Quote(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/JRTC-May-2020/i-XJ2HtsL/0/6e1fdfd5/L/Skyway%20at%20JRTC%20009%20April%202020-L.jpg)
Costs associated with plans to convert the Skyway into an autonomous vehicle system are spiraling out of control and have the potential to sink Mayor Curry's entire gas tax increase proposal. With this in mind, here are four alternative paths that could reduce the Skyway's cost to the local taxpayer, freeing up funds for additional needed projects throughout the city.
Read More: https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/four-alternative-paths-for-jtas-skyway-u2c-proposal/
Is anyone from The Jaxson attending, and planning to speak, at this morning's Finance Committee meeting on the LOGT?
Based on the rendering of the U2C down Bay street, it looks like half of the shipyards/metro park is planned to be asphalt? We spent how much to demolish the Hart bridge ramps to open up that area for development, but we're going to cover it in traffic lanes instead? It will be at least another year cleaning up the already demolished ramps and another year to build the new ones to bring the remaining elevated section down to Bay street. At that point it will have been 2-3 years since anyone used those ramps. Have we noticed increase traffic downtown due to them being blocked off? Do we really need that section of roadway at all? I say scrap it and just improve the roadways and signalling to get people from Monoroe to Bay easier.
Watching it on Zoom and planning to speak when the chance comes.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on April 21, 2021, 09:18:11 AM
Is anyone from The Jaxson attending, and planning to speak, at this morning's Finance Committee meeting on the LOGT?
I've been listening but I've had to mute it a few times. I have on and off meetings all morning.
Quote from: Captain Zissou on April 21, 2021, 09:46:44 AM
Based on the rendering of the U2C down Bay street, it looks like half of the shipyards/metro park is planned to be asphalt? We spent how much to demolish the Hart bridge ramps to open up that area for development, but we're going to cover it in traffic lanes instead? It will be at least another year cleaning up the already demolished ramps and another year to build the new ones to bring the remaining elevated section down to Bay street. At that point it will have been 2-3 years since anyone used those ramps. Have we noticed increase traffic downtown due to them being blocked off? Do we really need that section of roadway at all? I say scrap it and just improve the roadways and signalling to get people from Monoroe to Bay easier.
The majority of the Hart Bridge traffic avoids downtown altogether.
I really question those economic ROI predictions. I will have to look at the documents when they are released. I suspect those numbers would include just about everything being built within a 1/4 radius of these corridors. So there are likely things that will happen with or without transit, that are included in that number.
At the Finance Committee meeting, Nate Ford just said that [paraphrase] "AV technology is proven and has been in use in China and Japan for years."
Good explanation by Ford on the difference between the Miami Metromover and JTA Skyway. Integration of supportive land use is what has made Miami's more successful. Also, having a heavy rail system feed riders into it is significant.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on April 21, 2021, 10:27:04 AM
At the Finance Committee meeting, Nate Ford just said that [paraphrase] "AV technology is proven and has been in use in China and Japan for years."
It's unproven here. There's a reason we're the guinea pigs with what we're proposing locally.
Good question by C/m Dennis on the LOGT revenue projections given increasing fuel efficiency. I hope the assertion of "very conservative projections" is true; but I question whether local population growth offsets gas tax revenue declines due to better fuel efficiency.
Priestly-Jackson is a firm "yes"
Brenda Priestly Jackson is a LOGT yes. Pittman is a firm yes as well.
Ford cited Lyon, France as having successful AVs in mixed traffic. Does anyone know anything about Lyon?
Council President Hazouri said there will be 5 regional (in the At-Large Regions) Town Hall meetings on the LOGT. Guessing times and dates TBA.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on April 21, 2021, 10:53:23 AM
Ford cited Lyon, France as having successful AVs in mixed traffic. Does anyone know anything about Lyon?
Yes:
QuoteIn an effort to support the technological development of the public transport network in Lyon, France, Navya has launched two autonomous shuttles in the city that will be fully integrated into Lyon's public transport network over the next two years.
The shuttles will provide a regular service Mondays through Saturdays, except on match days and during other events.
The shuttles will operate on a 1.4-kilometer route that is located in a dense urban traffic environment that is used by thousands of vehicles each day. The route passes through one roundabout, four intersections with traffic lights, and eight pedestrian crossings at an average speed of 13 to 15 kilometers per hour, allowing Navya to address several key technical challenges. The goal is to eventually increase this to 20 to 25 kilometers per hour.
