QuoteTwo months ago Mayor Curry and the Jacksonville Transportation Authority (JTA) announced plans to increase the local option gas tax to pay for much-needed transportation upgrades. The plan would free up money to remove failing septic tanks in long-neglected Jacksonville neighborhoods.
In some parts of town, I have heard concern over the proposed transformation of the Skyway into the Ultimate Urban Circulator, or U2C. I believe it would be short-sighted not to pursue the conversion of this '80s-era elevated structure into a more viable modern transit system to move people in and out of downtown into surrounding neighborhoods.
And contrary to the belief of some, Downtown Jacksonville is not dead. It's truly waking up and we are planning for that continued growth through good transportation planning. Don't let the naysayers fool you, there's plenty of progress being made in Downtown Jacksonville.
Projects like the Brooklyn Vista, Broadstone River House, The District, the Doro and what's being proposed for areas like the Berkman II property, the Ford at Bay, along with the investment by local developers into historic restoration infill projects in the Northbank Core are creating the type of infill density Downtown hasn't seen in decades.
Brooklyn is a prime example of an area that has completely transformed since 2015. And there is no stopping that momentum with construction crews building new hotels, apartments, dining and retail and office space right now.
The Downtown Investment Authority estimates there are more than 6,200 residents in what we think of as traditional downtown and that doesn't include the progress we're seeing in Springfield, Riverside and San Marco.
Vystar, FIS and other major employers are investing millions into building new campuses or expanding existing spaces. Restaurants like Cowford Chophouse, Bellweather, Jump'in Jax and Super Food & Brew continue to thrive in Downtown, along with local breweries like Bold City, and Intuition Ale Works. Ruby Beach Brewing relocated to the Urban Core, and investments from the Bread & Board, the Greedy Spoon and others continue.
The U2C also provides a solution to the most criticized element of the Skyway – a lack of good origins and destinations.
Our plan will transform an existing 2.5-mile taxpayer-funded structure, the Skyway, and covert it to a road at elevation. That route will come down to street level and expand an additional eight miles into Springfield, San Marco, Riverside and Brooklyn. These neighborhoods were always contemplated to be part of the original Skyway plans. This solution is much more cost effective than building more permanent superstructures, which would be disruptive and have a much longer build out.
Miami and Detroit followed through on their commitments to build out their people movers decades ago and they are now reaping the economic benefits of those decisions. In addition to being able to circulate people throughout their urban core, businesses and residential units have popped up all around the systems. Even with the limitations of the Skyway, we have seen residential units develop around our existing system. Vestcor alone has completed four housing developments with more than 500 new units in recent years, all built within steps of or within walking distance of a Skyway station. The Jacksonville Regional Transportation Center was built around a Skyway station with direct access into the heart of the building.
More residential and mixed-use development is being proposed on the vacant parcels surrounding the JRTC, and the possibilities with the current convention center property are endless. Imagine being able to quickly go from Riverside to a Jumbo Shrimp game, or from UF Health to the growing medical complex on the Southbank. By finally connecting these nearby neighborhoods through the U2C, Downtown Jacksonville will once again become the heartbeat of this community, and in turn, strengthening our entire region.
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/opinion/2021/05/02/nat-ford-why-jacksonville-should-invest-future-transportation-downtown/7411423002/
Still a very high level and empty form of promoting an unproven solution that is more expensive than proven transit solutions that would support downtown and connect to various neighborhoods. Replace the U2C with a streetcar or high frequency bus corridor with dedicated lanes, etc. and you can achieve everything mentioned here at less cost to the tax payer, lower long term maintenance cost, and with a shorter implementation timeframe because these technologies already exist. People really need to do their homework here and not operate under the assumption that improving our community has to be a U2C at $379 million with LOGT revenue or bust. There's a million things we can accomplish with that type of money and that even includes doing the first $44 million phase of the U2C to TIAA Bank Field without a dime of LOGT money, since it's already funded.
Btw, I've never heard the Detroit Peoplemover described as a success until now. Detroit actually went the opposite route of what we're doing with the Skyway. They left their peoplemover alone and built a new modern streetcar line that tied their downtown (and existing peoplemover) to their Amtrak station, several miles north in New Center. That project was significantly less per mile than the U2C though.
The math all depends on how you want to describe your system. The QLine is either 3.4 miles or a 6.6 mile loop. At $144 million, that's either $42 million or $21 million per mile. I mention the numbers this way because the only way the U2C comes out to +10 miles would be to include a new bridge across the river (seriously doubt that one happens) and to show the Bay Street Innovation Corridor as a loop. That voodoo math puts the U2C at around $42 million and at a significantly higher cost per mile if the bridge were subtracted (after all, the bridge cost isn't included in the $379 million LOGT ask) and if the Bay Street Corridor were identified as the actual 1.3 mile corridor it is from Hogan Street to TIAA Bank Field.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-dZ25jw5/0/L/i-dZ25jw5-L.jpg)
Detroit People Mover (was not expanded)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-F9mRHNS/0/L/i-F9mRHNS-L.jpg)
The QLine Streetcar (what was constructed) was a totally separate project built at significantly less cost than the U2C. It is what has been generating TOD in Detroit. Not the People Mover.
If Jaxson's were given an option between the two, the QLine or the U2C, I'm pretty confident that they'd go for the significantly cheaper and proven QLine.
I think the most notable thing is that this article assumes that the AV technology is capable of doing all of this already, which it is not. I was at their test facility on Friday, and while they'd occasionally do some test running through the course without their hands on the wheel/joystick/game controller, the vehicles aren't actually capable of carrying passengers with no driver yet. You can't call the U2C a "modern transit system" when it doesn't exist anywhere else.
And yeah, it seems all of JTA is parroting this line about Detroit's system and how it's been built out and successful.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on May 02, 2021, 01:36:34 PM
I think the most notable thing is that this article assumes that the AV technology is capable of doing all of this already, which it is not. I was at their test facility on Friday, and while they'd occasionally do some test running through the course without their hands on the wheel/joystick/game controller, the vehicles aren't actually capable of carrying passengers with no driver yet. You can't call the U2C a "modern transit system" when it doesn't exist anywhere else.
Agree, the AV technology is the most important hurdle (aside from unanswered ROI questions related to costs and user acceptance) for now. Unproven by many who have spent far more dollars and time than JTA and either have yet to prove it out or just given up. No way JTA is going to find the magic potion before others with their very limited resources and experience. And, again, why should Jax taxpayers be paying for an R & D project to benefit the rest of the world assuming the very unlikely scenario that they hit a moonshot. 400+ million to one odds this is money down the drain.
QuoteVestcor alone has completed four housing developments with more than 500 new units in recent years, all built within steps of or within walking distance of a Skyway station.
I drive by these Vestcor developments quite regularly. I have never seen a single resident outside, much less walking to a Skyway station. All these buildings have gated parking lots/garages and my bet is these residents use their cars to get around. Can JTA produce a survey validating this audience for the Skyway? Like so many claims in this article, it appears to be unsubstantiated and speculative day dreaming.
Here is a question: The article lists all the developments to date "Downtown." If we added up all the private investment in every single one listed, would it even come up to the $400+ million proposed for the AV/Skyway project? Or go over it by much? And, notably, not one was built depending on the existing Skyway or in expectation of this project being completed. So, where is the correlation? Is there a single development that JTA can point to that would go forward heavily dependent upon, or only if, this project being/is completed?
QuoteThat route will come down to street level and expand an additional eight miles into Springfield, San Marco, Riverside and Brooklyn.
Compared to most of the City, these are our most "walkable" neighborhoods. That said, they are, in my opinion, large enough and lacking the density to support large numbers of people "walking" to an AV stop on Riverside Avenue, Main Street or Hendricks Avenue. How often and how motivated will those residents be to go at 15 to 25 mph holding on to pole for 15 to 25+ minutes to leave the comfort of their neighborhood and go across town? It would be interesting to see what ridership studies and assumptions JTA is using to support the ROI on this project. By the way, have they ever talked about a fare structure that might influence the answer?
QuoteDon't let the naysayers fool you, there's plenty of progress being made in Downtown Jacksonville.
Projects like the Brooklyn Vista, Broadstone River House, The District, the Doro and what's being proposed for areas like the Berkman II property, the Ford at Bay, along with the investment by local developers into historic restoration infill projects in the Northbank Core are creating the type of infill density Downtown hasn't seen in decades.
Just like with the guest op-ed from the DIA a few months back, and the DVI report every year, this narrative of progress being made downtown despite what naysayers in "certain parts of town" claim amounts to pure gaslighting. Really tired of all these organizations patting themselves on the back for projects like Lot J, Berkman II, the District, Ford on Bay, the Laura Street Trio, and other historic redevelopments downtown that are nothing but the same renders on paper that they've been for years while ignoring all the steps backward, botches, and broken promises.
Absolute garbage piece that does nothing to explain why the U2C is needed badly enough to warrant devoting 40 percent of our gas tax to over the next 30 years to a 10-mile project servicing a handful of mostly affluent urban neighborhoods. What crippling transportation problem is the U2C addressing that can't be solved at 10x the efficiency and 1/10th the cost with something as simple as buses? Quickly (Nat's words) getting from Riverside to a Jumbo Shrimp game? Really?
Cool how he completely forgets to mention the price tag in the piece. And the speed and capacity issues. And the opportunity cost. Just more platitudes about how great things are downtown and how the pessimists simply can't shut up and appreciate the fact that - despite all evidence to the contrary - our city leaders are the smartest ones in the room.
U2C would be a multi-generational mistake, and it's pretty terrifying that this is a hill JTA wants to die on.
Have said it since the second the project list was released.
Skyway is gonna kill an otherwise good plan dead in the water.
And JTA seems perfectly content to allow the baby to be thrown out with the bath water.
They want to spend 1/2 a billion on clown cars that can almost not drive themselves from bus stop to bus stop.
Adam Sadler has a phrase appropriate to invoke if this is "the future of transportation", FMITGA.
I wonder what the definition of quickly is?
"Imagine being able to quickly go from Riverside to a Jumbo Shrimp game..."
Imagine instead if we completed the Riverwalk from Berkman II to A Philip Randolph Blvd (the bulkhead work was done almost a decade ago). One could ride their bike from 5 Points along the Riverwalk to the ballpark in about 20 minutes.
Barron's article headline recently posted:
QuoteAre We There Yet? Autonomous Driving Has a Long Road Ahead.
Article is behind a paywall but if you are willing to squint your eyes you can read the very light colored text bleeding through the web page. Bottom line, it says solving this problem is probably the hardest tech issue ever and many are just giving up on getting it done.
It also cites low consumer confidence meaning people are not willing to accept a ride in an autonomous vehicle today. What will that mean for JTA ridership?
