it'd arguably be beneficial to split the "Expressway Authority" element away from the "Transportation Authority" element, or vice-versa. Even if you want to leave them in the same building for "synergy" or whatever, having an agency or commission or something that's able to solely focus on planning out a broader regional mass transit network without worrying about basic things like sidewalks (although it does help the bus network if there are sidewalks to the stations) seems like a good idea. I know Lake was on the Regional Transportation Commission, maybe he can give some insight into how that went.

But yeah, I think the biggest concern is that JTA is asking for all this money (a lot of money) now without really clear evidence that they're capable of doing what they say they're going to do with it. And the weirdness of wanting local taxpayers to bear the full cost for just this, while other projects go largely ignored, is icing on the cake.

The RTC didn't have the capacity or financial support to serve as a regional transit agency.

Quote from: itsfantastic1 on April 08, 2021, 08:09:09 PM
I think a big issue with JTA is they also are in charge of the road network and local expressways.

No, they're not. City Streets are controlled by the City of Jacksonville Department of Public Works, the freeways, expressways, highways, and FL State Roads are under FDOT jurisdiction.

Quote from: marcuscnelson on April 08, 2021, 11:58:07 PM
It does seem to me like it'd arguably be beneficial to split the "Expressway Authority" element away from the "Transportation Authority" element, or vice-versa. Even if you want to leave them in the same building for "synergy" or whatever, having an agency or commission or something that's able to solely focus on planning out a broader regional mass transit network without worrying about basic things like sidewalks (although it does help the bus network if there are sidewalks to the stations) seems like a good idea. I know Lake was on the Regional Transportation Commission, maybe he can give some insight into how that went.

But yeah, I think the biggest concern is that JTA is asking for all this money (a lot of money) now without really clear evidence that they're capable of doing what they say they're going to do with it. And the weirdness of wanting local taxpayers to bear the full cost for just this, while other projects go largely ignored, is icing on the cake.

Historical note: The Jacksonville Transportation Authority started in the 1950s as the Jacksonville Expressway Authority. In 1971, when the assets of the Jacksonville Coach Company were bought and the Authority began operating the bus system, the name was changed to reflect the broader mission - Jacksonville Transportation Authority.  The thought was that having the expressway/highway and transit planning (this was before Metropolitan Planning Organizations) and implementation under one roof would provide better coordination.

Quote from: Peter Griffin on April 09, 2021, 08:30:26 AM

Quote from: itsfantastic1 on April 08, 2021, 08:09:09 PM
I think a big issue with JTA is they also are in charge of the road network and local expressways.

No, they're not. City Streets are controlled by the City of Jacksonville Department of Public Works, the freeways, expressways, highways, and FL State Roads are under FDOT jurisdiction.

It's in their charter...https://www.jtafla.com/about-jta/legal/florida-statute-349/ (https://www.jtafla.com/about-jta/legal/florida-statute-349/)

QuoteThe authority created and established by the provisions of this chapter is hereby granted and shall have the right to acquire, hold, construct, improve, maintain, operate, own, and lease in the capacity of lessor the Jacksonville Expressway System (hereinafter referred to as "system")...and as hereafter completed or improved or extended as authorized by this chapter, and all appurtenant facilities, including all approaches, streets, roads, bicycle paths, bridges, and avenues of access for the Jacksonville Expressway System, and to construct or acquire extensions, additions, and improvements to the system and to complete the construction and acquisition of the system."

Sounds to me like they are in charge of certain roadways. I wasn't intending to say JTA is in charge of ALL roads in Duval, just that it is an additional responsibility on their plate that can conflict and redirect resources from proper mass transit planning.

Quote from: itsfantastic1 on April 09, 2021, 10:57:39 AM

Quote from: Peter Griffin on April 09, 2021, 08:30:26 AM

Quote from: itsfantastic1 on April 08, 2021, 08:09:09 PM
I think a big issue with JTA is they also are in charge of the road network and local expressways.

No, they're not. City Streets are controlled by the City of Jacksonville Department of Public Works, the freeways, expressways, highways, and FL State Roads are under FDOT jurisdiction.

It's in their charter...https://www.jtafla.com/about-jta/legal/florida-statute-349/ (https://www.jtafla.com/about-jta/legal/florida-statute-349/)

QuoteThe authority created and established by the provisions of this chapter is hereby granted and shall have the right to acquire, hold, construct, improve, maintain, operate, own, and lease in the capacity of lessor the Jacksonville Expressway System (hereinafter referred to as "system")...and as hereafter completed or improved or extended as authorized by this chapter, and all appurtenant facilities, including all approaches, streets, roads, bicycle paths, bridges, and avenues of access for the Jacksonville Expressway System, and to construct or acquire extensions, additions, and improvements to the system and to complete the construction and acquisition of the system."

Sounds to me like they are in charge of certain roadways. I wasn't intending to say JTA is in charge of ALL roads in Duval, just that it is an additional responsibility on their plate that can conflict and redirect resources from proper mass transit planning.

The Jacksonville Expressway System was previously the Fuller Warren Bridge, Hart and Mathews Bridge Expressways, the MLK expressway, among others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacksonville_Expressway_Authority

All expressways which the Jax Expy Auth previously built have since been transferred to FDOT ownership and control, other than the Skyway. JTA no longer owns nor operates any of the facilities which were originally under the ownership and care of the defunct Jacksonville Expressway Authority. JTA "controls" the mass transit facilities along those roadways, but they're not responsible for maintenance of those roadways which State Routes, owned, run, and operated by FDOT.

Your original point still stands, they're stretched a bit thinner than some on this forum might like on the front of downtown transit, but they also do have to provide transportation for a huge sprawling city.

Quote from: Peter Griffin on April 09, 2021, 11:42:24 AM

Quote from: itsfantastic1 on April 09, 2021, 10:57:39 AM

Quote from: Peter Griffin on April 09, 2021, 08:30:26 AM

Quote from: itsfantastic1 on April 08, 2021, 08:09:09 PM
I think a big issue with JTA is they also are in charge of the road network and local expressways.

No, they're not. City Streets are controlled by the City of Jacksonville Department of Public Works, the freeways, expressways, highways, and FL State Roads are under FDOT jurisdiction.

It's in their charter...https://www.jtafla.com/about-jta/legal/florida-statute-349/ (https://www.jtafla.com/about-jta/legal/florida-statute-349/)

QuoteThe authority created and established by the provisions of this chapter is hereby granted and shall have the right to acquire, hold, construct, improve, maintain, operate, own, and lease in the capacity of lessor the Jacksonville Expressway System (hereinafter referred to as "system")...and as hereafter completed or improved or extended as authorized by this chapter, and all appurtenant facilities, including all approaches, streets, roads, bicycle paths, bridges, and avenues of access for the Jacksonville Expressway System, and to construct or acquire extensions, additions, and improvements to the system and to complete the construction and acquisition of the system."

Sounds to me like they are in charge of certain roadways. I wasn't intending to say JTA is in charge of ALL roads in Duval, just that it is an additional responsibility on their plate that can conflict and redirect resources from proper mass transit planning.

The Jacksonville Expressway System was previously the Fuller Warren Bridge, Hart and Mathews Bridge Expressways, the MLK expressway, among others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacksonville_Expressway_Authority

All expressways which the Jax Expy Auth previously built have since been transferred to FDOT ownership and control, other than the Skyway. JTA no longer owns nor operates any of the facilities which were originally under the ownership and care of the defunct Jacksonville Expressway Authority. JTA "controls" the mass transit facilities along those roadways, but they're not responsible for maintenance of those roadways which State Routes, owned, run, and operated by FDOT.

Your original point still stands, they're stretched a bit thinner than some on this forum might like on the front of downtown transit, but they also do have to provide transportation for a huge sprawling city.

Ok, thanks for the correction.

Quote from: Peter Griffin on April 09, 2021, 11:42:24 AM

Quote from: itsfantastic1 on April 09, 2021, 10:57:39 AM

Quote from: Peter Griffin on April 09, 2021, 08:30:26 AM

Quote from: itsfantastic1 on April 08, 2021, 08:09:09 PM
I think a big issue with JTA is they also are in charge of the road network and local expressways.