"I would like to thank all the partners of this trial that illustrates Navya's technological leadership and know-how in autonomous mobility, as recently acknowledged at the Dubai World Challenge for Self-Driving Transport," says Etienne Hermite, chief executive officer of Navya.
https://www.auvsi.org/industry-news/navya-launches-autonomous-shuttles-lyon-france
You don't have to go to France to see a pilot. They operate in mixed traffic as pilots in Gainesville and Lake Nona in Orlando as well. I've posted a video of the one in Lake Nona before.
Lake Nona AV video: https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/the-jaxson-asks-jta-12-questions-about-the-u2c/
There's several examples out there. However, there aren't any out there that do what JTA is proposing with the U2C. That's what makes the U2C more expensive and with risks. However, it seems the technology side of the discussion is far outside of the comfortability of most council members, based on what I heard today. Much of the focus was centered around typical local politics, who will be getting the construction jobs and dreams of this being a gamechanger that puts Jax on the maps.
I did speak, expressed concerns about the technology not really existing despite massive private sector investment, the cost per mile compared to streetcars, alternative projects like Emerald Trail and the terminal, and noting how strangely things like "elevated extensions were never an option" were communicated to the public in 2015 (or not). And then closed with how we can't make these assumptions now based on hypothetical future capability, and U2C doesn't really offer a practical, proven solution.
Someone from JTA sent me a DM on Twitter.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on April 21, 2021, 09:48:21 AM
Watching it on Zoom and planning to speak when the chance comes.
I caught some of your comment but you ran out of time. Do you mind sending it? I'll post it as a front page editorial. It is interesting in that it is your generation that some council members and JTA believe will flock to downtown because of the innovation associated with the U2C. However, there's not much transportation knowledge on the council for them to fully determine what is a good and bad investment from a public perspective on the issue. So they're putting a lot of faith in Nat Ford. I agree that Nat Ford has done a good job during his time here, but much of this is out of his, JTA staff, and local control.
For reference, for folks who don't speak metric, 13 to 15 kilometers per hour (km/h) is about 9 miles per hour (mph); and the aspirational speed of 25 km/h is 15.5 mph.
Here's a November 2020 article about the Lyon experiment, which also notes France is investing 42 million Euros (about $50 million) in AV Shuttle experiments in "16 experiments involving autonomous vehicles." The article links to another that provides more detail about those projects - but it is in French.
Quote
Between February and May 2019, EDF and Semitan (a semi-public company for public transport in the Nantes area) have set up an autonomous shuttle linking the Technocampus Océan and an inter-company restaurant. This shuttle covered a 2.5km [1.6 miles] route with a speed limit of 30km/h [~19 mph], although it was mostly at 18km/h [11 mph]. Capable of carrying 8 seated passengers, it also had a supervisor in charge of monitoring the smooth running of the shuttle.
Result of the experiment: the shuttle still needs to be improved. Its low speed created a strong traffic slowdown. As a result, the traffic was less fluid and may have created a traffic build-up.
On the users' side, it was used only occasionally and changed the users' travel habits moderately. The main advantages that were perceived are: reliability, silence and the presence of a supervisor on board which gives a feeling of safety. However, for non-users, the shuttle is perceived as too slow compared to the usual modes of transport.
https://lyko.blog/en/the-implementation-of-autonomous-shuttles-in-the-urban-landscape/
Another issue from the article, that I have not heard discussed with the U2C is liability
Quote
The autonomous vehicle being relatively recent, many tests will still be carried out in the coming years. Moreover, the legislation must change because nowadays, the autonomous car is insured because it has a supervisor. But the goal being to abolish this supervisor and to increase the speed of these vehicles (because judged too slow), who will pay in case of a fatal accident? This is a question that needs to be addressed quickly over the next few years.
^Unfortunately, no one here asks these types of questions about these things. The Lyons, France example was mentioned today in a sense that would make the average person think that it is not a pilot and operates as proposed locally. Ford did mention that it would be a long time before these vehicles could run without an attendant. I plan to send the Councilwoman DeFoor more info on this particular question that she asked. It can get pretty frustrating listening to cheerleaders who aren't considering these practical issues, concerns and challenges.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 21, 2021, 11:32:21 AM
Quote from: marcuscnelson on April 21, 2021, 09:48:21 AM
Watching it on Zoom and planning to speak when the chance comes.