A reader added this interesting comment that would appear applicable to JTA's proposal:
QuoteAre fully autonomous cars possible. Absolutely. The problem I see is mixing cars that drive based on logic with those driven by irrational, emotional human beings. If all cars had the capability, and a switch could be thrown that would dictate that all cars be autonomous, there probably wouldn't be a problem. The human element strikes again!
https://www.barrons.com/articles/self-driving-keeps-getting-delayed-why-autonomous-vehicles-are-still-a-ways-off-51619822210?siteid=yhoof2 (https://www.barrons.com/articles/self-driving-keeps-getting-delayed-why-autonomous-vehicles-are-still-a-ways-off-51619822210?siteid=yhoof2)
Maybe someone here can get a copy of the article and share it with our Council members.
And guess who Tweeted this quote this past week:
Quote"A major part of real-world AI has to be solved to make unsupervised, generalized full self-driving work, as the entire road system is designed for biological neural nets with optical imagers,"
That's right, the king of autonomous tech, Elon Musk.
But, JTA knows better than anyone else.
Quote from: tufsu1 on May 03, 2021, 10:57:07 AM
I wonder what the definition of quickly is?
"Imagine being able to quickly go from Riverside to a Jumbo Shrimp game..."
Imagine instead if we completed the Riverwalk from Berkman II to A Philip Randolph Blvd (the bulkhead work was done almost a decade ago). One could ride their bike from 5 Points along the Riverwalk to the ballpark in about 20 minutes.
We can spend $423 million on having this 15mph transit option available by 2030 and it would still lose out to Uber and Lyft's current services. I'm struggling to see why Jax taxpayers should fund a 1/2 billion experiment for such a privileged use. Riverside to a Jumbo Shrimp game? Seriously?!
You could achieve the same outcomes as U2c with buses tbh. I read that an electric bus costs around $800,000. Install a couple of charging stations and you've got faster vehicles with lower maintenance and operating costs with greater capacity that you can still bill as an "innovative" transit solution for these same routes they'd be running with a U2C...only one costs much less than the other.
This whole thing stinks of sunk cost fallacy.
Quote from: tufsu1 on May 03, 2021, 10:57:07 AM
"Imagine being able to quickly go from Riverside to a Jumbo Shrimp game..."
I can do that with a rideshare, bicycle, motorcycle, or in my own car no problem. This is not a problem that needs solving.
I agree, sunk cost fallacy is plaguing this project so badly
Nate Monroe weighs in on the gas tax and skewers City Council members for wimping out on dealing with it properly, especially Aaron Bowman, who he paints as a hypocrite for pushing for a referendum:
Quotehttps://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/columns/nate-monroe/2021/05/05/jacksonville-city-council-weasels-out-mayors-gas-tax-plan-nate-monroe/4954058001/?utm_source=jacksonville-News%20Alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=news_alerts&utm_term=news_alert
Good points by Nate. It's pretty bad that no one has offered up some alternative proposals with the project list or an alternative funding mechanism, if not a fan of this type of tax in general.
The fun thing about having an ideology that largely relies on obstructionism vs actual policymaking is that you don't actually have to offer alternatives.
And as I've said in other threads, there's been surprisingly little talk of the projects on the list. Instead the argument seems to be about whether to pass it at all.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on May 05, 2021, 11:10:24 PM
The fun thing about having an ideology that largely relies on obstructionism vs actual policymaking is that you don't actually have to offer alternatives.
And as I've said in other threads, there's been surprisingly little talk of the projects on the list. Instead the argument seems to be about whether to pass it at all.
100% agree on that first sentence. I never understand why the Left/Democrats don't press that point harder on literally everything.
As far as the list itself, are there any items OTHER than U2C, that would be considered controversial, or wasteful or 'has some baggage'?
^The Emerald Trail streets are becoming a big controversial item. None of these complete streets corridors are included in the list because OGC doesn't think they are eligible. Continued push back will be needed to show that many of the complete streets projects that have been marketed as The Emerald Trail are actually road projects, in the same vein as many of the isolated complete street and traffic calming projects on the list.
Other than that, many of the projects that are included may or may not be needed, depending on the design. At this point, there isn't a lot of information out there on many of them. However, they don't individually take up 40% of the LOGT revenue for the next 25 years, so the council really hasn't dived into the weeds. Unfortunately, most are more concerned with either passing the tax or killing it, what's on the project list be damned. It really is unfortunate how this city tends to squander these types of opportunities.
Outside of the U2C, I'm personally interested in the extent of the University/Merrill Rd Complete Streets project on the list as it runs through my area of town. JTA hasn't responded to my inquiry on that.
Regarding the Emerald Trail: For council members who haven't read the Jaxson article, the presentation given by Groundwork Jax in the Transportation Committee meeting on 5/3 also made it pretty clear that at least some major segments of the design were road projects. Other segments, like daylighting Hogan's Creek at UF*, were identified as providing drainage improvements. For something that appeared to have unanimous support of the committee -- and where several CM questions focused on funding sources -- it's a little amazing we're not seeing more discussion at the Council level to at least consider the LOGT as one of those sources.
I've flat-out asked my CM to introduce an amendment redirecting funds from the U2C to the Emerald Trail. However, if OGC doesn't think the Trail projects are eligible, could such an amendment even be passed?
*Fun fact, if you Google Hogan's Creek, the thumbnail Google provides is the Groundworks Jax rendering of the daylighted creek at UF.
I think the issue with OGC's opinion is that it can be changed and smart councilmembers and people need to do their homework and push to change it. Part of the Groundwork Jax presentation to council this week is a part of the effort to explain what the Emerald Trail project actually is. It's a series of road, drainage and traffic calming and safety projects that are being promoted as the Emerald Trail. However, from a legal perspective, fixing a sidewalk, moving curb and gutter, installing bike lanes, milling and resurfacing pavement on Hogan Street, is no different than doing the same thing on University/Merrill Road. We're just calling one the Emerald Trail and the other a Complete Street.
Back in 2013, Council sought the opinion of the state AG. It seems an easy answer to conflicting local legal opinions would be to go straight to the AG with a carefully-worded question about the Emerald Trail.
Jacksonville's 2013 request:
http://www.myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/Opinions/9A2EA4966EC8984285257C550050D86E
(http://www.myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/Opinions/9A2EA4966EC8984285257C550050D86E)
Ponce Inlet seeking guidance on bike paths:
http://www.myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/Opinions/07ABA79ACBC01B7E85256B3700560D95 (http://www.myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/Opinions/07ABA79ACBC01B7E85256B3700560D95)
The Ponce Inlet inquiry, while old (2002), is instructive because the opinion references 2 prior (and contrasting) examples reviewed by the AG. If we say, "Hey, can we use LOGT to build trails?", the answer is probably, "No." But if we ask, "Can LOGT funds be used to fund conversion of underutilized roadways into complete streets with updated patterns, traffic calming, signalization, striping, and integrated bike paths and sidewalks?" -- then it seems the answer is clearly "Yes," as articulated in the article here on the Jaxson.
Quote from: jaxoNOLE on May 06, 2021, 12:19:51 PM
Regarding the Emerald Trail: For council members who haven't read the Jaxson article, the presentation given by Groundwork Jax in the Transportation Committee meeting on 5/3 also made it pretty clear that at least some major segments of the design were road projects. Other segments, like daylighting Hogan's Creek at UF*, were identified as providing drainage improvements. For something that appeared to have unanimous support of the committee -- and where several CM questions focused on funding sources -- it's a little amazing we're not seeing more discussion at the Council level to at least consider the LOGT as one of those sources.
I've flat-out asked my CM to introduce an amendment redirecting funds from the U2C to the Emerald Trail. However, if OGC doesn't think the Trail projects are eligible, could such an amendment even be passed?
several of us have been working on this for over a month - and thankfully OGC now feels the trail system qualifies - so please continue reaching out to council members!
Quote from: tufsu1 on May 09, 2021, 11:18:23 AM
Quote from: jaxoNOLE on May 06, 2021, 12:19:51 PM
Regarding the Emerald Trail: For council members who haven't read the Jaxson article, the presentation given by Groundwork Jax in the Transportation Committee meeting on 5/3 also made it pretty clear that at least some major segments of the design were road projects. Other segments, like daylighting Hogan's Creek at UF*, were identified as providing drainage improvements. For something that appeared to have unanimous support of the committee -- and where several CM questions focused on funding sources -- it's a little amazing we're not seeing more discussion at the Council level to at least consider the LOGT as one of those sources.
I've flat-out asked my CM to introduce an amendment redirecting funds from the U2C to the Emerald Trail. However, if OGC doesn't think the Trail projects are eligible, could such an amendment even be passed?
several of us have been working on this for over a month - and thankfully OGC now feels the trail system qualifies - so please continue reaching out to council members!
As a political outsider here in Jax, I sure am happy the smart folks here are working so hard behind the scenes 8) . Keep up the good fight!
Article from Jalopnik this week about "autonowashing" AVs.
https://jalopnik.com/lets-talk-autonowashing-the-greenwashing-of-autonomous-1846853227
Quote from: marcuscnelson on May 10, 2021, 01:50:31 PM
Article from Jalopnik this week about "autonowashing" AVs.
https://jalopnik.com/lets-talk-autonowashing-the-greenwashing-of-autonomous-1846853227
Verdict: JTA: Guilty as charged!
Quote from: tufsu1 on May 03, 2021, 10:57:07 AM
I wonder what the definition of quickly is?
"Imagine being able to quickly go from Riverside to a Jumbo Shrimp game..."
Imagine instead if we completed the Riverwalk from Berkman II to A Philip Randolph Blvd (the bulkhead work was done almost a decade ago). One could ride their bike from 5 Points along the Riverwalk to the ballpark in about 20 minutes.
I think that's a great example of the opportunity cost of these lil robo clown cars JTA's infatuated with.
What would extending the riverwalk from Berkman to Metro Park cost? $5m? $15m?
For those that have a vision for that Riverwalk, for it's size and set backs, putting it before things get redeveloped ( if they ever do ) may be an advantage for enforcing some of those things.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on May 10, 2021, 01:50:31 PM
Article from Jalopnik this week about "autonowashing" AVs.
https://jalopnik.com/lets-talk-autonowashing-the-greenwashing-of-autonomous-1846853227
Great article.
But can we add "autonowashing" to "U2C" as a stupid term? :)
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on May 10, 2021, 03:29:10 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on May 03, 2021, 10:57:07 AM
I wonder what the definition of quickly is?
"Imagine being able to quickly go from Riverside to a Jumbo Shrimp game..."
Imagine instead if we completed the Riverwalk from Berkman II to A Philip Randolph Blvd (the bulkhead work was done almost a decade ago). One could ride their bike from 5 Points along the Riverwalk to the ballpark in about 20 minutes.
I think that's a great example of the opportunity cost of these lil robo clown cars JTA's infatuated with.
What would extending the riverwalk from Berkman to Metro Park cost? $5m? $15m?
For those that have a vision for that Riverwalk, for it's size and set backs, putting it before things get redeveloped ( if they ever do ) may be an advantage for enforcing some of those things.
Ideally, the best way to enforce it would be to actually "prepare" the area for development, by which I mean remediate the ground, build the access roads & infrastructure (including the riverwalk and whatever setback we want) and then sell or lease the parcels to whoever we'd like to get it on the tax rolls and recoup the public investment. This applies more to things like the District & Shipyards than buildings that already exist.