No, they're not. City Streets are controlled by the City of Jacksonville Department of Public Works, the freeways, expressways, highways, and FL State Roads are under FDOT jurisdiction.

It's in their charter...https://www.jtafla.com/about-jta/legal/florida-statute-349/ (https://www.jtafla.com/about-jta/legal/florida-statute-349/)

QuoteThe authority created and established by the provisions of this chapter is hereby granted and shall have the right to acquire, hold, construct, improve, maintain, operate, own, and lease in the capacity of lessor the Jacksonville Expressway System (hereinafter referred to as "system")...and as hereafter completed or improved or extended as authorized by this chapter, and all appurtenant facilities, including all approaches, streets, roads, bicycle paths, bridges, and avenues of access for the Jacksonville Expressway System, and to construct or acquire extensions, additions, and improvements to the system and to complete the construction and acquisition of the system."

Sounds to me like they are in charge of certain roadways. I wasn't intending to say JTA is in charge of ALL roads in Duval, just that it is an additional responsibility on their plate that can conflict and redirect resources from proper mass transit planning.

The Jacksonville Expressway System was previously the Fuller Warren Bridge, Hart and Mathews Bridge Expressways, the MLK expressway, among others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacksonville_Expressway_Authority

All expressways which the Jax Expy Auth previously built have since been transferred to FDOT ownership and control, other than the Skyway. JTA no longer owns nor operates any of the facilities which were originally under the ownership and care of the defunct Jacksonville Expressway Authority. JTA "controls" the mass transit facilities along those roadways, but they're not responsible for maintenance of those roadways which State Routes, owned, run, and operated by FDOT.

Your original point still stands, they're stretched a bit thinner than some on this forum might like on the front of downtown transit, but they also do have to provide transportation for a huge sprawling city.

JTA is an agent of authority for construction of many roadway projects throughout Jacksonville. JTA can and does collect taxes and bond money for new roadway construction, roadway expansion, roadway facility improvements (IE sidewalk construction and ADA compliance improvements), bridge construction, etc.

You are correct in that either FDOT or COJ owns the roadways. But by whatever term you call it- JTA is by charter, definition and practice... in the roadway construction business.   

Trying to update the skyway to handle robobuses is throwing good money after bad.

The cost of updating the skyway and having equipment to do that is likely to cost hundreds of millions on it's.  Just the cost of the hybrid stuff.  no ones ever done it.  And for good reason, it's extremely complex and not easy to have it occur safely 100% of the time.

There is zero need to use the skyway for U2C.  Zero.  It brings nothing but problems and costs.   Smarter people would walk away from it.  Politicians don't tend to be those sort of smart people.

Quote from: thelakelander on April 08, 2021, 03:27:00 PM
I'll keep your questions in mind. I'm meeting with JTA on Monday afternoon.

So how'd it go? Saw David Cawton tweet (https://twitter.com/davidcawton/status/1381722153792516101?s=21) about you.

I spent about two hours with them. They had a lot to say about the technology they've been testing at their facility, what they've learned so far and where they'd like to go. My opinion and concerns remain the same about the Skyway conversion to the U2C specifically. There's a lot we don't know yet, many local decisions that are out of their control and the question of whether taxpayers should fund the U2C 100% with local gas tax money is something that can't be answered via a technology testing and evaluation overview. Nevertheless, they promised to provide an official response to all the questions I asked later this week.

Quote from: thelakelander on April 12, 2021, 10:42:53 PM
I spent about two hours with them. They had a lot to say about the technology they've been testing at their facility, what they've learned so far and where they'd like to go. My opinion and concerns remain the same about the Skyway conversion to the U2C specifically. There's a lot we don't know yet, many local decisions that are out of their control and the question of whether taxpayers should fund the U2C 100% with local gas tax money is something that can't be answered via a technology testing and evaluation overview. Nevertheless, they promised to provide an official response to all the questions I asked later this week.

Good of JTA to give you time to review your concerns.  That said, I will be interested in how they think they "can go where no one else has ventured before, exploring new frontiers."  I would think that after all their testing they would realize they are not qualified to climb the mountain before them.  Let better prepared others go and show the way.

Nat Ford has worked hard to build his and JTA's reputation so I don't know why he is willing to throw it all away over this project.  Its failure will way overshadow the BRT system and RTC he has built as the Skyway is a literally a white elephant that can't be ignored.  If he came out and said it's time to kill it I can't imagine anyone contesting the decision.  Most citizens would applaud his heroic action to do so.

I think using the Skyway as a Highline for pedestrians would qualify it as a manageable "transportation project" to be funded by the gas tax.  More people would use the Skyway for that than will ever ride the AV's and it could be delivered for a fraction of the cost.  As an amenity to Downtown as well as an iconic attraction, it could be a real driver for Downtown development.  The current plan will only push support for Downtown to ever lower levels.

I seriously doubt the Skyway as a Highline is remotely feasible. That's been occasionally mentioned over the years, but neither the infrastructure or context is remotely comparable. Plus, the Emerald Trail is moving forward and essentially gives you the same thing in an Underline condition. No matter the transit investment, the area needs some density. Basically what it had when the Skyway was first proposed. IMO, keeping it simple remains the best approach for the Skyway as of now. Renovation, low headways and operation on weekends still makes the most sense, combined with feeding riders into it through complimentary transit coordination and land use development.  Regardless of what's done, the gas tax issue is a separate one. No single project should eat up such a large portion of that funding, IMO. Spread the wealth in a way that can be transformative, while benefitting thousands more Jaxsons.

Good move by the council. We need the nuts and bolts about this project and why it should be 100% funded by the gas tax at the expense of other needs around the city.

QuoteJacksonville City Council questions mount about spending $379 million on Skyway conversion

A proposed $379 million overhaul and expansion of the Skyway system in downtown Jacksonville faces growing questions from City Council members as they prepare for a likely vote on doubling the local gas tax.

City Council Finance Committee Chairman Matt Carlucci sent the Jacksonville Transportation Authority a list of queries Monday and said that depending on how much public support and council buy-in there is, the amount of money for the Skyway might need to be reduced.

"What I'm telling people is to keep an open mind to it," Carlucci said. "That's what I'm doing, but it's up to the JTA to sell it. If it turns into some kind of big drama, it may need to be downsized because I don't want the Skyway taking down all the other gas tax projects."

https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2021/04/13/jacksonville-skyway-questions-mount-over-using-gas-tax-project/7193852002/

^ Looking forward to seeing JTA's response, Lake. Very good points.

After some thought, research, and discussion, I think I've put together a possible explanation for how we got here. I'd like to lay it out and see if it makes sense.

---

Turn back the clock to 2015. JTA is finally seeking public opinion on what to do with the Skyway monorail. JTA's board and a committee of "downtown stakeholders" (not experts) gather opinion on five options:

Quote1. Refurbish vehicles and keep running for 20 years, with no expansion.

2. Replace vehicles and run for another 25 to 40 years, with no expansion to the system.

3. Replace vehicles, run for another 25 to 40 years, and expand the system.

4. Stop operating and tear down

5. Stop operating and convert to elevated multi-use path.

There's a crucial error made here. Construction of an LRT system, using modern vehicles such as Bombardier's Flexity or Brookville's Liberty, would require choosing Option 4 or 5, tearing down the system and paying back the federal government. Historic vehicles aren't viewed as an option due to the uncertain nature of their procurement and the expectation of the public demanding a modern system. The assumption is made that any "keeping" of the system is going to have to mean a people-mover or monorail system of some kind. But this isn't properly communicated. After much deliberation, Option 3 is chosen. JTA's board adopts a resolution to "keep, modernize, and expand" the Skyway.

But suddenly, multiple problems strike at once. The technical assessment reports modern LRT vehicles are too heavy for the guideway, while also operating beyond the mission of an urban circulator. Modern people-mover vehicles are designed for elevated, grade-separated guideway. But communities favored for expansion like Riverside, San Marco, and Springfield would be opposed to building elevated extensions down their streets, meaning any extension would have to be largely at-grade. Tearing down the existing system and starting over would require paying tens of millions back to the federal government, money JTA doesn't have right now, with no knowledge of whether voters or the city would provide any. JTA has already publicly committed to "keep, modernize, and expand" the Skyway. They've painted themselves into a corner.