I caught some of your comment but you ran out of time. Do you mind sending it? I'll post it as a front page editorial. It is interesting in that it is your generation that some council members and JTA believe will flock to downtown because of the innovation associated with the U2C. However, there's not much transportation knowledge on the council for them to fully determine what is a good and bad investment from a public perspective on the issue. So they're putting a lot of faith in Nat Ford. I agree that Nat Ford has done a good job during his time here, but much of this is out of his, JTA staff, and local control.
Just emailed.
I think the thing is that it's likely my generation will flock to downtowns. But I would be loath to believe that the reason would be because of innovation or the gee-whiz experience of using autonomous vehicles. Largely it has more to do with things the rising cost of suburban living, the newfound appreciation for the convenience of urban living (with the bonus of most cities cleaning up in recent years), and to some extent concern about climate change that inspires more eco-friendly lifestyles. Of course, convenient urban transit is necessary to make that work (beyond walking or biking distance), but the U2C alone doesn't really do that. Dense community spaces connected by transit does that, and introducing new technology doesn't do an enormous amount to change that.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 21, 2021, 11:21:14 AM
You don't have to go to France to see a pilot. They operate in mixed traffic as pilots in Gainesville and Lake Nona in Orlando as well. I've posted a video of the one in Lake Nona before.
Lake Nona AV video: https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/the-jaxson-asks-jta-12-questions-about-the-u2c/
There's several examples out there. However, there aren't any out there that do what JTA is proposing with the U2C. That's what makes the U2C more expensive and with risks. However, it seems the technology side of the discussion is far outside of the comfortability of most council members, based on what I heard today. Much of the focus was centered around typical local politics, who will be getting the construction jobs and dreams of this being a gamechanger that puts Jax on the maps.
My friend (Chuck) took a video on the AV shuttle in downtown Tampa before the Super Bowl. Another example in FL and they all run at sub 15mph.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3labJLhEG0
I am more tolerant than most on this AV topic, as I do believe the technology will be transformational in a fairly compressed time horizon, but that said I 100% agree with many of the concerns brought up and the bottom line is a public service agency has zero business trailblazing new technology. There's absolutely no benefit and way too much risk to the community to be early adopters. This should be the domain of private enterprise until it's been proven to work.
The only benefit to anyone would be for the leadership, if they have any semblance of success. So obviously seems ego driven...
Quote from: thelakelander on April 21, 2021, 12:14:13 PM
^Unfortunately, no one here asks these types of questions about these things. The Lyons, France example was mentioned today in a sense that would make the average person think that it is not a pilot and operates as proposed locally. Ford did mention that it would be a long time before these vehicles could run without an attendant. I plan to send the Councilwoman DeFoor more info on this particular question that she asked. It can get pretty frustrating listening to cheerleaders who aren't considering these practical issues, concerns and challenges.
I note that the Lyon, France, trial is only 1.4 KM (0.87 miles). Further, the tested vehicle is manufactured in France which reminds me of JEA wanting to buy 2 floating nuclear power plants (that no one else ever ordered) in the 1970's, not because the technology was proven or it was financially feasible, but simply because they were to be manufactured in Jacksonville. Lyon supporting a French company doesn't impress me as the end-all credible endorsement of this technology. And, it remains as a pilot/demonstration project at that.
https://www.intelligenttransport.com/transport-news/92364/autonomous-shuttles-to-be-rolled-out-in-lyon/ (https://www.intelligenttransport.com/transport-news/92364/autonomous-shuttles-to-be-rolled-out-in-lyon/)
Quote from: thelakelander on April 21, 2021, 10:30:49 AM
Quote from: Charles Hunter on April 21, 2021, 10:27:04 AM
At the Finance Committee meeting, Nate Ford just said that [paraphrase] "AV technology is proven and has been in use in China and Japan for years."
It's unproven here. There's a reason we're the guinea pigs with what we're proposing locally.
Did Mr. Ford give a specific citation for the Japanese and Chinese "proven" implementations? I am willing to bet that in their cities they are a lot less "auto-centric" than we are so I would be interested to know how "tangled" the AV's are with other vehicles in traffic and what choices their riders have for competing transit.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on April 21, 2021, 11:30:15 AM
I did speak, expressed concerns about the technology not really existing despite massive private sector investment, the cost per mile compared to streetcars, alternative projects like Emerald Trail and the terminal, and noting how strangely things like "elevated extensions were never an option" were communicated to the public in 2015 (or not). And then closed with how we can't make these assumptions now based on hypothetical future capability, and U2C doesn't really offer a practical, proven solution.
Someone from JTA sent me a DM on Twitter.