Quote from: Ken_FSU on May 02, 2021, 10:22:14 PM
U2C would be a multi-generational mistake, and it's pretty terrifying that this is a hill JTA wants to die on.
If you're trying to make a career of being a mass transit exec in the US and you want to move up to bigger and better, you really want to be a part of a rail project. It ain't an absolute but it's a big thing.
Jacksonville doesn't have the downtown office job population nor the population density, even in the core, to sustain rail-based mass transit.
So what's someone to do? Heck, let's say it, what does the head of an org like JTA do to better position themself for career advancement?
The next best thing ---> build a swarm of robo buses!
That is to say, I don't think this is hill the people of JTA want to die. I suspect though their leadership is okay with JTA jumping on this grenade.
To be fair, I doubt they see it as a grenade. They likely see it as a if the plan fails, JTA goes on as it did before. If it succeeds, big feather in their caps.
That feather's really needed to make that next move.
What I find strange is that I'm not sure who exactly would be doing that. Nat Ford ran Marta and Muni, I'm sure he could find better work elsewhere. Bernard Schmidt came from Amazon, he could have kept moving up there. And Brad Thoburn already left for FDOT. Who exactly is going to get a bump from this project that they wouldn't have gotten doing anything else?
In other news, Hussein Cumber gave a major kick in the rear to the project today.
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/opinion/2021/05/11/guest-column-skyway-doesnt-have-place-downtown/5021831001/
QuoteI keep hearing about how a revitalized system will help move people to places like TIAA Bank Stadium. A system that will have up to eight people per automated vehicle would be able to move 5,000 people (less than 7% of the stadium's capacity) in over 10 hours if the frequency is as little as one minute! No offense to the Jaguars pre-game activities, but no one wants to arrive 10 hours before game time.
The system is flawed from the start and designed not by users, but by engineers who charge by the hour and have no risk if the project is a complete failure. This is the same process that led to the Skyway to be built in the first place. JTA claims that there is a huge demand for the expanded system, yet only JTA employees stand at the podium to talk about how much the community needs the Skyway. Where are the ridership studies? Where are the focus groups that demonstrate people will use the system? Do we even know people travel between the destinations that have been chosen?
Damn......
Yeah, that's pretty brutal for an executive at a railroad ('s owner). For one of the people behind betting on private passenger rail to say that JTA isn't taking a worthwhile risk... oof.
QuoteThe JAX Chamber annually visits a city to find projects and learn about polices that further economic development with the goal to replicate these ideas and policies in Jacksonville. The reverse also occurs. Cities visit Jacksonville.
While I don't doubt that this occasionally happens, I can't think of any idea or policy that would be extracted from a JAX visit except for 'what not to do'.
The Op Ed writer is correct, the best use of funds for JTA is to remove the Skyway. It is one fourth of what is being asked for to 'improve' the skyway into U2C. I just wish they had done it before they built an entire building around the damn thing.
I still believe the Skyway and U2C are two different animals and should not be seen from the same lens. There are things that can be done to improve it and much of it involves things that have nothing to do with the actual infrastructure itself. The U2C isn't the solution and happens to be the most expensive route to go but that's Jax for you.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 12, 2021, 12:00:59 AM
QuoteI keep hearing about how a revitalized system will help move people to places like TIAA Bank Stadium. A system that will have up to eight people per automated vehicle would be able to move 5,000 people (less than 7% of the stadium's capacity) in over 10 hours if the frequency is as little as one minute! No offense to the Jaguars pre-game activities, but no one wants to arrive 10 hours before game time.
The system is flawed from the start and designed not by users, but by engineers who charge by the hour and have no risk if the project is a complete failure. This is the same process that led to the Skyway to be built in the first place. JTA claims that there is a huge demand for the expanded system, yet only JTA employees stand at the podium to talk about how much the community needs the Skyway. Where are the ridership studies? Where are the focus groups that demonstrate people will use the system? Do we even know people travel between the destinations that have been chosen?
Damn......
Aside from Husein Cumber's wife being on the City Council, he has served on the JEA Board and is well connected both politically and business-wise to the Mayor, Chamber and general establishment in Jax. For him to write this column says a lot about how little support there must be among those groups for continuing to operate the Skyway in any form, current or with AV's. He echos many of the comments I have made about the foolishness of trying to salvage this beast. I have also shared common thoughts about the Skyway's negative impact on every street it runs down. I don't see any land owner or developer clamoring to be a part of it, just the opposite over time. This money could be better invested in so many other needy projects that will give us so much more in return. Time to reallocate all of it.
Hopefully, Cumber is at the leading edge of a group that will finally rid us of this blight.
Today's meeting is streaming, but there is no participation via Zoom anymore. Council Auditor just pointed out the list of projects is a SAMPLE ONLY as the legislation is written, and has recommended Council changes the language to make the list definitive. Very interesting, as I thought the list was positioned as definitive from day 1. Regardless, it seems like Council is going to rectify that.
Ben Becker got ahold of a list of amendments being heard tonight.
https://twitter.com/benbeckeranjax/status/1392447828946034690?s=21
And yeah, it's really a serious indictment of the program that a passenger rail executive is saying there's no purpose for the project, period. I wonder where his head is on commuter rail or LRT as an alternative. Also, he hints at it in his op-Ed, but it should be pretty obvious that no one who supported "keep, modernize and expand" in 2015 was expecting the "modernization" to be autonomous vehicles. And even if they somehow were, a look at the progress that the "rapidly developing" technology has made indicates that they really aren't ready for prime time, and won't be within any reasonable period of time.
The challenge in terms of tearing it down is that JTA keeps insisting that the FTA is
actually threatening to demand all ~$180 million back instead of just the $40 million for infrastructure (there's apparently a letter about that that I haven't seen), and fearmongering that changing our minds would "chill" federal attitudes towards ever giving us money again. They even put it on their FAQ:
https://u2c.jtafla.com/documentation/questions-answers/
QuoteStarting from scratch would involve repayment of approximately $45 million to the USDOT, incur a minimum of $50 million in demolition costs, and create a chilling effect on future federal funding opportunities.
It should be simple enough to ask JTA for a copy of any correspondence from FTA / USDOT regarding "pay backs" that may be required.
These council meetings are hilarious. They are very rude to one another.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on May 12, 2021, 03:27:27 PM
It should be simple enough to ask JTA for a copy of any correspondence from FTA / USDOT regarding "pay backs" that may be required.
JTA has been a moving target on the deal with the Feds regarding the Skyway. For a long time, it was $45 million. Suddenly, they now say $180 million? As Charles says, let's see the agreements for ourselves since JTA can't consistently represent them. Regardless, whatever the penalty is, politically, I don't doubt for a minute they can't be negotiated way down or even eliminated entirely after 30+ years of total failure. I would be curious if JTA has even tried to work that process or how recently they have "negotiated" with the Feds, if at all.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on May 12, 2021, 03:13:37 PM
And yeah, it's really a serious indictment of the program that a passenger rail executive is saying there's no purpose for the project, period. I wonder where his head is on commuter rail or LRT as an alternative. Also, he hints at it in his op-Ed, but it should be pretty obvious that no one who supported "keep, modernize and expand" in 2015 was expecting the "modernization" to be autonomous vehicles. And even if they somehow were, a look at the progress that the "rapidly developing" technology has made indicates that they really aren't ready for prime time, and won't be within any reasonable period of time.
As Cumber was a lead for FEC when they were vested in Brightline, I would imagine he would have positive feelings for passenger rail, generally, and likely its first cousin, commuter rail or variations thereof. Accordingly, by drawing comparisons between capacity and costs of same and the Skyway/AV proposal, it likely isn't a stretch for him to appreciate the exponential gap between the two in terms of ROI and, hence, his conclusion that JTA's plan is literally, and figuratively, "off the rails."
Ford just said the JTA will pay $15 to $20 million per year to maintain and operate the U2C after it is up and running.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 12, 2021, 04:04:54 PM
These council meetings are hilarious. They are very rude to one another.
Quote of the afternoon so far: "Thank you for mansplaining that to me."
Lol, she was right in that she was speaking about her position regarding the Salem amendment.
Salem amendment passes 16-2.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 12, 2021, 08:58:09 AM
I still believe the Skyway and U2C are two different animals and should not be seen from the same lens. There are things that can be done to improve it and much of it involves things that have nothing to do with the actual infrastructure itself. The U2C isn't the solution and happens to be the most expensive route to go but that's Jax for you.
You are correct. Unfortunately JTA doesn't see it that way. Again, I like the Emerald Trail and funding traditional road projects (to free money for septic work), but as with Lot J I am still fearful this may be all or nothing.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 12, 2021, 04:26:02 PM
Ford just said the JTA will pay $15 to $20 million per year to maintain and operate the U2C after it is up and running.
On
what? But I thought the crazier thing was the speech he gave to Morgan:
QuoteI glad you asked that question because while we talk about the U2C project, it is the technologies that are clearly rapidly coming towards us, that are going to change transportation for everyone in this country, and the Jacksonville Transportation Authority is being seen as a leader in this actual space in terms of developing autonomous vehicle technology. Our current bus system is operated with bus operators and going into the future we're going to have to train our bus operators to become drone operators, where they will be operating some of these vehicles remotely from control centers. This is going to give us an exponential level of service that we can provide in this community. I think about the senior citizens that will be able to have greater mobility and not rely on the JTA to pick, pick them up when we say we can afford to pick them up or we have scheduled to pick them up, they'll be able to call these types of vehicles and actually get door to door service, is that going to happen in the next few years. No, but the foundation's we are building right now is not just the U2C project for downtown, it's actually looking at these technologies and what will they bring for generations to come. And as a level of accessibility that I don't think, and transportation that we have not even dreamed of.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 12, 2021, 04:42:40 PM
Salem amendment passes 16-2.
So there go the neighborhood extensions.
If no expansions then why even change to U2C. At this point upgrade or tear down the Skyway and proceed with the other projects
Quote from: jaxjags on May 12, 2021, 04:55:37 PM
If no expansions then why even change to U2C. At this point upgrade or tear down the Skyway and proceed with the other projects
I think the idea is that they will try to fund the expansions through state/federal sources. Are the rest of the amendments on for tomorrow?
Quote from: WAJAS on May 12, 2021, 05:01:38 PM
Quote from: jaxjags on May 12, 2021, 04:55:37 PM
If no expansions then why even change to U2C. At this point upgrade or tear down the Skyway and proceed with the other projects
I think the idea is that they will try to fund the expansions through state/federal sources. Are the rest of the amendments on for tomorrow?
Bay Street lives on as well. As of now the rest of the amendments are on for next Wednesday.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on May 12, 2021, 04:48:07 PM
So there go the neighborhood extensions.
I like the removal, primarily* because it requires them to prove the concept on Bay Street first. If it's successful, public buy-in to fund the neighborhood extensions should be forthcoming. If it isn't, then the neighborhood extensions should rightfully be killed. Begrudgingly, I understand wanting to connect to the elevated structure if you're going to make BSIC useful. $240M for that conversion seems nuts. Remove the center beam and repave 2.5 miles, plus add one ramp down to Bay street? How does that cost $240M?