Enter the autonomous vehicle, sometime in 2016. As stated in JTA's reports, AVs are largely untested, but at this point show promise as a solution to all their problems. Perhaps not now, but within a few short years, it could be realistic to operate next-generation versions as an urban circulator. Most of the renderings created at this time show AVs grade-separated, or at least in lanes separated from traffic. High risk, but high reward if it works, which the trend of technological development points to being the case. Looking at the options as they stand, they decide to make a bet on AVs.

Obviously people in places like this forum are confused, but the AV suppliers, like EasyMile, Navya, and Local, jump for the kill. For the next year and a half, JTA is inundated with promises about the capability of these vehicles, and the various stages of experimentation in which they exist. Eventually, they're even convinced that these vehicles will very soon be capable of mixed traffic operation. By late 2017, the buzzwords about technology and innovation have won the leadership over with the promise of near-future capability. It's okay that it doesn't work yet, because it will surely work soon.

But we've seen how it's gone. JTA has spent potentially millions experimenting, showered in the glory of national attention for their bravery. VP of Automation Bernard Schmidt is making a cool quarter-million a year to make it work. They're a darling of the industry, a national example of the future's promise, which they've attempted to make the public part of in spite of pesky nuisances claiming they're wrong. How could they be wrong? Sure, it's not ready quite yet, but it'll be ready soon. They've gone as far as to create dazzling presentations (http://u2ctod.meetsyou.online/) of a city crafted by technology they pioneered. They've applied for and accepted federal dollars to get started. It's not quite there but almost, just two, or three, maybe four more years! Soon enough! C'mon, just approve the gas tax and they'll show you how it works! They've come too far to just stop now!

Which brings us, to now. Five years of sunken costs and institutional momentum. Either they're going to the moon or blowing into smithereens. They've spent so much time in a bubble, surrounded by reassurances that this is all going to work soon enough, that the sudden collision with reality caused by the gravity of their funding request, one they chose to fully fund this project that's totally going to work, threatens to violently bring the whole ride to a halt. To the point that they're scrambling to defend their position as questioning Council members and a concerned public begins to circle in a way that's all too familiar to those who watched Lot J collapse just a few months ago.

All because they failed to consider the gravity of what was demanded by a mandate to "keep, modernize, and expand."

^As you infer, JTA's biggest issues are politics, egos and bureaucratic laziness (i.e. failure to explore all options and risks and weigh them appropriately vs. let's just get something done, anything, to look important).  They are not alone - these ailments seem to be running rampant nowadays in this City.  - more so than usual. 

Unfortunately, these deficiencies manage to conspire to create poor decision making processes, particularly when they require a business-like approach.  It should be about obtaining the highest ROI for the taxpayers' investments.  It's not about losing money but providing the greatest value, creating a sustainable solution and serving the most people.  The AV-Skyway is far from doing any of these things as/is was Lot J, the Hart Bridge ramps, the Landing, the Shipyards, Metro Park and many other City projects being pushed through lately.

I love your overview Marcus! I laughed a few times as I read it.

There is a simple solution though. It's the Bay Street Innovation Corridor. There's no reason why a Bay Street (or even Park Street between Brooklyn and Five Points) can't be revamped into a "complete street" with a dedicated transit lane where technologies like AVs can be piloted (or even used by regular buses and the Flyer)....without touching the Skyway. Either corridor would be hundreds of millions cheaper to do and provide the same technology benefits that JTA has been trying to sell to the public. At the end of the day, JTA still gets to play with their experiment and if deemed successful, it could be utilized to secure additional state and federal funding. If things fail to materialized as dreamed, Jax isn't left holding the bag of a super expensive disaster. That same transit lane can be used by regular buses or converted into a shared use path or something. The hundreds of millions in gas tax money not allocated to the Skyway/U2C or whatever, means those dollars can be redistributed city wide to fund other projects that benefit a larger cross section of the city, which is a big political win for the mayor and council.

Quote from: marcuscnelson on April 13, 2021, 07:56:38 AM
All because they failed to consider the gravity of what was demanded by a mandate to "keep, modernize, and expand."

What's described above also fits within the mandate to "keep, modernize, and expand". Even as a pilot, a completely different transit technology that connects to the existing Skyway system but serves a new corridor.....is expansion! Opening a new Skyway station in Brooklyn.....is expansion! So, "keep and modernize" the existing system by incorporating common peoplemover equipment used worldwide, which will drop maintenance cost and buy yourself another 20 years or so. More importantly, aggressively work to cluster density around the existing system. Because at the end of the day, no matter the transit technology selected, if downtown and the urban core remain dead, the system will also be a dead one that struggles to build and maintain consistent ridership.

Just got this via email from CM Becton's office. I assume CM Becton is a no to the gas tax, regardless of if the Skyway is in it or not:

QuoteDear Colleagues, Constituents and Friends,

A new year is finally here, and it could not have come soon enough. It was over one year ago that we began changing many aspects of our lives, which may alter our pursuit of happiness and quality of life forever.

It will be up to us to maintain some level of reasonableness when understanding the difference between a life without the ability to smile at one another and how everyday life has some levels of risks worth taking. So, how valuable are personal freedoms to you? The answer will slowly unravel in the months and years ahead as to whether our freedoms are restored or given up forever.

One thing that I am certain of is the heavy price we paid, and will continue to pay, for the decisions that have been made and actions taken over the past year. Trillions of dollars lost on a national level, and over $100 million locally has been spent in the blink of an eye. Checks have arrived in the mail for most Americans and assistance has been provided for those in need. For those who expected these actions to not have consequences, I hope I am not the barrier of bad news with this reminder: Nothing in life is free. Sooner or later, as we have seen time and time again, those who are being helped today are more likely to be the ones who will suffer the most in years to come.

Locally and nationally, I am witnessing constant pressure every day to raise taxes. Over the past year, I have personally stood against those who wanted more of your money with the justification that it is never enough. It is often stated that Jacksonville runs on the cheap and at the same time it is questioned if our consolidated government we have, working the way that it is supposed to? Well, it is my contention that our city does have a millage advantage over others, and it is exactly for this reason, consolidation has provided efficiencies in which yes, we are financially advantaged.

The topic of a new gas tax appears to be the soup-de-jour and new desire for those tax and spending supporters. While the idea of spreading our transportation expense over a broader group of taxpayers is appealing, what really brother's me - outside of it just being a flat out a "tax Increase"- is the fact that we are again looking to mortgage our children's future tax revenue. The idea of utilizing the next 30+ years or more of gas tax revenue to pay for $930 million of road improvements today makes me question; what will be left for those taxpayers when those same roads and more need resurfacing in 15 years? Where will they be expected to find tax revenue to pay for their needs? Already, we have pushed our pension liabilities out thru 2045 and beyond, with the extension of the sales tax. And, if you think these taxes are ever temporary? Well, we all know the answer to that question. As I have stated to constituents that have asked, I do not support an increase in taxes unless it is accompanied by an offsetting tax decrease somewhere else. Our budget is already over by $300 million more annually today and still growing than in 2015. My contention, we do not have a Revenue problem. We have a Spending problem!

If they really think the AV thing can work, then there should be similar opinions from other successful Transportation Organizations. I wonder if this technology is being pursued anywhere else in the States. I know Lake Nona has a driverless bus shuttle operating, and it went pretty smoothly on a public ROW with other parked and moving vehicles. It's speed was low though. I wonder what those residents think about it.

^None of those things are popular for everyday transit use. Most of those pilots, Lake Nona included, are gimmicks but very important for the testing of a technology with a ton of unknowns. Heck, half of these things still can't even operate properly in rain. So when it comes to the Skyway, it's better to separate the two. If someone wants to test things in a real world environment, take a local street and retrofit it to do it. One up that by taking a local street that actually connects an existing Skyway station with a viable destination where the Skyway does not currently operate. TIAA Bank Field and Five Points are two examples. We can do both without touching the Skyway infrastructure. So remove the cost of modifying the Skyway infrastructure out of the gas tax and lets see what the gas tax savings are. We can play the same game with the various expansion routes as well.