Marcus, another great job on your part. Keep it up!
Quote from: thelakelander on April 21, 2021, 11:32:21 AM
However, there's not much transportation knowledge on the council for them to fully determine what is a good and bad investment from a public perspective on the issue.
Ennis, they don't get this pass from me. Anyone with a thinking brain and common sense can see the writing on the wall here. Those who support this are doing it only for reasons that feed their own political ambitions. Perversely, supporting this and then having it blow up will sabotage those ambitions in the long run.
The sad part is some of those being cited here as already supporting it represent parts of town that will be hurt the most by doing this project as $400+ million gets diverted from projects that would benefit their constituents far more. And, if they are only supporting it just to ram through the gas tax to fund septic tank removals, they may end up with nothing if this project sinks the entire LOGT proposal.
In one of these LOGT discussions, someone said there is a provision that requires the LOGT to be split 50/50 between the City and JTA. Does anyone have the documentation on this? Does it just apply to the existing LOGT (six cents), or to any future increases in the Local Option Gas Tax?
I think the bill was only introduced today, so we don't have the exact specifics yet. But if I remember correctly it's a 50-50 split of the additional six cents.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on April 21, 2021, 02:44:30 PM
I think the bill was only introduced today, so we don't have the exact specifics yet. But if I remember correctly it's a 50-50 split of the additional six cents.
So, the 50/50 split could be negotiable one of the facets of the bill?
Quote from: Charles Hunter on April 21, 2021, 02:59:55 PM
Quote from: marcuscnelson on April 21, 2021, 02:44:30 PM
I think the bill was only introduced today, so we don't have the exact specifics yet. But if I remember correctly it's a 50-50 split of the additional six cents.
So, the 50/50 split could be negotiable one of the facets of the bill?
It looks to me like the 50/50 split was arrived based on how much the City could apply to "transportation" projects in its budget as that appears to be what the tax proceeds must be used for. If correct, JTA got the "leftovers."
Of course, since Ford has been asking for an increase all along, Curry probably felt obligated to give him a "fare share" to gain his support so they split it 50/50. If this is all true, that would be the "negotiated" result.
If the City added more "transportation" projects, like full funding of the Emerald Trail, I would think more of the proceeds might shift to the City unless the City delegated the Trail to JTA to build out.
In the end, its all a shell game and the total JTA + City project list should be the focus.
Quote from: ProjectMaximus on April 21, 2021, 01:56:28 PM
I am more tolerant than most on this AV topic, as I do believe the technology will be transformational in a fairly compressed time horizon, but that said I 100% agree with many of the concerns brought up and the bottom line is a public service agency has zero business trailblazing new technology.
I'm more tolerant of AV technology than I may sound on these forums and in public. However, my tolerance comes with common sense conditions that have nothing to do with technology.
1. This system should run on 100% dedicated transit lanes and ROW. It's ridiculous to even want to run something that can't exceed 15mph in mixed traffic conditions and think that it is superior or safe in any way compared to having its own lane, free of congestion.
2. Given the price tag, this should be about economic development and stimulating TOD, just as much as anything. You're not getting that by desiring to be flexible. The flexible perspective is one that fails to realize how important land use is to making these things ultimately work.
3. Capacity. If we're spending LRT or streetcar system type money, we should hope to pay for something that can provide similar type maximum transit capacity through the life time of the project. They can have some small cars, in terms of the need to move smaller amounts of people at times (say 3am in the morning), but the project should be designed to accommodate larger capacity vehicles as well (and not just saying we can platoon a bunch of AV vans together like a train). We currently don't have that and don't know when or if we ever will.
4. Cost. At some point, the entire thing becomes fiscally irresponsible to the local taxpayer. I've think we've reached that point.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on April 21, 2021, 03:16:29 PM
Quote from: Charles Hunter on April 21, 2021, 02:59:55 PM
Quote from: marcuscnelson on April 21, 2021, 02:44:30 PM
I think the bill was only introduced today, so we don't have the exact specifics yet. But if I remember correctly it's a 50-50 split of the additional six cents.
So, the 50/50 split could be negotiable one of the facets of the bill?
It looks to me like the 50/50 split was arrived based on how much the City could apply to "transportation" projects in its budget as that appears to be what the tax proceeds must be used for. If correct, JTA got the "leftovers."
Of course, since Ford has been asking for an increase all along, Curry probably felt obligated to give him a "fare share" to gain his support so they split it 50/50. If this is all true, that would be the "negotiated" result.