*"Primarily" for now, until the Carlucci amendment hopefully passes.
Quote from: jaxjags on May 12, 2021, 04:55:37 PM
If no expansions then why even change to U2C. At this point upgrade or tear down the Skyway and proceed with the other projects
Ford appeared pretty confident that they'll somehow get funding elsewhere to do it, to the point that Cumber was upset about why they asked for the money in the first place.
Quote from: jaxoNOLE on May 12, 2021, 05:03:11 PM
Quote from: marcuscnelson on May 12, 2021, 04:48:07 PM
So there go the neighborhood extensions.
I like the removal, primarily* because it requires them to prove the concept on Bay Street first. If it's successful, public buy-in to fund the neighborhood extensions should be forthcoming. If it isn't, then the neighborhood extensions should rightfully be killed. Begrudgingly, I understand wanting to connect to the elevated structure if you're going to make BSIC useful. $240M for that conversion seems nuts. Remove the center beam and repave 2.5 miles, plus add one ramp down to Bay street? How does that cost $240M?
*"Primarily" for now, until the Carlucci amendment hopefully passes.
It's because they'll have to replace or create more ramps at the stations in order for the AVs to meet platform level for boarding, potentially going as far as entirely replacing the bridge structure in those areas. So in a way, think of it less as removing a beam and paving, and more like building 5 miles of bridge. I'm not sure whether the cost also includes building the ramps or elevators and whatnot.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on May 12, 2021, 05:13:45 PM
Quote from: jaxjags on May 12, 2021, 04:55:37 PM
If no expansions then why even change to U2C. At this point upgrade or tear down the Skyway and proceed with the other projects
Ford appeared pretty confident that they'll somehow get funding elsewhere to do it, to the point that Cumber was upset about why they asked for the money in the first place.
This bothers me also. Do your homework and be transparent and clear to the citizens of Jacksonville. They would be terrible industrial project managers.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on May 12, 2021, 04:48:07 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on May 12, 2021, 04:26:02 PM
Ford just said the JTA will pay $15 to $20 million per year to maintain and operate the U2C after it is up and running.
On what? But I thought the crazier thing was the speech he gave to Morgan:
QuoteI glad you asked that question because while we talk about the U2C project, it is the technologies that are clearly rapidly coming towards us, that are going to change transportation for everyone in this country, and the Jacksonville Transportation Authority is being seen as a leader in this actual space in terms of developing autonomous vehicle technology. Our current bus system is operated with bus operators and going into the future we're going to have to train our bus operators to become drone operators, where they will be operating some of these vehicles remotely from control centers. This is going to give us an exponential level of service that we can provide in this community. I think about the senior citizens that will be able to have greater mobility and not rely on the JTA to pick, pick them up when we say we can afford to pick them up or we have scheduled to pick them up, they'll be able to call these types of vehicles and actually get door to door service, is that going to happen in the next few years. No, but the foundation's we are building right now is not just the U2C project for downtown, it's actually looking at these technologies and what will they bring for generations to come. And as a level of accessibility that I don't think, and transportation that we have not even dreamed of.
That was crazy. Not only crazy in that JTA is desiring to speed hundreds of millions in local tax money on wild schemes....far beyond the foolishness of believing the AV thing will be up and running anytime soon, but also crazy in many of these councilmembers sounded totally unprepared and not versed in the topic at hand. Do they not get agenda packets for this stuff? They wasted most of the time at this meeting arguing over semantics of how to even conduct and vote at a meeting, instead of debating the merits of the amendments.
This quote was in the Dailey Record from Nat Ford:
JTA CEO Nat Ford said in a May 6 interview with the Daily Record that returning the federal grant money for the original Skyway and the $12.5 million already received for the U2C's Bay Street Innovation Corridor could put the city at risk of losing future U.S. Department of Transportation project funding.
Notice the word COULD. Not will or probably, but could. I think he is just talking and has NO support for this statement. Call me angry these days but not happy that the U2C has hijacked the LOGT debate with people that I like to say "we don't need the facts, we have already made up our minds".
Quote from: jaxoNOLE on May 12, 2021, 05:03:11 PM
I like the removal, primarily* because it requires them to prove the concept on Bay Street first. If it's successful, public buy-in to fund the neighborhood extensions should be forthcoming. If it isn't, then the neighborhood extensions should rightfully be killed. Begrudgingly, I understand wanting to connect to the elevated structure if you're going to make BSIC useful. $240M for that conversion seems nuts. Remove the center beam and repave 2.5 miles, plus add one ramp down to Bay street? How does that cost $240M?
All the George Jetson stuff costs millions of dollars. $240 million for 2.5 miles is pure foolishness, regardless of the technology though. At some point, no matter technology and pros that come with it, you can reach a point where the cost makes implementation not worth it. We've reached that point with the U2C. I'd rather them use play with AVs at ground level and not even touch the Skyway. Spend that $240 million on something worthwhile that can stretch further into the neighborhoods and connect with the Skyway at Kings Avenue, Rosa Parks or the JRTC. So what if people have to transfer between the modes.
Quote from: jaxjags on May 12, 2021, 05:29:56 PM
Quote from: marcuscnelson on May 12, 2021, 05:13:45 PM
Quote from: jaxjags on May 12, 2021, 04:55:37 PM
If no expansions then why even change to U2C. At this point upgrade or tear down the Skyway and proceed with the other projects
Ford appeared pretty confident that they'll somehow get funding elsewhere to do it, to the point that Cumber was upset about why they asked for the money in the first place.
This bothers me also. Do your homework and be transparent and clear to the citizens of Jacksonville. They would be terrible industrial project managers.
Clearly it was an opportunistic money grab. Getting 75% in state and federal funding is a very competitive process. Maybe you win money soon, maybe you don't. Getting 100% with local money means you can avoid that process. So, even if the LOGT flat out fails, the U2C won't die. They'll just keep going after other funding sources. So to a degree, it pretty much validates Cumber's position.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on May 12, 2021, 04:48:07 PM
On what? But I thought the crazier thing was the speech he gave to Morgan:
QuoteI glad you asked that question because while we talk about the U2C project, it is the technologies that are clearly rapidly coming towards us, that are going to change transportation for everyone in this country, and the Jacksonville Transportation Authority is being seen as a leader in this actual space in terms of developing autonomous vehicle technology. Our current bus system is operated with bus operators and going into the future we're going to have to train our bus operators to become drone operators, where they will be operating some of these vehicles remotely from control centers. This is going to give us an exponential level of service that we can provide in this community. I think about the senior citizens that will be able to have greater mobility and not rely on the JTA to pick, pick them up when we say we can afford to pick them up or we have scheduled to pick them up, they'll be able to call these types of vehicles and actually get door to door service, is that going to happen in the next few years. No, but the foundation's we are building right now is not just the U2C project for downtown, it's actually looking at these technologies and what will they bring for generations to come. And as a level of accessibility that I don't think, and transportation that we have not even dreamed of.
When you parse this statement, you realize how much gobbledygook it contains:
(1) JTA, a leader in autonomous vehicle tech? Over Tesla, Waymo, the major auto companies, etc. who have spent decades and billions of dollars so far and still haven't achieved anywhere close to autonomy? Uber and Lyft, who did the same and already gave up? But JTA will leapfrog them on a relative shoestring budget in a fraction of the time?
(2) Bus drivers as drone operators? LOL, maybe if they are under 30 year-old gamers. And, what's the difference, other than location, of an operator in the bus or at an operations center? It's still one operator per vehicle full time. So what is the advantage?
(3) Pick up senior citizens at their door on will-call? Don't taxis and Uber already provide this service at far less overall cost? Are we going to send a multi-million dollar vehicle that holds up to 15 people door-to-door to pick up single passengers? And move them across town to their doctors at 15 mph in traffic?
(4) Yeah, "looking at these technologies" from the outside in. I see no specific promise here of a given level of service for a given range of costs. This is the ultimate political escape hatch. We are effectively window shopping... and paying $379+ million for the adventure.
No investor would spend money on a project based on this presentation and the City shouldn't either.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on May 12, 2021, 06:06:40 PM
When you parse this statement, you realize how much gobbledygook it contains:
(1) JTA, a leader in autonomous vehicle tech? Over Tesla, Waymo, the major auto companies, etc. who have spent decades and billions of dollars so far and still haven't achieved anywhere close to autonomy? Uber and Lyft, who did the same and already gave up? But JTA will leapfrog them on a relative shoestring budget in a fraction of the time?
Let me tell you what they told me: JTA's teams consider Waymo an example of working full autonomy. Tesla's problems are solved by procuring "multi-sensing vehicles," beyond just the cameras that Tesla uses. Uber and Lyft "giving" up doesn't mean it doesn't work, just that they want to be vehicle operators rather than vehicle suppliers. And they're very confident that it'll work well enough by 2025 (for now...) when they become operational on Bay Street.
Quote(2) Bus drivers as drone operators? LOL, maybe if they are under 30 year-old gamers. And, what's the difference, other than location, of an operator in the bus or at an operations center? It's still one operator per vehicle full time. So what is the advantage?
It's actually not. The idea is that you have some operators monitoring, who occasionally take over remotely in case the AV encounters any problems self-driving. JTA does not currently have the equipment to test this capability.
Quote(3) Pick up senior citizens at their door on will-call? Don't taxis and Uber already provide this service at far less overall cost? Are we going to send a multi-million dollar vehicle that holds up to 15 people door-to-door to pick up single passengers? And move them across town to their doctors at 15 mph in traffic?
Bernard Schmidt told me that they actually can't pick up people at their door because it obliterates headway maintenance. So either Ford is lying to sell this or trying to sell a hypothetical future use beyond what's been proposed as something they're going to do.
Quote(4) Yeah, "looking at these technologies" from the outside in. I see no specific promise here of a given level of service for a given range of costs. This is the ultimate political escape hatch. We are effectively window shopping... and paying $379+ million for the adventure.
I gave my grand theory of this story a few weeks ago, that the AV was their promising jack of all trades that would give them everything they wanted, with the bonus of getting onto the cover of Forbes for "making the future happen," and unfortunately even after visiting them (especially so, if anything) that still seems true.
QuoteNo investor would spend money on a project based on this presentation and the City shouldn't either.
Honestly, Hussein Cumber's letter should probably be a death blow. Again, if the guy who helped lead in taking a risk like
privatized passenger rail in America thinks that this isn't worth the money, then it probably isn't.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on May 12, 2021, 05:13:45 PM
Quote from: jaxoNOLE on May 12, 2021, 05:03:11 PM
Quote from: marcuscnelson on May 12, 2021, 04:48:07 PM
So there go the neighborhood extensions.
I like the removal, primarily* because it requires them to prove the concept on Bay Street first. If it's successful, public buy-in to fund the neighborhood extensions should be forthcoming. If it isn't, then the neighborhood extensions should rightfully be killed. Begrudgingly, I understand wanting to connect to the elevated structure if you're going to make BSIC useful. $240M for that conversion seems nuts. Remove the center beam and repave 2.5 miles, plus add one ramp down to Bay street? How does that cost $240M?