Quote from: jaxlongtimer on April 13, 2021, 11:31:14 AM
^As you infer, JTA's biggest issues are politics, egos and bureaucratic laziness (i.e. failure to explore all options and risks and weigh them appropriately vs. let's just get something done, anything, to look important).  They are not alone - these ailments seem to be running rampant nowadays in this City.  - more so than usual. 

Unfortunately, these deficiencies manage to conspire to create poor decision making processes, particularly when they require a business-like approach.  It should be about obtaining the highest ROI for the taxpayers' investments.  It's not about losing money but providing the greatest value, creating a sustainable solution and serving the most people.  The AV-Skyway is far from doing any of these things as/is was Lot J, the Hart Bridge ramps, the Landing, the Shipyards, Metro Park and many other City projects being pushed through lately.

The problem is what I pointed out happened in ~2017 and later. This isn't about ROI or serving people anymore. They've spent years in an echo chamber being told they're pioneers, they're building the transportation system of the future, they're innovating, transforming Jacksonville into a smart city. They're the ones hosting the industry forums. Look at this response (https://youtu.be/xoUDtvjwMvY?t=3125) to a question I submitted at their TOD presentation a year ago. "Leading the way for the technology." But also "it's phased" because it's not there yet but soon. JTA is "writing the book." "We just need to not lose sight of what this program is." "It's an urban circulator, not a rail system."

Quote from: thelakelander on April 13, 2021, 12:01:29 PM
There is a simple solution though. It's the Bay Street Innovation Corridor. There's no reason why a Bay Street (or even Park Street between Brooklyn and Five Points) can't be revamped into a "complete street" with a dedicated transit lane where technologies like AVs can be piloted (or even used by regular buses and the Flyer)....without touching the Skyway. Either corridor would be hundreds of millions cheaper to do and provide the same technology benefits that JTA has been trying to sell to the public. At the end of the day, JTA still gets to play with their experiment and if deemed successful, it could be utilized to secure additional state and federal funding. If things fail to materialized as dreamed, Jax isn't left holding the bag of a super expensive disaster. That same transit lane can be used by regular buses or converted into a shared use path or something. The hundreds of millions in gas tax money not allocated to the Skyway/U2C or whatever, means those dollars can be redistributed city wide to fund other projects that benefit a larger cross section of the city, which is a big political win for the mayor and council.

Some urban planning folks I've been sharing our city and particularly the Skyway/U2C with, have called it, particularly the Bay Street Innovation Corridor, a "gadgetbahn," which I suppose says a lot about how common the mentality is. Like I said, one of the big problems is them being inundated with promises about the "near-future" capability, which is how we went from something vaguely along the lines of what you're saying:

(https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/sites/default/files/286479_standard.jpeg)

To what they're now insisting is just two, well now three or four, years away:

(https://news.wjct.org/sites/wjct/files/styles/x_large/public/201812/GrantImage.jpg)

And keeping in mind that the point is "modernizing" the system, which to them has meant replacing the monorail with those "next-gen" vehicles that are right around the corner.

Quote from: thelakelander on April 13, 2021, 12:01:29 PM

Quote from: marcuscnelson on April 13, 2021, 07:56:38 AM
All because they failed to consider the gravity of what was demanded by a mandate to "keep, modernize, and expand."

What's described above also fits within the mandate to "keep, modernize, and expand". Even as a pilot, a completely different transit technology that connects to the existing Skyway system but serves a new corridor.....is expansion! Opening a new Skyway station in Brooklyn.....is expansion! So, "keep and modernize" the existing system by incorporating common peoplemover equipment used worldwide, which will drop maintenance cost and buy yourself another 20 years or so. More importantly, aggressively work to cluster density around the existing system. Because at the end of the day, no matter the transit technology selected, if downtown and the urban core remain dead, the system will also be a dead one that struggles to build and maintain consistent ridership.

It does also fit, but it's at odds with the culture and mentality that the AV suppliers and their own hubris have built over the last five years. The goal is having something they can build as soon as it's ready into Springfield and Riverside and San Marco, because the lesson they feel they've learned is that they have to build the full 10-mile system ASAP or it's not happening at all. It's not supposed to be an experiment anymore, it's almost ready, it's going to happen, right around the corner. The question is whether the coming storm of political and public pushback is enough to force a rethink of their plan, or if they circle the AVs and soldier on.

QuoteSome urban planning folks I've been sharing our city and particularly the Skyway/U2C with, have called it, particularly the Bay Street Innovation Corridor, a "gadgetbahn," which I suppose says a lot about how common the mentality is.

I have a better name... the "gadgetKHAN" as I believe that is the only reason there is a push to put all these resources into the portion of Bay Street that just happens to lead to the stadium.  If Lot J went through, or now the Four Seasons, it all would benefit Khan... if it ever works which remains an open question.

Very funny, although I think in general there's good reason to build connectivity to the stadium district anyway, regardless of Khan. It'd be a good thing if you could get there without driving.

Side note, a few minutes ago I spoke at tonight's City Council meeting about the U2C, and just now some "Transportation Specialist" at Michael Baker just checked my LinkedIn profile.

Quote from: marcuscnelson on April 13, 2021, 04:04:48 PM
It does also fit, but it's at odds with the culture and mentality that the AV suppliers and their own hubris have built over the last five years. The goal is having something they can build as soon as it's ready into Springfield and Riverside and San Marco, because the lesson they feel they've learned is that they have to build the full 10-mile system ASAP or it's not happening at all.

and then there's the smack of reality. Someone needs FDOT approval for mixed traffic operations on US 17 in Springfield. FDOT D2 is one of the more conservative and old school districts in the state. You'd have an easier task convincing them to do a road diet, even though that road has way more capacity than it needs. Good luck. Looking at Bay Street, that graphic calls for removing all the on-street parking. That will get you tar and feathered in downtown where struggling business owners have more to worry about for survival than also losing parking. Looking at San Marco, you want to cross the FEC at grade on San Marco Blvd or have a grade separated railroad crossing and parallel the FEC at-grade, south to Atlantic Blvd? There's a host of liability issues and approvals, ROW acquisition and/or easements you'll likely need from the railroad. Things drawn on sketches from four or five years ago, will change when the railroad attorneys really get involved.

So the world outside of exploring what gadgets will and won't work in the future, will still heavily play a role into the success or failure of said project or dream. I think that's starting to happen now, via community and council feedback on the price tag included in the gas tax list. At the end, there will have to be some compromise to keep it from sinking the entire proposal.

QuoteIt's not supposed to be an experiment anymore, it's almost ready, it's going to happen, right around the corner. The question is whether the coming storm of political and public pushback is enough to force a rethink of their plan, or if they circle the AVs and soldier on.

If it don't exist today in the form that it is proposed, it's an experiment. We can play with experiments but we just have to fine tune them into the world of reality. This gas tax discussion is good form of this.

Quote from: thelakelander on April 13, 2021, 12:01:29 PM
There's no reason why a Bay Street (or even Park Street between Brooklyn and Five Points) can't be revamped into a "complete street" with a dedicated transit lane where technologies like AVs can be piloted (or even used by regular buses and the Flyer)....without touching the Skyway.

In fact, it should be done before moving forward.  This tech is 100% UNPROVEN.   You need to prove it works before you scale.


JTA is not doing the U2C robot bus thing to move people in Jacksonville.  They're doing it for something fancy on their resume for their next, bigger job.

Quote from: bl8jaxnative on April 14, 2021, 12:16:43 PM
JTA is not doing the U2C robot bus thing to move people in Jacksonville.  They're doing it for something fancy on their resume for their next, bigger job.

There is at least an ounce of truth to this. Brad Thoburn, who made many of the presentations on the U2C to JTA's board, went on to serve as a Vice President at Michael Baker and is now an Assistant Secretary at FDOT.

Quote from: thelakelander on April 13, 2021, 06:33:38 PM
and then there's the smack of reality. Someone needs FDOT approval for mixed traffic operations on US 17 in Springfield. FDOT D2 is one of the more conservative and old school districts in the state. You'd have an easier task convincing them to do a road diet, even though that road has way more capacity than it needs. Good luck. Looking at Bay Street, that graphic calls for removing all the on-street parking. That will get you tar and feathered in downtown where struggling business owners have more to worry about for survival than also losing parking. Looking at San Marco, you want to cross the FEC at grade on San Marco Blvd or have a grade separated railroad crossing and parallel the FEC at-grade, south to Atlantic Blvd? There's a host of liability issues and approvals, ROW acquisition and/or easements you'll likely need from the railroad. Things drawn on sketches from four or five years ago, will change when the railroad attorneys really get involved.