If the City added more "transportation" projects, like full funding of the Emerald Trail, I would think more of the proceeds might shift to the City unless the City delegated the Trail to JTA to build out.
In the end, its all a shell game and the total JTA + City project list should be the focus.
My point is, if the 50/50 is written into the bill, it justifies the ridiculous amounts on the U2C. If the spending is project-based, the split between agencies will be based on how the projects fall on the list.
^ There are other spending options if the 50/50 split needs to be maintained. JTA can of course build roads. Based on the JRTC (including Greyhound), they obviously could also build a new Amtrak station. Also seems to me their charter would allow construction of much of the Emerald Trail.
^If they can build sidewalks, shared use paths and crosswalks, do electric AV vehicles, etc. then they can do trail segments....which is essentially a mix of complete streets (i.e. Hogan Street, Lee Street, etc.), shared use paths, sidewalks and crosswalks when you break it down.
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 21, 2021, 04:27:26 PM
^ There are other spending options if the 50/50 split needs to be maintained. JTA can of course build roads. Based on the JRTC (including Greyhound), they obviously could also build a new Amtrak station. Also seems to me their charter would allow construction of much of the Emerald Trail.
There area also a few hundred roads in the urban core that could use a "makeover" (that would also allow for laying sewer and water lines under them while under construction) after over 100 years of neglect. If they need help finding transportation projects to spend $400 +/- million on I am sure the friends of the Jaxson would be at the ready to assist 8)!
The bill text is now up:
https://www.coj.net/getattachment/ca712cd8-8293-498c-bef0-e08d3c89e2a6/GC-1422769-v6-Leg__2021-__Local_Option_Gas_Tax_(LOGT)_1-5_cents_and_9th_cent-(As-Filed-on-4-21-21-mcs).pdf.aspx?lang=en-US
It's ORD 2021-0223.
Also, ORD 2021-0235 (https://www.coj.net/getattachment/8953e6d6-7169-4bb7-8403-d74f44131218/GC-1427568-v1-Septic_Tank_Phase_Out_-_CIP_Amendment_(Mayor)-As-Filed-on-4-21-21-mcs.pdf.aspx?lang=en-US) amends the Capital Improvement Plan to invest $100m on septic tank removal over the next two years.
Just an opinion, but this situation is worse than lot J. $300 million plus for unproven technology to offset only $100 million for septic tank removal. Not good. How about a referendum for U2C. Will be voted down, as would have lot J. Not smart spending of our capital tax $.
By the way, the Orlando FDOT district does design "nicer" sound walls, bridges, landscaping and does better maintenance on interstate and state roads. Was there a couple days to "just get away".
Nat Ford was on News4Jax this morning (https://www.news4jax.com/this-week-in-jacksonville/2021/04/25/impact-of-derek-chauvins-conviction-jacksonvilles-infrastructure-needs-proposed-gas-tax-increase/) about the U2C (skip to 15:44).
There's a very strange quote by Ford in response to a question by Rick Mullaney about President Biden's American Jobs Plan (emphasis mine).
Quote
Mullaney: So what about potential federal funding in President Biden's plan for the Skyway in particular but for some of the infrastructure needs here in Duval County?
Ford: We're very exited about this plan because the JTA for the past few years, we have just been able to run the table as it relates to... discretionary, competitive grants, so we're competing against cities around the country. It is those communities that have a clear, delineated plan, a clear focus of what they want to accomplish, that have some local skin in the game in terms of what we're investing gives us the best opportunity to get federal funding, and so, you know, once we go through this process, we will immediately pivot towards going to Washington DC, and identifying additional funding from the federal government to help support these projects, and so, we're very excited about what's happening in Washington DC and what's happening here at home, and we think we can bring that together for a successful outcome.
Is it just me, or is this suggesting that JTA is going to ask for additional federal funding on top of the funding already sought via the gas tax? Which leads me to ask, how much does
any of this stuff actually cost?
Quote from: marcuscnelson on April 25, 2021, 02:11:19 PM
Nat Ford was on News4Jax this morning (https://www.news4jax.com/this-week-in-jacksonville/2021/04/25/impact-of-derek-chauvins-conviction-jacksonvilles-infrastructure-needs-proposed-gas-tax-increase/) about the U2C (skip to 15:44).
There's a very strange quote by Ford in response to a question by Rick Mullaney about President Biden's American Jobs Plan (emphasis mine).