*"Primarily" for now, until the Carlucci amendment hopefully passes.
It's because they'll have to replace or create more ramps at the stations in order for the AVs to meet platform level for boarding, potentially going as far as entirely replacing the bridge structure in those areas. So in a way, think of it less as removing a beam and paving, and more like building 5 miles of bridge. I'm not sure whether the cost also includes building the ramps or elevators and whatnot.
I still don't understand how it adds up. Are the ramps/elevators part of the $240M or the $132M? I presumed the $132M, because the extensions otherwise have very little actual construction involved and, with no extensions, I would hope JTA would not be building ramps to nothing. It would be very disingenuous to claim federal/state funding for extensions but lump the transitions into the local budget for the elevated conversion. So, why is the $240M justified? What existing station modifications, absent extensions and transitions thereto, are so extensive as to require more money than the entire Overland Bridge replacement?
Seeing the greed on the initial ask makes me wonder if the actual cost of converting the elevated structure and building one ramp down to Bay could be done for a fraction of the stated cost. Without designs, plans, or hell, even a specific AV in mind, how the heck can they know what it will cost?
QuoteWithout designs, plans, or hell, even a specific AV in mind, how the heck can they know what it will cost?
That number is a shot in the dark. This thing isn't designed and they don't even know what all will be needed to even allow it operate in the rain, much less all the other promises and visionary stuff being tossed out there to promote this expenditure for who ever will listen. As things get more refined, the previous unknowns will become additional expenses. That's the way these types of projects go. There's nothing over at JTA to suggest that things will be different. We'd be better off taking a fraction of that money and tossing it into improving the bus system. At least that's something that can happen quickly and provide more benefit to transit users countywide.
^ I don't recall the exact numbers, but FDOT has built entire interchanges and maybe even all of 9B for much less than $240 million. So, how can 3 or 4 ramps to grade plus ripping out the track approach that much? How much do the cars go for? If they are "autonomous" (haha), the main cost beyond would be software which is typically "leased" so they can get support and updates/upgrades included. Based on JTA's comment that it would cost $15 to $20 million a year, I am assuming the software is paid annually and not upfront.
Although I am against the entire project, if someone where inclined to approve any portion of it, JTA should provide a detailed breakdown of the projected costs plus the assumptions used to put it together. Failure to do so would just support the suspicion they don't really have a handle on this project and/or inflated the numbers for a money grab.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on May 12, 2021, 09:53:15 PM
Failure to do so would just support the suspicion they don't really have a handle on this project and/or inflated the numbers for a money grab.
Well, experience so far indicates.... :-X ;)
Looking at their Documentation (https://u2c.jtafla.com/documentation/) page, this (https://u2c.jtafla.com/media/2922/11_skyway_u2c-infrastructure-assessment-report.pdf) Infrastructure Assessment and this (https://u2c.jtafla.com/media/2911/jta-tcar1-report-2019.pdf) Concept & Alternatives Review provide some hints to the cost estimates they made. It looks like these cost estimates, ranging from $105 million to $184 million, only include the cost of actually redoing the guideway. The remaining... $56 million to $135 million would be for things like the maintenance center, presumably visually refreshing stations, overhauling the operations facility to control the vehicles, adding the sensors (that they're not sure which to use yet) and operating system (which doesn't exist yet) to control the vehicles.
If I recall correctly, the AVs cost somewhere in the range of $300-400k a pop, although that doesn't account for whatever "next generation" vehicle they might be trying to procure now. They're insisting that this is actually a great deal, despite having to purchase more vehicles because, you know, they're small. Seeing as the LIDAR sensors alone can cost $10k each, and each vehicle has several, you can see how quickly that cost can increase.
I was planning to say this to Council before learning that they no longer allow public comments via Zoom, but one of the big issues here is that working self-driving vehicles will basically require a Manhattan Project-level effort, right up alongside AI itself, or a crewed mission to Mars. It's not that JTA doesn't have smart people working on the U2C, it's just that this is a very difficult and very expensive endeavor, for something that isn't really worth the cost of admission in terms of what we really need. They can quip "can't do X with a streetcar" all they want, but the fact is that cities aren't exactly crying out for those capabilities in the first place, and have clearly done just fine with streetcars all over the country and the world.
Ford's little speech today really reveals the gambit, that they fell into the trap of believing that they could invent the hoverboard, evidence otherwise be damned. And it's just really sad to see that come from a public transportation agency. Instead of having a productive conversation about real transit solutions, we're wasting time and money arguing about hypothetical capability of technology that is nowhere near revenue service ready.
Listening to one of the meetings now. Nat Ford didn't have a number for how much it would cost to expand the Skyway in its current form. He just said, whatever it is, it cost more than the U2C. Five years ago, I would have said that to be true. I believe it's incorrect now if we're saying it takes $240 million to turn it into a 2.5 mile road.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 13, 2021, 05:57:26 PM
Listening to one of the meetings now. Nat Ford didn't have a number for how much it would cost to expand the Skyway in its current form. He just said, whatever it is, it cost more than the U2C. Five years ago, I would have said that to be true. I believe it's incorrect now if we're saying it takes $240 million to turn it into a 2.5 mile road.
Yeah, his answers are repetitive and generic on U2C. Whereas Elsbury seems to be adapting and responding, the JTA line hasn't changed. The pitch at $240M is the same as it was at $379M.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 13, 2021, 05:57:26 PM
Listening to one of the meetings now. Nat Ford didn't have a number for how much it would cost to expand the Skyway in its current form. He just said, whatever it is, it cost more than the U2C. Five years ago, I would have said that to be true. I believe it's incorrect now if we're saying it takes $240 million to turn it into a 2.5 mile road.
According to JTA's Transit Concept and Alternatives Review (https://u2c.jtafla.com/media/2912/1_jta_skyway_system_expansion_tcar2_report_final-march-_25_2020.pdf), fully elevated neighborhood extensions of the U2C would cost $428,225,958.47. That's not including the conversion costs for the existing system, but I
think it includes Bay Street. My guess is that they're using that number as a ballpark for how much it'd cost to expand the existing Skyway. Although that still wouldn't include replacing the vehicles and operating system, or any improvements made to stations. And the U2C numbers wouldn't include adding a beam or the switching tracks. So that number is going to look worse compared to "$132 million for street-level, mixed-traffic extensions."
Quote from: jaxoNOLE on May 13, 2021, 07:33:13 PM
Yeah, his answers are repetitive and generic on U2C. Whereas Elsbury seems to be adapting and responding, the JTA line hasn't changed. The pitch at $240M is the same as it was at $379M.
When the whole pitch is just "let's build the transportation system of the
future! There are a ton of hypothetical future capabilities that no one else has really figured out yet that we think we can, so it'll be really cool! Also we've already spent five years and millions of dollars on this so please don't say no" there's not really anywhere to adapt to. If you never face reality you never have to contend with how it doesn't actually work yet and you can't really afford to make it work. So you go to City Council and talk about hypothetical future vehicles (that you openly admit under your breath aren't what you're procuring nor possible with the money you're asking for) picking up old ladies right outside their house, and you hope, because hope that technology will save you is really all you have.
This talk of a transit system of the future makes me think that the underlying motivation to get U2C going is for the JTA brass to be able to leave "a legacy" more than it is to further the public good. That said, I'd say the best tactic for talking sense to JTA is to make the case for how it will actually tarnish the legacy they leave, and offer an alternative that lets them have their innovative legacy project.
Also, how backward is that that the public can no longer participate via Zoom. We should be encouraging more community engagement not less.
Last night, they allowed comments via zoom.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on May 14, 2021, 12:47:00 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on May 13, 2021, 05:57:26 PM
Listening to one of the meetings now. Nat Ford didn't have a number for how much it would cost to expand the Skyway in its current form. He just said, whatever it is, it cost more than the U2C. Five years ago, I would have said that to be true. I believe it's incorrect now if we're saying it takes $240 million to turn it into a 2.5 mile road.
According to JTA's Transit Concept and Alternatives Review (https://u2c.jtafla.com/media/2912/1_jta_skyway_system_expansion_tcar2_report_final-march-_25_2020.pdf), fully elevated neighborhood extensions of the U2C would cost $428,225,958.47. That's not including the conversion costs for the existing system, but I think it includes Bay Street. My guess is that they're using that number as a ballpark for how much it'd cost to expand the existing Skyway. Although that still wouldn't include replacing the vehicles and operating system, or any improvements made to stations. And the U2C numbers wouldn't include adding a beam or the switching tracks. So that number is going to look worse compared to "$132 million for street-level, mixed-traffic extensions."
Except you would not layout an identical route. There would be no need to have a line running on Riverside and Park, or on Kings and San Marco Blvd either. Since they have $44 million committed to Bay Street for the U2C, there's no reason to extend the Skyway as a monorail there either. So the proposal would be dramatically different and significantly cheaper than what's being poorly sold to the community. With that said, I'm still concerned they'll get the entire gas tax shot down over this U2C thing. They need to cut more out.
Quote from: jaxoNOLE on May 13, 2021, 07:33:13 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on May 13, 2021, 05:57:26 PM
Listening to one of the meetings now. Nat Ford didn't have a number for how much it would cost to expand the Skyway in its current form. He just said, whatever it is, it cost more than the U2C. Five years ago, I would have said that to be true. I believe it's incorrect now if we're saying it takes $240 million to turn it into a 2.5 mile road.
Yeah, his answers are repetitive and generic on U2C. Whereas Elsbury seems to be adapting and responding, the JTA line hasn't changed. The pitch at $240M is the same as it was at $379M.
Yeah, I don't care what the technology is, I would not be crazy about paying $100 million per mile for it. You could be a 10 mile streetcar line from scratch for that number and leave the Skyway in tact as a monorail. Anyone wanting to ride the 2.5-mile Skyway could transfer to it from the new 10-mile streetcar at the JRTC.
It's unlikely that you could build a streetcar line in downtown Jacksonville for $10M / mile. The line itself, maybe. But the cost of moving utilities would be humongous.
IIRC , MIlwaukee's The Hop cost ~$125M for 2 miles. Cincinatti's Bell Connector was about ~$150M for 3 miles. St. Louis' short lived The Loop kept it's costs down by not being downtown + having to move utilities + using some old car. Still it cost $50M for 2 miles.
It's possible but it's going to be tough.
Not sure the operating costs would be a big problem. A few million a year for operations though. Not sure that's anymore than the Skyway, is it?
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on May 14, 2021, 12:48:39 PM
IIRC , MIlwaukee's The Hop cost ~$125M for 2 miles. Cincinatti's Bell Connector was about ~$150M for 3 miles. St. Louis' short lived The Loop kept it's costs down by not being downtown + having to move utilities + using some old car. Still it cost $50M for 2 miles.
It's possible but it's going to be tough.