So the world outside of exploring what gadgets will and won't work in the future, will still heavily play a role into the success or failure of said project or dream. I think that's starting to happen now, via community and council feedback on the price tag included in the gas tax list. At the end, there will have to be some compromise to keep it from sinking the entire proposal.

One of the very confusing things about the way JTA has planned the U2C over the past few years is the near-complete absence of obvious integration of their plans into other projects along the planned route. We're rebuilding a third of Bay Street because of the Hart ramp teardown, perfect opportunity to integrate lanes for the expansion. But no, they're apparently separate projects and FDOT's plans show no evidence of any consideration for the U2C. Mind you, the federal dollars going to the ramp teardown are the same dollars going to the Bay Street Innovation Corridor. Or there's the road diet on Park Street, which does integrate JTA's own BRT route, another great opportunity to integrate U2C expansion. But no, the plans show no evidence of that, even though the U2C is supposed to use part of Park Street.

They somehow had time to put together a very fancy set of renderings (https://u2ctod.meetsyou.online/) for TOD, but didn't bother to call FDOT or even other parts of their own building and try to include space for their plans on the roads already being rebuilt. It's like, Schrödinger's project or something.

I'd certainly hope that the collision of their dreams with the expectations of reality actually requires them to think critically about the practicality of their project, but it requires that they get out of their bubble, decline the praise-filled calls from Local Motors or Navya for a moment, and take a moment to be realistic. We'll see if City Council forces them to do that.

Quote from: bl8jaxnative on April 14, 2021, 12:16:43 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on April 13, 2021, 12:01:29 PM
There's no reason why a Bay Street (or even Park Street between Brooklyn and Five Points) can't be revamped into a "complete street" with a dedicated transit lane where technologies like AVs can be piloted (or even used by regular buses and the Flyer)....without touching the Skyway.

In fact, it should be done before moving forward.  This tech is 100% UNPROVEN.   You need to prove it works before you scale.


JTA is not doing the U2C robot bus thing to move people in Jacksonville.  They're doing it for something fancy on their resume for their next, bigger job.

^This is worthy of discussion, regarding the amount of money being penciled in for a single project that won't have much impact on the greater community. There's the potential of new technology and there's a basic need to improve the local mass transit system. At the end of the day, both can be done without the other. So the question is should we be spending $379MM in local tax dollars on this solution, at the potential expense of several other things that may not be as sexy but more important to the community?

Probably worth mentioning here too, TIGER/BUILD has been rebranded as RAISE, and grants are now available (https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/us-secretary-transportation-pete-buttigieg-announces-availability-1-billion-modernize) with a max of $25 million.

Now, supposedly the Bay Street Innovation Corridor is already funded, and the two competing firms are now in the design stage, but I think it's useful to emphasize the potential for federal funding that's out there, and going to be out there ($80 billion for transit funding in the American Jobs Plan).

Is the Bay Street Innovation Corridor already funded? Would it not include the U2C extension to the stadium? If so, is the funding of that not included in the $379 million gas tax number......meaning the U2C is even more expensive than people are being led to believe?

Uh... according to this (https://www.jtafla.com/media-center/press-releases/the-jta-and-fta-finalizes-build-grant-agreement-in-virtual-signing-ceremony/) it is.

QuoteThe fully-funded Bay Street Innovation Corridor includes a three-mile at-grade AV service in Downtown Jacksonville along East Bay Street, from Pearl Street to the Sports and Entertainment Complex and TIAA Bank Field.

That's... a deeply concerning point. I've been trying to find the Transit Concepts and Alternative Review, but for the life of me I haven't come across it anywhere.

What I did find was this Infrastructure Assessment (https://www.jtafla.com/media/1693/u2c-infrastructure-assessment.pdf) projecting costs for the conversion.

Sounds like a question that needs to come during the City Council meetings on the gas tax.

I felt like I was bludgeoned to death with buzzwords reading this.

https://www.jtafla.com/media/1707/u2c-innovative-autonomous.pdf

I found this and the assessment on this page (https://www.jtafla.com/build-grant/) for the BUILD grant.

Quote from: marcuscnelson on April 14, 2021, 03:21:59 PM
Uh... according to this (https://www.jtafla.com/media-center/press-releases/the-jta-and-fta-finalizes-build-grant-agreement-in-virtual-signing-ceremony/) it is.

QuoteThe fully-funded Bay Street Innovation Corridor includes a three-mile at-grade AV service in Downtown Jacksonville along East Bay Street, from Pearl Street to the Sports and Entertainment Complex and TIAA Bank Field.

That's... a deeply concerning point. I've been trying to find the Transit Concepts and Alternative Review, but for the life of me I haven't come across it anywhere.

What I did find was this Infrastructure Assessment (https://www.jtafla.com/media/1693/u2c-infrastructure-assessment.pdf) projecting costs for the conversion.

(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-Gb8TftD/0/X3/i-Gb8TftD-X3.jpg)

I get the impression that we don't really know how much capacity a system of this type of need, in order to adequately serve the urban core.....in say 2030 or 2040? We're basically limited to what we know about what's out there vehicle-wise today. It's pretty scary to think this will likely cost taxpayers over $400MM, still not really get anyone far outside of downtown and could be obsolete by the time the first vehicle rolls across elevated Skyway infrastructure.

According to that linked document, the Bay St corridor is $62 million. If funded already, we're up to $436 million for the project. It's also a few years behind. That build grant proposal has a schedule showing the Bay Street Innovation Corridor being completed by this fall.

Could the U2C Gas Tax amount include the absurd new river crossing between the Four Seasons Hotel and the Southbank? Or would that further balloon the budget?

Something I noted in the linked report was this when talking about the new bridge

Quote
To enhance connectivity, the plan recommends a new crossing of the St. Johns River be constructed to join the developing areas on the eastern ends on the Northbank and Southbank of the river. This new bridge will be for public transportation, bicycles and pedestrians only, connecting the Northbank and Southbank Riverwalk would create an inner loop for the future U2C service and enhancing accessibility of the downtown circulator.

Are they considering running the U2C on the Riverwalks?  From the table above, most of the candidate vehicles are nearly 7 feet wide. How wide are the Riverwalks?

There is so much more to critique in this document - maybe later.

Oh, and the report refers to the FTA as the Federal Transit Authority (on page 16) ... the "A" is for "Administration" - that would have earned a big red "X" and request to proofread the document before resubmitting. They do get it right later in the doc.

I have the TCAR, it is 2 PDFs and a PowerPoint Summary - the Final Report is 46.5 MB, the Appendices 136.1 MB, and the PowerPoint 16.9 MB. Does The Jaxson have a place to upload such files?

Quote from: thelakelander on April 14, 2021, 06:39:51 PM
According to that linked document, the Bay St corridor is $62 million. If funded already, we're up to $436 million for the project. It's also a few years behind. That build grant proposal has a schedule showing the Bay Street Innovation Corridor being completed by this fall.

Is it time to start saying "half a billion dollars"?

The last Making Moves (https://youtu.be/La4Sc90NOCM?t=707) advertised "full commercial revenue service of autonomous vehicles on Bay Street is expected no later than 2025." That's a two year delay from the "2023" timeframe they used for a while, and of course even later than the "fall 2021" on the BUILD grant application.

Quote from: Charles Hunter on April 14, 2021, 07:41:24 PM
Could the U2C Gas Tax amount include the absurd new river crossing between the Four Seasons Hotel and the Southbank? Or would that further balloon the budget?

Something I noted in the linked report was this when talking about the new bridge

Quote
To enhance connectivity, the plan recommends a new crossing of the St. Johns River be constructed to join the developing areas on the eastern ends on the Northbank and Southbank of the river. This new bridge will be for public transportation, bicycles and pedestrians only, connecting the Northbank and Southbank Riverwalk would create an inner loop for the future U2C service and enhancing accessibility of the downtown circulator.

Are they considering running the U2C on the Riverwalks?  From the table above, most of the candidate vehicles are nearly 7 feet wide. How wide are the Riverwalks?