Quote
Mullaney: So what about potential federal funding in President Biden's plan for the Skyway in particular but for some of the infrastructure needs here in Duval County?
Ford: We're very exited about this plan because the JTA for the past few years, we have just been able to run the table as it relates to... discretionary, competitive grants, so we're competing against cities around the country. It is those communities that have a clear, delineated plan, a clear focus of what they want to accomplish, that have some local skin in the game in terms of what we're investing gives us the best opportunity to get federal funding, and so, you know, once we go through this process, we will immediately pivot towards going to Washington DC, and identifying additional funding from the federal government to help support these projects, and so, we're very excited about what's happening in Washington DC and what's happening here at home, and we think we can bring that together for a successful outcome.
Is it just me, or is this suggesting that JTA is going to ask for additional federal funding on top of the funding already sought via the gas tax? Which leads me to ask, how much does any of this stuff actually cost?
I think JTA has been clear that this would fully fund the U2C, but they've been unclear about the amount and what it goes towards specifically.
It seems he's claiming that if additional funding is found through the Biden bill or elsewhere, then the price from the local allotment would be reduced. He didn't say that explicitly, but that's how I interpret it. That's another Q for JTA and the City though. I kind of get the argument here. We want to fully fund this system, but we don't have commitments from the state or federal sources yet. Therefore, for now, we'll fund it ourselves. The problem is that it shows a lack of need from Jax though. Would that diminish their ability to get the funds in the first place?
I took it as they see that billion is gas tax money as an easy way to get 100% funding (of what they believe is the total cost as of now), without having to compete on the merits of this project against others across the country seeking state and federal dollars. In the event, the Biden deal becomes reality, they'll seek funding there too.
However, I get the impression that they don't know the actual costs and they'd be lying if they said they did. Quite frankly, what they are proposing doesn't exist and the technology they are relying on still has things that need to be resolved first. As solutions are developed, there will be costs associated with those solutions that no one knows yet. To sum it up, the transportation planner in me believes that the cost will continue to rise. That's pretty much a no brainer.
What I can't understand is the average Jacksonville politician. For years, the public has asked for things like commuter rail, streetcar, extending the Skyway, LRT, better local bus service, etc., only to be dismissed by the average politician claiming these things cost to much. Now this crazy Skyway to AV conversion thing pops up, costs a hell of a lot more money than the conventional things that are commonly known, and many are all in, without taking the time to even put in the research on the technical issues, costs and timeframe related to resolving them.
It's like either you're totally against the gas tax, projects in it be damned, or you're for getting the billion in revenue from it, projects in it be damned. This A and B approach to things is so Jacksonville. It's why we blow a ton of tax money without ever achieving the bill of goods historically being sold to the average taxpayer. Seriously, can we get a few of leaders to objectively look at the actual draft project list and question if this is the exact set of things we want to pay for with this potential revenue source?
Unfortunately the list of priorities has already been set. Again a Jax approach. Public input not needed. So it becomes take or leave it much like lot J. I agree with you council needs to step up and question the project list. Hope someone does.
JTA claims it must stick with the Skyway so as not to disenfranchise the Feds for future projects. In reality, the Skyway is a proven failure and JTA is abandoning the Skyway because the only remains will be a concrete "pathway" repurposed for another "demonstration project." Everything that makes it the Skyway otherwise will be gone - the cars, the track, the maintenance facilities, the software... basically anything technologically unique to the Skyway.
I can't imagine the Feds being sucker-punched twice in relation to the Skyway. They would be better off waiving the supposed $45 million "penalty" for giving up on the Skyway 15 to 20 years early than pouring hundreds of millions more into making pretend the Skyway is still alive and well. I can only hope the Feds are smarter and have more backbone than the local yokels.
Here's the thing though, they can stick with the Skyway without $379 million from the gas tax. They can stick with the Skyway without converting it to AVs or expanding it to places it likely won't have the capacity to serve anyway. All these things are completely different discussions. There are also a lot more options that could be considered that make sense. For whatever reason, we don't prefer to go the common logical route. Only in Jax do we box ourselves into these take it or leave extreme scenarios.
Has anyone seen documentation of the UMTA/FTA penalty?
NOthing unique about JAX with this. To make the sale on anything, there has to be some constraints. Like in this case, this is -- SUPPOSEDLY -- our one opportunity to expand mass transit. Other places do the same, only instead of wee lil' robo quads they claim that it can only be done with trolleys and trams and only now.
When they do it and it doesn't work, they claim it wasn't done enough. It wasn't expanded enough.