Some of the modern streetcar systems mentioned above are ones I'd consider being loaded (bloated) with unnecessary bells and whistles. However, even those numbers are cheaper than the $96 million per mile ($240 million for 2.5 miles) that JTA wants to pay to retrofit the Skyway into an elevated road for AVs. Add in the cost of the $423 million of the entire U2C system + $15 to $20 million annually for O&M, and I'd argue that we'd be better off with a streetcar or true bus rapid transit being built from scratch. Heck, we'd be better off throwing a fraction of that money into the bus system to reduce the headways citywide and then investing the savings elsewhere.
QuoteNot sure the operating costs would be a big problem. A few million a year for operations though. Not sure that's anymore than the Skyway, is it?
Nat Ford mentioned annual O&M would be $15 to $20 million for the U2C.
The most effective mass transit system I've used in this city was the UNF Shuttle from Lot 18 or Lot 53 to the main campus.
A few shuttle buses running up and down Bay St on gameday or on the weekends, run up and down the "elbow" and loop back around, would likely get ridden and used.
Higher capacity, good headways, inexpensive comparatively, and uses existing technology.
Yes, them running school buses between LaVilla and the stadium on game day is a more effective way of funneling people in and out of the stadium than the U2C.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 14, 2021, 01:25:07 PM
Yes, them running school buses between LaVilla and the stadium on game day is a more effective way of funneling people in and out of the stadium than the U2C.
My understanding is that JTA already does this. (https://www.jtafla.com/schedules/gameday-xpress/)
If your goal was to build an effective, high-frequency, high-capacity transit system, the best thing you could probably do is either a high-speed, dedicated lane LRT, or add TSP to every light between the two points and treat it like BRT. However, the problem is that JTA's goal isn't that, it's
transportation system of the future, so instead we're getting unproven technology with lower capacity than buses, theoretical headway numbers, and hypothetical "platooning" capability.
The thing I'm stuck on is that I'm not sure how to convince the JTA board to knock it off with the tech-bro fantasies and focus on providing an actual transportation system. There's no transit advocacy group to fully present and lobby for an alternative vision. Much of the frustration I've gotten from people I've talked to about this is that it's an actual transit agency pushing these, not some third-party who is simply being entertained by the transit agency. I'm not sure what the pathway is to doing something else.
QuoteMy understanding is that JTA already does this.
Exactly!
Quote from: marcuscnelson on May 14, 2021, 02:07:51 PM
The thing I'm stuck on is that I'm not sure how to convince the JTA board to knock it off with the tech-bro fantasies and focus on providing an actual transportation system. There's no transit advocacy group to fully present and lobby for an alternative vision. Much of the frustration I've gotten from people I've talked to about this is that it's an actual transit agency pushing these, not some third-party who is simply being entertained by the transit agency. I'm not sure what the pathway is to doing something else.
This is JTA's baby and apparently one that they are willing to die on the hill for and even risk sinking the entire gas tax proposal over. Regardless of whether the LOGT passes or fails, JTA will continue to pursue the U2C until their leadership and board priorities change. They've already spent millions on AV R&D and have too much invested to back away, regardless of how crazy and unrealistic the plan seems to the outside world.
It's clear the greater local community doesn't share the same vision as JTA. That's a large problem in and of itself. You should not have to oversell the viability of infrastructure projects that have true community support. So it is all on the council to reduce the amount of funding in the LOGT dedicated to the U2C. Council has the ability to amend just about anything related to the LOGT proposal and the draft list of projects that would be funded by it.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 14, 2021, 02:24:02 PM
Quote from: marcuscnelson on May 14, 2021, 02:07:51 PM
The thing I'm stuck on is that I'm not sure how to convince the JTA board to knock it off with the tech-bro fantasies and focus on providing an actual transportation system. There's no transit advocacy group to fully present and lobby for an alternative vision. Much of the frustration I've gotten from people I've talked to about this is that it's an actual transit agency pushing these, not some third-party who is simply being entertained by the transit agency. I'm not sure what the pathway is to doing something else.
This is JTA's baby and apparently one that they are willing to die on the hill for and even risk sinking the entire gas tax proposal over. Regardless of whether the LOGT passes or fails, JTA will continue to pursue the U2C until their leadership and board priorities change. They've already spent millions on AV R&D and have too much invested to back away, regardless of how crazy and unrealistic the plan seems to the outside world.
It's clear the greater local community doesn't share the same vision as JTA. That's a large problem in and of itself. You should not have to oversell the viability of infrastructure projects that have true community support. So it is all on the council to reduce the amount of funding in the LOGT dedicated to the U2C. Council has the ability to amend just about anything related to the LOGT proposal and the draft list of projects that would be funded by it.
If all of the concerns expressed on this forum are well-founded, then Bay Street should fail in rather spectacular fashion. It should continually fall (further) behind schedule on build-out, go over-budget, and once (if) completed, embody all of the limitations we fret about. It's fully funded, so JTA can't blame its failure on a lack of resources. I sincerely hope that, if Bay Street demonstrates these limitations, the Council at the time will be able to see through the BS excuses and kill the rest of the beast. Hopefully that happens before we blow hundreds of millions more on converting the elevated structure.
^That's my hope as well. I hope that the council will realize that the $44 million Bay Street corridor is already funded. Let's go ahead and get it up and running and let's see if it is what the JTA is selling. My prediction is we'll find out it won't be as planned and that if it isn't, JTA will say that you can't judge it without spending millions more to retrofit the Skyway itself. Let's just hope that our future council is smarter.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 14, 2021, 03:52:47 PM
^That's my hope as well. I hope that the council will realize that the $44 million Bay Street corridor is already funded. Let's go ahead and get it up and running and let's see if it is what the JTA is selling. My prediction is we'll find out it won't be as planned and that if it isn't, JTA will say that you can't judge it without spending millions more to retrofit the Skyway itself. Let's just hope that our future council is smarter.
Maybe the way to make all of these folks happy would be to reduce the current tax being proposed to pay for the other worthwhile projects on the list, and then discuss raising the tax again pending the results of the Bay St. corridor experiment. You'd make the Aaron Bowman's (Bowmen?) of the world happy for reducing the taxes being proposed. You're not giving an absolute no to JTA yet, and most importantly we're not wasting money on boondoggles without some evidence that this could work.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 14, 2021, 08:18:07 AM
Good. I must have misunderstood one of the other comments.
Last night, they allowed comments via zoom.
The frustrating part of that for me is watching us lose 5 years waiting to see Bay Street happen in order to hopefully convince Council or a future JTA board to demand something else. 5 years we could have spent on commuter rail, or actually building proven transportation downtown like streetcars or BRT instead of waiting for an experiment. 5 years for the Skyway vehicles we already knew were in rough shape six years ago to continue to decay.
I've griped about this before, but I still can't believe what an institutional failure on JTA's part this was. To have so brazenly decided to abandon their duty as a public transit agency in order to spend a decade and millions in taxpayer dollars to LARP as Silicon Valley tech bros is such an insult to people that have put so much effort into trying to improve their community. It's shameful.
In terms of now, has anyone talked to Cumber about her amendments? Her Amendment 2 (https://twitter.com/BenBeckerANjax/status/1392447828946034690) would cut the funding, although disappointingly enough I think it might also defund the JRTC rail project. Or is there anyone else who might be interested in proposing an amendment along the lines of either requiring Council approval following the completion of Bay Street to release funds for a local share of the conversion or even just outright redirecting the money to other transit projects?
Personally I don't see why they couldn't essentially mandate and fund the creation of an alternative to be operated by JTA, but I get it if that's out of the question.
Great op-ed today by one of the U2C designers in support of the project that, quite literally, does nothing at all to explain the value of the U2C.
Literally nothing.
Just more goofy Bold New City of the South nonsense and baseless platitudes about how 15 years from now, Jacksonville is going to known throughout the world as the most advanced city on planet Earth.
Just further demonstration of how little common sense anyone involved with this thing appears to have.
https://amp.jacksonville.com/amp/5081601001
Gee Whiz Boys and Girls ... it's the Jetsons!
Quote from: Ken_FSU on May 15, 2021, 05:34:22 PM
Great op-ed today by one of the U2C designers in support of the project that, quite literally, does nothing at all to explain the value of the U2C.
Literally nothing.
Just more goofy Bold New City of the South nonsense and baseless platitudes about how 15 years from now, Jacksonville is going to known throughout the world as the most advanced city on planet Earth.
Just further demonstration of how little common sense anyone involved with this thing appears to have.
https://amp.jacksonville.com/amp/5081601001
I love to break down the elements to these epistles to try and grasp the same straws their writers are.
QuoteJacksonville is regarded as one of the greatest modern examples of city transformation. Jacksonville has improved year after year in pedestrian and bicycle friendliness, livability, and coastal resiliency. Experts argue that Jacksonville is the global leader in digital innovation. Students studying architecture, engineering, and city planning travel to Jacksonville to perform analysis on the city's evolution as a premier coastal city. The city's striking balance of innovation and entrepreneurialism compliments the natural beauty and amazing culture full of hospitality and charm. It is hard to deny the impact smart city technology has had on Jacksonville's renewal. The year is 2035 and looking back, the city has been on this trajectory for 15 years.
Anyone who has lived here for the the last few decades knows this vision must be seen to be believed. It is so out of step with our leadership and execution by those leaders that, while we all wish for this utopia, it would take a revolution, and not a technology one, but rather of leadership, to make it happen. Past trends to-date don't bode well for that. Further, the very project Mr. Chang is pushing for will actually create the opposite result of what he pines for here.
QuoteIn 2020 Jacksonville was one of the few American cities that was able to turn lemons into lemonade. During the global pandemic Jacksonville was a recipient of good favor, seeing a boom in our housing market and business community.
How is this relevant to the U2C? And, most of that boom is in the suburbs and beyond.
QuoteIn 2021 something dramatic happened. A group of civic leaders championed bold plans to reimagine the role of technology in infrastructure investment within the city. The plan continued the hugely successful Better Jacksonville Plan's infrastructure investment with a new twist, investment in digital infrastructure. The plan required confidence in the waning days of the global pandemic to believe that digital transformation was within our grasp. This plan was known as the "Jobs for Jax" plan and included the careful planning of our city's most innovative leaders (Nathaniel Ford of JTA and Jeff Sheffield of TPO). The digital elements of the plan were supported by leadership at Florida DOT, U.S. DOT, Jacksonville Chamber, and private sector technology companies. The digital infrastructure includes IoT (internet of things), communications systems (5G), and autonomous vehicles. After careful consideration of the multiplier effect from the investment, City Council supported the measure.
Yeah, the plan is bold, but not for the reasons cited above. It's bold to put it forward when the technology is not proven, there is little or no demand for what it will offer and there is no plan that can be properly costed out. The reference to it requiring "confidence" to "believe digital transformation" is within our grasp reminds me of a line like that spoken by the Wizard of Oz and we know what a fraud he was. "Careful planning" but no detailed drawings/engineering, uproven technology, no handle on costs, no ridership surveys, no economic analysis? Haven't seen any evidence of that, just platitudes like this piece. Digital elements with supporters? What are digital elements exactly? And the supporters listed are ones that think this project will benefit their egos, careers and/or pockets. What multiplier effect is he referring to? If there is such a study, what is it based on? Has it been made public?