By "connecting the Riverwalks" they just mean that you walk from the Riverwalk to a station, get in a pod, get taken to the other side of the river, and walk from the station to the other Riverwalk.

I'm pretty sure the river crossing isn't happening. That report is from a few years ago when they initially unveiled the concept. They've somewhat vaguely described what they're spending the money on. Side note, it appears they updated the file listing the projects, and now instead of "Skyway Rehabilitation & Downtown Service Expansion" they're listing it as "Skyway Conversion to the U²C (Ultimate Urban Circulator) and Service Expansion"

Listed in ascending cost:

Quote$6,875,000: Skyway Rehabilitation & Downtown Service Expansion ‐ Fleet
Vehicle Fleet to support Skyway rehabilitation, downtown service expansion, and neighborhood extensions.

Quote$131,890,000: Skyway Conversion to the U²C (Ultimate Urban Circulator) and Service Expansion ‐ Neighborhood Extensions
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.

Quote$240,075,000: Skyway Conversion to the U²C (Ultimate Urban Circulator) ‐ Capital (Infrastructure, Systems)
Includes rehabilitation of the Skyway infrastructure, systems and IT network and expansion of services to support transition to autonomous vehicles.

marcusnelson - thanks for your explanation, that makes more sense - especially since the routes for the U2C don't use the Riverwalk.  But ... words have meanings, and they should edit their words more carefully.  Also, I agree that the new bridge isn't happening. Hopefully, they will produce some new graphics that leave it out.

I would like to see cost breakdowns of the $132 million and $240 million line items. How much for AVs and how many of them? How much for "stations"? How much for recharging infrastructure? How much to (and how will they) get the AVs between the Skyway and ground level, and how many of those transitions will there be?  Unless they are just grabbing random numbers, they have to have some idea about these things - and more.

At that point in the river it would HAVE to be another drawbridge, right?

Quote from: Charles Hunter on April 14, 2021, 09:54:42 PM
I would like to see cost breakdowns of the $132 million and $240 million line items. How much for AVs and how many of them? How much for "stations"? How much for recharging infrastructure? How much to (and how will they) get the AVs between the Skyway and ground level, and how many of those transitions will there be?  Unless they are just grabbing random numbers, they have to have some idea about these things - and more.

The crazy thing is, it's unclear if they actually really know. The consortium that gets picked to build (at least) Bay Street this summer (which, mind you, is largely after the beginning of the budget process) is going to spend the following 18 to 24 months actually designing the system.

^Yeah, I get the impression that there are a lot of unknowns. They don't exactly know how they'll ramp down to the street in certain areas or even how AVs will safely cross the at-grade Hart Bridge Expressway to get to TIAA Bank Field. I believe the consulting team hired will have to figure the some of these details out. So, I doubt the estimates are accurate.

Quote from: blizz01 on April 14, 2021, 10:22:59 PM
At that point in the river it would HAVE to be another drawbridge, right?

A draw bridge would wreak havoc on the frequency of service of the AVs, and would have its own continuing operating cost.
I would think a fixed bridge would have to be at least 75 feet above the water - that's the clearance of the Fuller Warren Bridge, the 'shortest' of the three downtown bridges.  The Main Street is 35 feet closed, 135 feet open, and the Acosta is 81 feet.  Getting to 75' would require a long approach, again increasing costs, and affecting where the "stations" could be.

A fixed bridge would likely need to be similar in height as the Main Street Bridge. Something clearing 135 feet would eat up tons of property on either side of the river. A bridge that size would also cost just as much as the entire U2C budget. You could build a decent starter LRT or commuter rail line for cheaper. At best, that bridge idea was just planners taking an unrealistic dream way to far. A dream that should have been taken out back and shot prior to the public seeing it.

Quote from: thelakelander on April 14, 2021, 05:45:09 PM
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-Gb8TftD/0/X3/i-Gb8TftD-X3.jpg)

I find this chart very enlightening.  Looking at battery life, passenger capacity, maximum speed and maximum percent grade, no matter what vendor they choose, this looks like a totally worthless "mass" transit solution.  EasyMile's 12* people at 25 mph at 14 hour battery life is likely the best combo here.  For several hundred million dollars, how many people could this AV system move in an hour?  I bet the e-scooters could run circles around these things (literally!) and for a pittance of the cost.

*Per Wikipdeia, the EZ10 model only seats 6 and accommodates 4 standing for a total of 10 [hence the model #?] so that differs from 12 per JTA.  Why the difference?

QuoteThe EasyMile EZ10 is a battery-powered autonomous electric bus designed and marketed by EasyMile. It seats up to six people and four more passengers may ride standing, or it can accommodate a wheelchair, with the aim of helping to bridge the first mile/last mile of a trip.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EasyMile_EZ10 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EasyMile_EZ10)

Wonder how many know that the NHSTA suspended this technology already:

QuoteIn July 2019, an EasyMile passenger in Utah required medical attention after falling from a seat due to a sudden stop, prompting the company to put up warning signs and reduce the vehicles' maximum speed. In February 2020, a Smart Columbus (a service in Columbus, Ohio) passenger fell from a seat when an EasyMile vehicle executed an emergency stop from 7 miles per hour (11 km/h).[7] The second incident prompted the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to suspend EasyMile passenger services nationwide (being used in 10 states) while the incident was investigated.

More on the NHTSA suspension here:
https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/26/21154532/easymile-columbus-ohio-nhtsa-suspension-injury (https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/26/21154532/easymile-columbus-ohio-nhtsa-suspension-injury)

And, EasyMile's own presentation to Colorado Transit says it is only a last/first mile solution for low density areas.  How does that jive with JTA's vision?

See slide #17 at:
https://coloradotransit.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/EasyMile-CASTA-Oct-2018.pdf (https://coloradotransit.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/EasyMile-CASTA-Oct-2018.pdf)

QuoteIntroduce a new transportation solution for cities/transit agencies:
✓Introduce first/last mile option to/from transit hubs
✓Provide service coverage in lower density/lower demand areas

Here is a sample of their North American deployments (slide #23):
-Bishop Ranch Business Park, San Ramon, CA
-Cowboys/Rangers Stadium, Arlington, TX
-MnROADWinter Testing, Minneapolis, MN
-Pena/61st St, Denver, CO
-Solar City, Babcock Ranch, FL
-City Project, Gainesville, FL
-Cube Project, Auburn Hills, MI
-Skyway Replacement, Jacksonville, FL
-Olympic Park, Montreal, Canada
-Calgary Zoo, Calgary Canada

Doesn't appear any are as ambitious as JTA's plans. Zoos, parks, stadiums, a closed community, a business park... that's not everyday public transit over several square miles.  Apples and oranges.

From EasyMile's own website:

QuoteWe designed the EZ10 with appropriate levels of safety and system redundancies to enable safe operation with entirely remote supervision in specified operational design domains (ODDs), especially private sites like master planned communities, residential areas, business parks and the list goes on.

https://easymile.com/vehicle-solutions/ez10-passenger-shuttle (https://easymile.com/vehicle-solutions/ez10-passenger-shuttle)

I think we taxpayers are getting sold a bill of goods when even the companies providing the technology don't indicate that it fits JTA's plans.  I hope the City Council investigates this technology at least as diligently as they did JEA's "incentive plan."

Something strange happened tonight, folks.

This Documentation page (https://u2c.jtafla.com/documentation/) on the U2C website was not there yesterday, but it is now.

There's a lot of documentation in here.

Oh my God.

Technical Memorandum III: Skyway Technology Options & Evaluation  (April 2017) (https://u2c.jtafla.com/media/2881/technical-memorandum-iii_skyway_technology-options-evaluation_final-april-2017.pdf) is apparently how this all happened.

I think the weighing of at-grade operation, "operational flexibility," and frequency put AVs over the second option, a beam-style APM.

The decision to dismiss repurposing or decommissioning as options took LRT/streetcar out of the running. It's unclear if the Advisory Group knew in 2015 that the choice would have led to autonomous vehicles.

This is on Melissa Ross now.