That's happen here in JAX too. If this doesn't happen, there's a cohort of urban transit folks who will claim it doesn't work cuz it wasn't expanded. If they expand it, they'll claim it wasn't expanded enough.
But it's all the same sort of rhetoric. And they create an artificial deadline, sort of take or you'll never get it thing.
Same sort of crap goes on in car selling. Never mind there's a few million cars - new and used - for sale. Sales person almost always works to create some sort of artificial deadline. And of course something that one car they have is unique.
Jacsonville - at this time - should not spend half a billion on experimental robo quads.
At this time ---> Jacksonville should raise the gas tax.
We can always expand the Skyway later, if we choose. That's always a possibility going forward. It doesn't have to be done in 2021.
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on April 26, 2021, 10:37:32 AM
Jacksonville - at this time - should not spend half a billion on experimental robo quads.
At this time ---> Jacksonville should raise the gas tax.
This is where I'm at with the gas tax. Drop the amount dedicated to the Skyway/U2C (it doesn't kill the pet project) and distribute the extra cash to fund other local infrastructure projects across the city that aren't on the list.
Lyft giving up on perfecting AV technology. Selling out to Toyota. Quotes indicate we have a long way to go to full AV's. But, maybe JTA knows something the rest of the world doesn't. ;D
A few quotes:
QuoteLyft is the latest company to abandon the expensive development of AVs
Lyft is selling its autonomous vehicle division to a subsidiary of Toyota — the latest in a series of acquisitions that is seeing the world of self-driving cars grow increasingly smaller...
...The deal, which is expected to close in the third quarter of 2021, brings to an end Lyft's four-year journey toward developing and deploying its own self-driving cars. The company follows its rival Uber in off-loading its costly autonomous vehicle division in a bid to stop losing so much money...
...Lyft launched its Level 5 division in 2017 with the bold claim that by 2021, "a majority" of its rides would take place in autonomous vehicles. The company hired hundreds of engineers to staff a 50,000-square-foot facility in Palo Alto, California. A year later, Lyft acquired the UK-based augmented reality startup Blue Vision Labs for a reported $72 million in the hopes of accelerating its efforts.
But the prediction that most of Lyft's rides would take place in AVs never came to pass. In fact, despite some technical successes, autonomous vehicles remain very far away from any kind of mass adoption. Most AVs on the road today are still test vehicles, with most of the major players refusing to commit to a timeline for commercialization...
...Last year, Toyota broke ground on its "Woven City," the 175-acre site of a former car factory in Japan. The automaker hopes to transform it into a "prototype city of the future" where it can test autonomous vehicles, innovative street design, smart home technology, robotics, and new mobility products on a population of real people who would live there full time.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/26/22404406/toyota-lyft-autonomous-vehicle-acquisition-amount-deal (https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/26/22404406/toyota-lyft-autonomous-vehicle-acquisition-amount-deal)
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on April 26, 2021, 07:37:11 PM
Lyft giving up on perfecting AV technology. Selling out to Toyota. Quotes indicate we have a long way to go to full AV's. But, maybe JTA knows something the rest of the world doesn't. ;D
A few quotes:
QuoteLyft is the latest company to abandon the expensive development of AVs
Lyft is selling its autonomous vehicle division to a subsidiary of Toyota — the latest in a series of acquisitions that is seeing the world of self-driving cars grow increasingly smaller...
...The deal, which is expected to close in the third quarter of 2021, brings to an end Lyft's four-year journey toward developing and deploying its own self-driving cars. The company follows its rival Uber in off-loading its costly autonomous vehicle division in a bid to stop losing so much money...
...Lyft launched its Level 5 division in 2017 with the bold claim that by 2021, "a majority" of its rides would take place in autonomous vehicles. The company hired hundreds of engineers to staff a 50,000-square-foot facility in Palo Alto, California. A year later, Lyft acquired the UK-based augmented reality startup Blue Vision Labs for a reported $72 million in the hopes of accelerating its efforts.
But the prediction that most of Lyft's rides would take place in AVs never came to pass. In fact, despite some technical successes, autonomous vehicles remain very far away from any kind of mass adoption. Most AVs on the road today are still test vehicles, with most of the major players refusing to commit to a timeline for commercialization...