QuoteAs a technologist, I find it useful to imagine the world we want to live in and then envision the steps it would take to get there. Technology is only part of the story of transformational initiatives. Public policy, economics, legal framework, political partnerships, and civic leadership all play key roles in transformation. In the case of significant change it must all come together at the same time and in the right sequence. I believe that the upcoming decision City Council faces on Jobs for Jax enables the opportunity for Jacksonville to reimagine our future. I urge the council members to strongly consider the multiplier effect that investment in our community will have at this pivotal time.
"Imagine," "belief," "reimagine"... great words for a fairy tale such as this. All the elements he refers to for success have not been addressed to date and the biggest one, the unproven technology, he dismisses as "only part of the story" so as to sidetrack us from the real issue that it isn't close to working with no end in sight as to when it will.
Quote
Matthew Chang is a professional engineer and expert in autonomy, disruptive technology, and automated systems. Matthew served the JTA and city of Jacksonville as the first administrator and concept designer of the JTA's U2C program.
No doubt Mr. Chang is a nice guy. But this comes across as someone pleading to save a project that he has put his heart and soul in. While I have sympathies for his position, Jacksonville taxpayers should not have to bail out his "dream" for the U2C. It appears Mr. Chang has moved on from working on this project and, like him, we should too.
I saw that last night when it published, was wondering when someone else here would see it. Here's a normal, non-AMP link. (https://www.jacksonville.com/story/opinion/2021/05/15/guest-column-jobs-jax-investment-city/5081601001/)
I'm just gobsmacked that they thought this would be a compelling argument.
Right from the start they go with this:
QuoteJacksonville is regarded as one of the greatest modern examples of city transformation. Jacksonville has improved year after year in pedestrian and bicycle friendliness, livability, and coastal resiliency. Experts argue that Jacksonville is the global leader in digital innovation. Students studying architecture, engineering, and city planning travel to Jacksonville to perform analysis on the city's evolution as a premier coastal city. The city's striking balance of innovation and entrepreneurialism compliments the natural beauty and amazing culture full of hospitality and charm. It is hard to deny the impact smart city technology has had on Jacksonville's renewal. The year is 2035 and looking back, the city has been on this trajectory for 15 years.
To be fair, it's pretty much in line with how the U2C team treated their product during my visit. Like the work they were doing would basically singlehandedly transform the entire city and, like the article says, make Jacksonville "a global leader in digital innovation". The only evidence they really had for this was that apparently they'd brought in some school kids to do robotics stuff, and some collabs with FSCJ. It reminds me somewhat of how UF is currently undergoing this big initiative to get "AI supercomputers" and "integrate AI into the entire curriculum" but the difference is that they got private investors (namely the founder of NVIDIA) to pour tens of millions of dollars into it themselves, and aren't doing it at the expense of the rest of the school.
How exactly running pod cars down some streets is supposed to inspire a revolution in architecture, engineering, and city planning? Absolutely beats me.
QuoteThe plan required confidence in the waning days of the global pandemic to believe that digital transformation was within our grasp. This plan was known as the "Jobs for Jax" plan and included the careful planning of our city's most innovative leaders (Nathaniel Ford of JTA and Jeff Sheffield of TPO).
I consider Nat Ford a good guy with a decent record of working in transportation and besides this project, an acceptable record leading JTA, but come on.
Come on.QuoteI believe that the upcoming decision City Council faces on Jobs for Jax enables the opportunity for Jacksonville to reimagine our future. I urge the council members to strongly consider the multiplier effect that investment in our community will have at this pivotal time.
This is, I guess, a half-truth? I agree the city should invest in itself, and that the decisions we make now can and will have effects, for better or worse, 15 years from now. But to pretend that the U2C will serve as the backbone of those effects is outright delusional. The UNF economic analysis (https://u2c.jtafla.com/media/2871/jta-logt-projects-economic-impact-study.pdf) JTA is trying to defend their project with shows that only the neighborhood extensions will maybe have a multiplier in terms of impact, and that's more because of the actual construction than anything to do with knock-on effects of the technology.
On the other hand, Mark Woods had a real discussion (https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/columns/mark-woods/2021/05/14/gas-tax-could-move-quality-life-needle/5081389001/) about the tax in terms of making a quality of life investment (beyond the Skyway, apparently):
QuoteSo beyond asking people if they support a gas tax, it's worth asking if they want road improvements, septic tank removal, a park system that lives up to its potential, a city that doesn't perpetually rank as one of the worst for pedestrians and bicyclists, the kind of place that makes young people want to stay and Fortune 500 companies want to arrive.
Not that this gas tax alone will do all of this. But it can move the needle on something that's hard to quantify: quality of life.
Apple recently chose to put its latest East Coast expansion — a $1 billion campus that will have 3,000 employees — not in the supposedly business-friendly climate of the Sunshine State, but in Raleigh, N.C.
Some have noted that this is despite North Carolina having higher taxes than Florida. But maybe it's actually because North Carolina has higher taxes, or at least because it has some of the things that come with those taxes.
In Jacksonville, we seem to be quick to invest public dollars in private projects and slow to take public dollars and use them for public projects.
He also made this great point, emphasis mine:
QuoteAt one point in the meeting, Al Ferraro asked his fellow council members a question: How many of you use the Skyway?
The lack of response illustrated what we all already know. The Skyway as it exists has been a failure. A better question: Is there a mass transit system you would use? Is there one Jacksonville would use? Is it the one proposed by JTA?
Side note, according to his LinkedIn, Matthew Chang left JTA in April 2019. He posted (https://www.linkedin.com/posts/matthewachang_guest-column-why-jacksonville-should-invest-activity-6795001746285465601-0mjV) the following on his LinkedIn along with his article:
QuoteThe City of Jacksonville is on the starting line of a major city transformation. The wind is at our back and our sails are full!
Florida's economy, our housing market, and our great weather are fueling a boom that we've waited a long time for. I'm proud that our forward thinking leaders are coming up with creative and innovative ways to "move" the city forward. Exciting times in Jacksonville! Great partnerships from Florida Department of Transportation and
U.S. Department of Transportation. The future of transformational government projects is through #P3's and we are lucky to have leaders like Nat Ford to help us plan a brighter future! #infrastructure
And in case you're wondering, yes, Nat Ford did like that post.
Something just occurred to me.
I'm reading "Creating the Ultimate Urban Circulator (https://u2c.jtafla.com/media/2877/creating-the-ultimate-urban-circulator_final-march-2017.pdf)" and on page 32, I noticed this sentence on the slide about the pros and cons of AVs (typo is theirs, not mine):
QuoteVehciles will have to meet safety certification requirements by FDOT and FTA to be eligible for state and Federal funding.
What's the possibility that they sought full local funding in order to avoid having to procure vehicles that meet FDOT and FTA requirements? It's maybe not true since they did get funding for Bay Street (and apparently
only Bay Street, since they admit they haven't sought funding for any other portion of the U2C), but could that have been a factor in their attempt to fully fund it with LOGT? It was later considered last year on page 7-3 of this document (https://u2c.jtafla.com/media/2912/1_jta_skyway_system_expansion_tcar2_report_final-march-_25_2020.pdf):
QuoteLocal Funding Only - Model runs 3,6,9 evaluated each of the three alternatives with the assumption that JTA would shoulder the entire financial responsibility for the project, including capital and operations and maintenance. Each of these model runs requires a significant contribution from JTA for which no funding has yet been identified.
Maybe this is nothing, but it just stood out to me considering everything going on.
It definitely makes things much easier, the less you have to rely on other entities to embrace and put money behind your dreams. The LOGT is a chance for JTA to do that. Unfortunately for them, the community being asked to fund this risky R&D venture doesn't share the same vision.
Quote from: Fallen Buckeye on May 14, 2021, 04:47:11 PM
Maybe the way to make all of these folks happy would be to reduce the current tax being proposed to pay for the other worthwhile projects on the list, and then discuss raising the tax again pending the results of the Bay St. corridor experiment. You'd make the Aaron Bowman's (Bowmen?) of the world happy for reducing the taxes being proposed.
Some of these members may be thinking of running for future office - and likely signed Grover Noquist's no new taxes pledge
Moved post to https://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,36833.msg511438/ (https://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,36833.msg511438/)
Quote from: tufsu1 on May 17, 2021, 02:50:28 PM
Some of these members may be thinking of running for future office - and likely signed Grover Noquist's no new taxes pledge
If I recall correctly, Rory Diamond has said that pretty much verbatim.
Quote from: Fallen Buckeye on May 14, 2021, 04:47:11 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on May 14, 2021, 08:18:07 AM
Last night, they allowed comments via zoom.
Good. I must have misunderstood one of the other comments.
FYI, tomorrow's Committee of the Whole meeting will once again not permit public comment via Zoom. It looks like Council and Committee meetings are going back to in-person only for comments with streaming video for spectators. Town Halls are so far continuing to permit public comment via Zoom.
It makes for really poor optics, when they're trying to resurrect credibility with the public, to have these meetings at 9:00AM on a workday and remove the opportunity for remote comments. It's also poor transparency to list the meeting on the events page, but not on the City Council Meetings page.
From https://www.coj.net/city-council/events (https://www.coj.net/city-council/events):
QuoteCity Council Committee of the Whole Meeting: Re: Local Option Gas Tax & Septic Tanks
May 19, 2021
9:00 AM (If attending virtually, please join the meeting by 8:45 A.M.)
Physical Location: Council Chambers
City Hall
117 W. Duval Street
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Meeting ID: 988 7458 2797 | Zoom Application (VIEWING ONLY)
Passcode: 740506
Pursuant to Council Rule 2.105, the Honorable Tommy Hazouri, President of the Jacksonville City Council hereby calls an In-Person (With Streaming Viewing Options Only) Committee of the Whole Meeting for Wednesday, May 19th, 2021, 9:00 AM, in the Council Chambers located in City Hall, First Floor, 117 W. Duval Street, Jacksonville, FL 32202. The purpose of the Noticed In-Person (With Streaming Viewing Options Only) Meeting to provide a forum to discuss Ordinance 2021-0223 (Local Option Gas Tax) and Ordinance 2021-0235 (Septic Tanks).
No mention of or access to the meeting here though: https://www.coj.net/city-council/city-council-meetings-online (https://www.coj.net/city-council/city-council-meetings-online)
Latest news on "autonomous" tech... Tesla wants to drop radar and lidar in favor of cameras only on lower model cars. Their cars are still rated only Level 2. No sign that full autonomy is anywhere close to being achieved. Awaiting the wonder of JTA figuring this out first.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/25/tesla-ditching-radar-for-autopilot-in-model-3-model-y.html
Quote
Tesla is ditching radar, will rely on cameras for Autopilot in some cars
Tesla announced Tuesday that it is ditching radar in its driver-assistance features, including Autopilot....
....According to the company's website, Autopilot currently enables a Tesla vehicle to "steer, accelerate and brake automatically within its lane" and FSD adds features such as automatic lane changing and summon. Summon enables a driver to call their car to come pick them up across a parking lot using the Tesla app like a remote control.