The Bay Street Innovation Corridor is treated as a separate project from U2C in this report from March 2020. This report is generally a great resource. It even has proposed routing between the new stations, which is something that's been absent from the other studies I have seen on this project.
https://u2c.jtafla.com/media/2912/1_jta_skyway_system_expansion_tcar2_report_final-march-_25_2020.pdf

So does the Bay Street Innovation Corridor fund the Bay Street U2C line or not? If it does fund AVs down Bay Street, then does that mean the $379 million is for everything that excludes Bay? If so, the overall price to construct the 10-mile U2C system is more than $379 million.

More questions for Council to ask JTA.

They keep calling it a separate project in what WAJAS linked, but it remains unclear if the cost estimates include Bay Street or don't. Which either means JTA is double-dipping with the gas tax, or is masking how much the full project actually costs.

Unfortunate I guess you didn't get a chance to ask them about this the other day.

They submitted their official response to all our questions last night. After review, I had some follow up questions and comments for them to elaborate and to provide documentation of background data for peer review. We're hoping to have a Q&A article live this Monday.

I think I can give some clarity now.

The Bay Street Innovation Corridor, including the AV portion, received a BUILD Grant from the federal government (https://www.masstransitmag.com/alt-mobility/autonomous-vehicles/article/21068641/jta-city-of-jacksonville-host-usdot-for-build-grant-event). This grant as well as some local contribution funds the AV route along Bay Street but doesn't include additional infrastructure costs to connect to the current Skyway, such as a ramp system. The exact funding breakdown is included in the BUILD Grant application here: https://u2c.jtafla.com/media/2901/bay-street-innovation-corridor-build-grant-application-july-19-2018.pdf
The exact routing of the Bay Street Innovation Corridor segment is at the end of this document: https://u2c.jtafla.com/media/2932/appendix-g_corridors-typical-sections-and-plans.pdf

TL;DR: The Bay Street Innovation Corridor segment of U2C is already partially funded by state and federal sources. It is still unclear whether the local portion of the funds for this corridor is supposed to come from the Gax Tax increase.

Ok thanks! Pretty sure that any local funds will likely come from the gas tax.

Here's the clarification from JTA:

QuoteThe $379 million comprises the remaining phases of the U2C program, including the rehabilitation and conversion of the existing Skyway superstructure, neighborhood expansions and other capital costs related to the project. Phase 1 – the Bay Street Innovation Corridor ($44M) is fully funded and not part of this proposal.

So it's actually $423 million overall. And the remaining portions would have an even higher per-mile cost, despite their reports claiming all extensions would be in mixed traffic.

Imagine how far that money could have gone with a proven vehicle type. Or could still go, if JTA can get out of the sunken cost trap.

Streetcar is cheaper. According to JTA's documents, a Streetcar system can be built at $28 million per mile. Unfortunately,  that mode is not on the table and hasn't been in years. It is agreed that dedicated lanes make most sense. However, as long as the plan is to run something at grade on Bay Street (DIA) and Main Street (FDOT), that's not an option. Neither will let them at this point. I actually doubt they'll be allowed on Main Street at all if they can't operate safely at the posted speed limit of 30mph or whatever it is. So that's definitely not a phase happening on the front end.

According to this document (https://u2c.jtafla.com/media/2912/1_jta_skyway_system_expansion_tcar2_report_final-march-_25_2020.pdf), the plan (at least the recommendation) is actually to run all expansions at-grade in mixed traffic, starting with the North corridor to UF after Bay Street is completed.

If Bay Street is 3 miles, and my numbers here are right, the rest of the system will cost about $54 million per mile.

I can't see the link but how would they run an extension to Atlantic Boulevard in San Marco at grade? No way FEC allows a new at-grade crossing in San Marco. The more and more the numbers rise, I think we'd be better off leaving the Skyway alone as is and implementing a completely separate at-grade AV, streetcar or LRT corridor. This is way past the affordable option mentioned back in 2015. For 1/2 a billion (I'm sold that the price will continue to rise), you could build a decent starter line of just about any type of transit mode.

I'll quote "Summary of Preferred Routes" from the report to (not) answer that question:

QuoteThe Southeast Extension (San Marco) Corridor would connect the existing Riverplace and Kings Avenue stations to proposed stations at San Marco East and The District. For this corridor, Route A connecting Kings Avenue Station to Atlantic Boulevard via FEC ROW route was selected as the primary route alternative to be advanced for San Marco East. Route Y – Kings Avenue Station was chosen to provide service to The District. The FEC ROW route's operational, physical characteristics, and safety rankings outperformed the other alternatives and the Kings Avenue Station route to The District outperformed the other alternative in all categories. If a mixed traffic option is advanced, the preferred route is from Kings Avenue Station to Kings Avenue and to Atlantic Boulevard.

Further justification:

QuoteWhile Route A, using the FEC Right of Way (ROW), had more customer service challenges than other route alternatives, its operational and safety rankings generally outperformed the other alternatives. Route A received a ranking of three for safety considerations due to proximity to the railroad. Furthermore, the FEC ROW route offered the most direct route that also had the least number of left turns and intersections.

It's not super clear, but I think the intention is to have elevated route until over the FEC, then go down to grade along the FEC until reaching the end of the line.

That would make sense. That would be a carry over from the previous Skyway extension plans that predate the U2C.

I think looking through a lot of these documents it's clear that at some point this all became more about "the first autonomous vehicle network in America" than about "fostering Downtown vibrancy". It's truly insane that after getting the cost estimates they apparently never stopped for even a moment to reconsider that maybe this wasn't the most cost-effective option anymore. Or that it was never actually a guarantee that the technology would truly be ready on time, or at all. Or that experimenting with vehicle technology isn't actually their job. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills watching all this happen.

And for Lea & Elliott to claim in their report that

QuoteThe driverless automated transit solution is evolving at such a rapid pace; one can expect that within a short amount of time, it will be able to accommodate most urban transit needs and solutions.

Is just... an utter insult. Half a billion dollars based on the idea that it'll all fall into place "within a short amount of time."

Quote from: marcuscnelson on April 15, 2021, 10:10:41 PM
I think looking through a lot of these documents it's clear that at some point this all became more about "the first autonomous vehicle network in America" than about "fostering Downtown vibrancy". It's truly insane that after getting the cost estimates they apparently never stopped for even a moment to reconsider that maybe this wasn't the most cost-effective option anymore. Or that it was never actually a guarantee that the technology would truly be ready on time, or at all. Or that experimenting with vehicle technology isn't actually their job. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills watching all this happen.

Which is why I can't personally support the gas tax.

I'd happily pay triple the gas tax if I had confidence that JTA had a good long-term plan for their half of the money.

Instead, JTA's tripling-down on a losing proposition so we can all pretend like we're Epcot.

Cool.

Cool cool cool.

I'm just hoping they come to their senses with it. At least from the gas tax perspective. It's something that will bring the entire gas tax proposal down in flames. Any reason why the Bay Street Innovation Corridor has not started yet? It's already years behind and is fully funded. Is it because the desired technology hasn't advanced to a point to where it can be deployed safely on the streets as a viable mass transit solution?

My impression of things is that there's no way they're going to come to their senses on their own. They're in too deep. At some point City Council has to be the one to demand a change in direction.

As far as Bay Street, for whatever reason it wasn't until mid last year that they actually became able to spend the money, and then it took months for them to get an RFQ out. Then we've got to wait a few more months for them to pick which of the two consortiums to work with. Then that consortium will spend 18-24 months actually designing the system. Then they start construction, which is supposed to be finished by 2025. During which, they seem to be hoping that someone is going to find the key to fully autonomous self driving vehicles, and hopefully it's one of the companies they already picked.

You were with them the other day, what did they show you of it? Any demonstration of some kind?

Quote from: thelakelander on April 15, 2021, 10:35:15 PM
I'm just hoping they come to their senses with it. At least from the gas tax perspective. It's something that will bring the entire gas tax proposal down in flames. Any reason why the Bay Street Innovation Corridor has not started yet? It's already years behind and is fully funded. Is it because the desired technology hasn't advanced to a point to where it can be deployed safely on the streets as a viable mass transit solution?

Don't forget the fact that the entire Bay Street Innovation corridor was sold to the Feds on sure-thing developments at Lot J (a contaminated parking lot), the Shipyards (a toxic brownfield), a new convention center at Ford on Bay (an empty lawn fronting a doomed restaurant), and Berkman II (a dangerous exoskeleton that no fewer than four firms believe they will be demolishing).