...Last year, Toyota broke ground on its "Woven City," the 175-acre site of a former car factory in Japan. The automaker hopes to transform it into a "prototype city of the future" where it can test autonomous vehicles, innovative street design, smart home technology, robotics, and new mobility products on a population of real people who would live there full time.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/26/22404406/toyota-lyft-autonomous-vehicle-acquisition-amount-deal (https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/26/22404406/toyota-lyft-autonomous-vehicle-acquisition-amount-deal)
I've already said this, but the AV level that Lyft/Uber are looking for isn't what JTA needs to be successful. Lyft/Uber need Level 5. JTA needs a relatively limited version of Level 4.
Yes, JTA is shooting for Level 4. Basically the pilot Navya just launched in France:
https://www.auvsi.org/industry-news/navya-launches-level-4-fully-autonomous-shuttle-service-france
From the article Lake linked to
Quote
The shuttle is capable of operating without a driver in a determined environment and on a predefined route thanks to the continuous improvement of the "Navya Driver" autonomous driving software and the sensor architecture of the Autonom Shuttle Evo. If necessary, an off-board supervision can take control of the vehicle in real time. The presence of other users—pedestrians, cyclists and other vehicles—on the site is regulated thanks to secure access and reduced driving speed.
Will that be one remote operator per vehicle? If so, where is the labor savings? If not, how many AVs can the "off-board supervision" supervise safely?
Also, "The presence of other users—pedestrians, cyclists and other vehicles—on the site is regulated thanks to secure access and reduced driving speed." The AVs are traveling about 11 mph. How does all of this relate to Bay Street in mixed traffic - unregulated - and, during events, lots of pedestrians crossing wherever?
Perhaps, but you have to get through one to get to the other, right? Right now most of the industry seems to be just reaching some degree of confidence in Level 3. Some degree of Level 4 has to be met before work can be done on Level 5, right? A pilot isn't going to be the same thing as being production-ready for mixed traffic capability.
JTA's listed requirements include bidirectional operation at 35mph. That alone seems pretty daunting right now.
There may be some vehicles that can get up to 35 mph but they'll likely still be regulated closer to the 15 mph range. That's something JTA and their consulting teams have no control over. They did tell me that they expect that they (JTA) will be at Level 4 automation at their test facility within a year or so.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on April 26, 2021, 08:33:42 PM
From the article Lake linked to
Quote
The shuttle is capable of operating without a driver in a determined environment and on a predefined route thanks to the continuous improvement of the "Navya Driver" autonomous driving software and the sensor architecture of the Autonom Shuttle Evo. If necessary, an off-board supervision can take control of the vehicle in real time. The presence of other users—pedestrians, cyclists and other vehicles—on the site is regulated thanks to secure access and reduced driving speed.
Will that be one remote operator per vehicle? If so, where is the labor savings? If not, how many AVs can the "off-board supervision" supervise safely?
Also, "The presence of other users—pedestrians, cyclists and other vehicles—on the site is regulated thanks to secure access and reduced driving speed." The AVs are traveling about 11 mph. How does all of this relate to Bay Street in mixed traffic - unregulated - and, during events, lots of pedestrians crossing wherever?
Charles, I raised these same issues in a previous post and am still waiting for an answer from someone that makes operational and economic sense. If there is a "driver," whether in the vehicle or remotely, that must be fully engaged in watching the vehicle, then what have we accomplished over a conventional vehicle? Maybe even going backward as a remote driver probably doesn't have the full sense of place that a driver in the vehicle would.
Add, as you note, vehicles are traveling at 15 mph or less in mixed traffic. Aside from the bottleneck an AV will cause, what if there is a traffic bottleneck at grade - how does the vehicle maintain scheduled headways and/or can all the AV's end up bunched together?
And with all due respect to others here, Level 4 or 5, JTA seems a long ways from where they will need to be to make this work in the real world. As you look at the several articles I have recently posted about AV's and efforts by others, it is pretty unanimous that no one has a desirable result figured out currently, is meeting any reasonable timeline laid out originally, is on budget or can even begin to predict when they will have it figured out. Existing setups are under controlled, supervised and/or very limited conditions with very cautious settings/configurations. Far from a full real world application.
The real issue here is why should Jacksonville taxpayers pay for the R & D to solve AV issues? Are we going to own the "proven" (if ever) technology and collect licensing fees? I doubt it. So, what's in it for us other than blowing a lot of money that either is for a failed demonstration (echos of the existing Skyway) or a (most unlikely) success that a for-profit partner gets to fully exploit at taxpayer expense.
I might add that even if we were to successfully prove the technology, I doubt there will be demand that justifies the investment. So why even pursue it?