Even if it breaks ground, I honestly don't even know where it goes.

It's just so frustrating to see us lobbying for all this federal funding under dubious pretenses and then just setting it on fire with things like the Hart Bridge ramp removal and the Bay Street Innovation Corridor.

When we're competing against numerous other cities in the future for grants who are actually putting their transportation funding to good use, these things are really going to come back to haunt us.

What's funny to me is that JTA is willing to drop over $300 million on an unproven, novel 12 person van with no driver barely capable of keeping up with the traffic it's being mixed in with after ramping down from a monorail track like it's no big deal...

...but then drops only a couple of million for a study about possibly moving a train station back to... a former train station, for a mode of transportation that's been proven for almost 200 years.

Quote from: Ken_FSU on April 15, 2021, 10:48:56 PM
Don't forget the fact that the entire Bay Street Innovation corridor was sold to the Feds on sure-thing developments at Lot J (a contaminated parking lot), the Shipyards (a toxic brownfield), a new convention center at Ford on Bay (an empty lawn fronting a doomed restaurant), and Berkman II (a dangerous exoskeleton that no fewer than four firms believe they will be demolishing).

Even if it breaks ground, I honestly don't even know where it goes.

It's just so frustrating to see us lobbying for all this federal funding under dubious pretenses and then just setting it on fire with things like the Hart Bridge ramp removal and the Bay Street Innovation Corridor.

When we're competing against numerous other cities in the future for grants who are actually putting their transportation funding to good use, these things are really going to come back to haunt us.

After living through this from about start to... wherever it's going, it makes me realize why so many people are so cynical about our city's future. This level of institutional failure in developing a practical urban transportation system is just... stunning. For those that went through it, is this what it was like during the initial BRT proposal?

Odds are the American Jobs Plan is going to pass, and the DOT or whoever is going to start deciding who gets a slice of the $80 billion in transportation funding. Most cities are going to propose commuter rail or subway expansions or streetcar networks. And we're going to come to them with this. I could cry.

Quote from: itsfantastic1 on April 15, 2021, 11:20:30 PM
What's funny to me is that JTA is willing to drop over $300 million on an unproven, novel 12 person van with no driver barely capable of keeping up with the traffic it's being mixed in with after ramping down from a monorail track like it's no big deal...

...but then drops only a couple of million for a study about possibly moving a train station back to... a former train station, for a mode of transportation that's been proven for almost 200 years.

Like I said, at some point this stopped being about actually serving as a useful transportation system and started being about the glory of hosting the nation's first level 5 AV network. Meanwhile Ford, a billion-dollar company that is investing billions into autonomy, just announced that they were able to get to around level 2 after years of development.

Quote from: itsfantastic1 on April 15, 2021, 11:20:30 PM
What's funny to me is that JTA is willing to drop over $300 million on an unproven, novel 12 person van with no driver...

Hold the horses!  Go back and re-read the EasyMile website quote I previously posted (re-posted below for convenience) that these "driverless" vehicles actually operate with "remote supervision."  If that is the case, they are basically drones and not truly "autonomous" vehicles.  As such, every vehicle may require one dedicated "remote driver" to operate it.  This would make "autonomous" just an illusion, not a reality.  Maybe Ennis can verify this with his JTA friends.

QuoteWe designed the EZ10 with appropriate levels of safety and system redundancies to enable safe operation with entirely remote supervision in specified operational design domains (ODDs), especially private sites like master planned communites, residential areas, business parks and the list goes on.

I was told that they only plan to go up to Level 4 and that they believe they'll reach that benchmark in a year.

Yes, there's remote supervision. However, I suspect many will feel uncomfortable riding in a personal vehicle like pod with unknown and random people. If you think that the Skyway cars are small, you haven't seen anything yet.

Quote from: marcuscnelson on April 16, 2021, 12:26:52 AM


After living through this from about start to... wherever it's going, it makes me realize why so many people are so cynical about our city's future. This level of institutional failure in developing a practical urban transportation system is just... stunning. For those that went through it, is this what it was like during the initial BRT proposal?

That initial BRT was frustrating as well but at least it was a common technology. Ultimately,  we were proven correct that it was a $1 billion plan to outdated destinations and not a $600 million project. We successfully built enough influence to lead it to the Flyer you see today, as well as get the JRTC scaled down and get JTA to conduct streetcar and commuter rail feasibility studies. We also supported the modernization and extension of the Skyway in 2015 buy never imagined that would lead to selected AV push. This is way past a fiscally responsible and no frills approach to improving transit locally.

Speaking of small Skyway cars

"
The JTA Transit Concept and Alternatives Review (TCAR) Phase 1 study stated that the current Skyway maximum capacity was 56 passengers per train.
"

I can not take any engineer seriously that claims that 2 of those lil pods with 4 stripper poles can carry anything more than 1/2 of that claimed 56.

Quote from: Ken_FSU on April 15, 2021, 10:26:32 PM

Quote from: marcuscnelson on April 15, 2021, 10:10:41 PM
I think looking through a lot of these documents it's clear that at some point this all became more about "the first autonomous vehicle network in America" than about "fostering Downtown vibrancy". It's truly insane that after getting the cost estimates they apparently never stopped for even a moment to reconsider that maybe this wasn't the most cost-effective option anymore. Or that it was never actually a guarantee that the technology would truly be ready on time, or at all. Or that experimenting with vehicle technology isn't actually their job. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills watching all this happen.

Which is why I can't personally support the gas tax.

I'd happily pay triple the gas tax if I had confidence that JTA had a good long-term plan for their half of the money.

Instead, JTA's tripling-down on a losing proposition so we can all pretend like we're Epcot.

Cool.

Cool cool cool.

At some point local government needs to show they are competent stewards of the people's money. My mind is not completely made up but as of now I would vote no to a gas tax...

Quote from: thelakelander on April 16, 2021, 06:21:47 AM
I was told that they only plan to go up to Level 4 and that they believe they'll reach that benchmark in a year.

...has anyone done that? Like, in the world?

I'm looking and GM has just barely begun testing Level 4 in urban environments as of a few months ago. And they're not asking for half a billion dollars from taxpayers. JTA thinks they're going to have that fully operational within a year? Enough to build an entire system with taxpayer money?

Quote from: bl8jaxnative on April 16, 2021, 08:08:58 AM
I can not take any engineer seriously that claims that 2 of those lil pods with 4 stripper poles can carry anything more than 1/2 of that claimed 56.

JTA's response to that:

QuoteThe JTA's fleet will have the ability to platoon, and will leverage an entire ecosystem of related technology to move customers more efficiently than the current Skyway trains can, or a single rideshare vehicle can.

Also saw this interview (https://news.wjct.org/post/jta-board-chair-embraces-autonomous-vehicles-replace-skyway) of Ari Jolly:

Quote"There will be no more rail, there will be no more of that middle, the center line, you know, that you have to have for these rail cars to hold on to. It's to be rehabilitated. It's to turn it basically into a road."

Maybe it's just me but this feels like a fundamental misunderstanding of transportation not based on the personal car. It sounds to me like the same logic used for Elon Musk's Loop in Vegas.

QuoteJolly also points out the U2C represents where the future of transportation is headed. "Everything points to the fact that the concept of autonomous vehicles is here to come and it's going to replace vehicles as we know it."

...does it?

Quote from: marcuscnelson on April 16, 2021, 01:06:09 PM
Also saw this interview (https://news.wjct.org/post/jta-board-chair-embraces-autonomous-vehicles-replace-skyway) of Ari Jolly:

Quote"There will be no more rail, there will be no more of that middle, the center line, you know, that you have to have for these rail cars to hold on to. It's to be rehabilitated. It's to turn it basically into a road."

Maybe it's just me but this feels like a fundamental misunderstanding of transportation not based on the personal car. It sounds to me like the same logic used for Elon Musk's Loop in Vegas.

QuoteJolly also points out the U2C represents where the future of transportation is headed. "Everything points to the fact that the concept of autonomous vehicles is here to come and it's going to replace vehicles as we know it."

...does it?

Autonomous vehicles are the future, but I think their timeline might be a bit short.