Tesla cautions in its owner's manual and on its website that Autopilot and FSD require active supervision. But some drivers incorrectly believe that a Tesla is safe to operate hands-free, asleep at the wheel or even while sitting in the back of the car....
....Other automakers are taking a different tack when it comes to the development, rollout and marketing of automated driving systems. GM Cruise, Alphabet's Waymo, Aurora and others are including radar and lidar alongside cameras in their systems.
While cameras capture video that can be labeled by human data analysts and interpreted by machine-learning software, radar and lidar sensors provide additional data that can give cars a more robust way to detect and avoid obstacles on the road — especially when visibility is lower, including at night or in inclement weather....
...."Tesla's features are currently limited to this SAE Level 2. If in the future Tesla wants to achieve SAE Level 4 (automated vehicle with no human driver safety supervision — which is not the current capability), then it would prudent to use every type of sensor they can get, including cameras, radar, lidar, and possibly others."
JTA's argument regarding this was that they intended to procure "multi-sensing vehicles" and tie it in with the TSP and cameras and other equipment they're putting into signal boxes and on poles. And that this together will make it work.
Nat Ford is claiming that they'll start Bay Street (within 2-3 years, apparently) in Level 3 with operators at first, then transition to Level 4 and move the operators into a control center to be "drone operators." Integrated software doesn't exist for this yet but apparently they expect to figure it out by the time Bay Street opens.
Came across this fun quote (https://www.masstransitmag.com/management/news/21217324/fl-jacksonville-transportation-authority-board-approves-project-list-for-gas-tax-increase) from last month when the JTA Board voted to go ahead with the project list:
Quote"Now is not the time to reverse course," JTA board Chairwoman Ari Jolly said. "We are too far in the implementation of the U2C program."
She said not building the system would be turning "our backs on the progress and innovation of the city for generations to come."
Anyway, today's the day. Special meeting to decide on the LOGT increase. Either they go ahead with $247 million in funding to covert the Skyway, redirect it to other projects or kill the bill entirely.
I did my part, proposing an amendment (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1syWnDTiLa-fmqYftMyIQ9_6ozLMmKSXE/view?usp=sharing) to Morgan, DeFoor, Dennis, and Carrico. We'll see what comes of it, if anything. Beyond that, I'm sure it'll be an interesting day.
QuoteSpecial Council Meeting Re: Local Option Gas Tax & Septic Tanks
May 26, 2021
10:00 AM (If attending virtually, please join the meeting by 9:45 A.M.)
Physical Location: Council Chambers
City Hall
117 W. Duval Street
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Meeting ID: 962 3118 9138 (WITH STREAMING VIEWING OPTIONS ONLY)
Passcode: 45963
In accordance with the provisions of Council Rule 4.103, the Honorable Tommy Hazouri, President of the Jacksonville City Council hereby calls an In-Person (With Streaming Viewing Options Only) Special City Council Meeting for Wednesday, May 26th, 2021, 10:00 AM, in the Council Chambers located in City Hall, First Floor, 117 W. Duval Street, Jacksonville, FL 32202. The purpose of the Noticed In-Person (With Streaming Viewing Options Only) Meeting to provide a forum to discuss Ordinance 2021-0223 (Local Option Gas Tax) and Ordinance 2021-0235 (Septic Tanks).
^Marcus, it looks like DeFoor is listening based on the amendments up for consideration today. I don't have the option to attach a picture, but the amendments being considered are:
- Cumber: Require funds to be used on a pay go basis and not borrowed (Failed 4-15)
- Boylan: Require 3-year tracking tracking for project timelines, priorities, and cost to be posted on City website for public
- Boylan: Require compliance with Florida Ethics provisions
- DeFoor: Remove the U2C and Skyway Rehab projects from the JTA list
- Ferraro: Remove split with JTA; all funds will go to city
I had contacted Morgan and Salem pitching your amendment, so hopefully they will support DeFoor's amendment.
I saw, I'm trying to get to the meeting now.
I drove to the Southbank (SoBa?) and decided to take the Skyway to City Hall for once, and they've helpfully repaid me by getting me stuck.
I am currently stuck on the Skyway.
A man named Derrick has climbed around the gate and opened a panel inside the vehicle to try and fix it.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on May 26, 2021, 11:31:35 AM
I saw, I'm trying to get to the meeting now.
I drove to the Southbank (SoBa?) and decided to take the Skyway to City Hall for once, and they've helpfully repaid me by getting me stuck.
I am currently stuck on the Skyway.
A man named Derrick has climbed around the gate and opened a panel inside the vehicle to try and fix it.
I just read your post as Nat Ford was simultaneously telling Council they have a "state of good repair" issue on the current Skyway. You can't make this stuff up!
I did get off. Derrick was able to manually move the vehicle over to the platform gate. So now I'm in the council chamber.
Discussing amendment to defer LOGT spending on U2C until after we have results from Bay Street Corridor project.
Ford defending U2C.
"Laptops on wheels."
Lol, no one (except JTA) is racing in the US to turn a monorail system into a significantly lower capacity AV system for the same cost as building LRT from scratch. Also, don't need the U2C to look at flooding and roadway issues. If there's flooding on Bay Street, then we're already in a tropical storm or hurricane. Transit should have stopped running long before that.
Also neither Miami or Detroit are proposing to do this with their Skyway siblings.
LOL, what is BPJ talking about? This has nothing to do with the unfilled promises made to underrepresented communities in the preconsolidated city. Heck, the city had already consolidated by the time the Skyway was proposed. Revisionist history at best.
Not sure what Joyce Morgan's points on robotics have to do with funding the U2C in the LOGT? The Bay Street Corridor is already funded. They can play with these toys with or without the U2C in the LOGT.
Surprised that those representing the "under-served" communities are fighting so hard for the U2C when it will only drain resources away from said "under-served" communities. Makes me wonder what is going on behind the scenes.
Miami did not fund the Metromover will 100% local funding. They received state and federal dollars as well.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on May 26, 2021, 12:19:18 PM
Surprised that those representing the "under-served" communities are fighting so hard for the U2C when it will only drain resources away from said "under-served" communities. Makes me wonder what is going on behind the scenes.
It's unfortunate, since some of these communities are getting the short end of the stick with this one.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 26, 2021, 12:06:31 PM
Not sure what Joyce Morgan's points on robotics have to do with funding the U2C in the LOGT? The Bay Street Corridor is already funded. They can play with these toys with or without the U2C in the LOGT.
That was not a very cohesive argument. Pretty disappointed that's the route she took.
It's still frustrating that there is no meaningful discussion in the chamber on the
functional shortcomings of the system being proposed. I understand ignoring public opinion that says "Forget downtown because I don't ever go there," but ignoring the question of whether this will actually function is horribly irresponsible.
The DeFoor amendment isn't looking too good at this point.
Ford: "In the US, we're talking about this like it's new and cutting edge, but in other parts of the world [they're doing this]...the challenge for us is the actual aerial structure conversion...The technology is coming."
So which is it? Are AVs the wave of the future that will set Jacksonville apart, as you've boasted repeatedly, or are they well-established transit solutions and we're just behind the curve? Is the technology ready to use, or is it coming? We're comfortable with the vehicles, even though we haven't chosen one? Good old concrete construction is the big obstacle?
Just a bunch of made-up nonsense that a substantial number of CMs are buying into.
Quote from: jaxoNOLE on May 26, 2021, 12:31:23 PM
Ford: "In the US, we're talking about this like it's new and cutting edge, but in other parts of the world [they're doing this]...the challenge for us is the actual aerial structure conversion...The technology is coming."
So which is it? Are AVs the wave of the future that will set Jacksonville apart, as you've boasted repeatedly, or are they well-established transit solutions and we're just behind the curve? Is the technology ready to use, or is it coming? We're comfortable with the vehicles, even though we haven't chosen one? Good old concrete construction is the big obstacle?
Just a bunch of made-up nonsense that a substantial number of CMs are buying into.
Just a bunch of whatever gets them money from a pretty clueless set of councilmembers when it comes to transportation issues and infrastructure. They need to put some caveats in to protect taxpayers from this thing going haywire and blowing a ton of money. Unfortunately, not much is being discussed from this perspective.
I also wouldn't put too much into any renderings of Bay Street at this point. They'll need to get into design and have a lot more public involvement before something credible and realistic can be produced.
DeFoor's amendment failed, 4-13.
Not surprising. Most of that 13 would have voted for spending $379 million of LOGT revenue on the U2C project.
Defoor amendment fails 4-13
Now Diamond (?) amendment to give all $$ to COJ
^ it was Ferraro's amendment. He accidentally voted against it so now they're voting again.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on May 26, 2021, 12:44:10 PM
Defoor amendment fails 4-13
Now Diamond (?) amendment to give all $$ to COJ
My bad Ferraro - going to revote, but was 0-16 first time
Quote from: marcuscnelson on May 26, 2021, 12:39:43 PM
DeFoor's amendment failed, 4-13.
Very unfortunate. It is so obvious that the U2C is not anywere close to a fully baked project and is more likely than not to be a black hole sucking up funding for a lifetime. I just can't understand why the majority of the Council can't let go of it. Especially given the overwhelming community opposition to it making it politically easy and acceptable roadkill. I hated Lot J as I thought it had no chance to succeed but, that said, it had a better chance than the U2C.
Ferraro amend 2-16 loss
Why is it so hard for Council members to pick the YES or the No button?
It is done. 14-5. Becton, Cumber, DeFoor, Diamond, and Ferraro were no's.
Septic tanks passed 18-0
Quote from: jaxoNOLE on May 26, 2021, 11:09:31 AM
^Marcus, it looks like DeFoor is listening based on the amendments up for consideration today. I don't have the option to attach a picture, but the amendments being considered are:
- Cumber: Require funds to be used on a pay go basis and not borrowed (Failed 4-15)
- Boylan: Require 3-year tracking tracking for project timelines, priorities, and cost to be posted on City website for public
- Boylan: Require compliance with Florida Ethics provisions
- DeFoor: Remove the U2C and Skyway Rehab projects from the JTA list
- Ferraro: Remove split with JTA; all funds will go to city
I had contacted Morgan and Salem pitching your amendment, so hopefully they will support DeFoor's amendment.
Cumber's amendment is the kind of thing you propose when you value looking like you're fiscally responsible over making a sound policy. That would have hamstrung the whole thing. I'm glad most of the rest of Council thought better of it.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on May 26, 2021, 01:40:58 PM
It is done. 14-5. Becton, Cumber, DeFoor, Diamond, and Ferraro were no's.
Wider passage margin than I expected. Time to start hoping JTA secretly knows what they're doing.
The better hope is that what's out there will evolve to be better for the end user by the time JTA actually builds anything. It would be hopeful that they complete Bay Street before screwing around with the Skyway infrastructure. That will at least save/protect a couple of hundred million in local tax dollars. In the meantime, there needs to be a local push to get the U2C operating on dedicated transit lanes as opposed to running in mixed traffic. That means convincing the DIA moreso than JTA.
Ford said today that it'd be about two years for them to go to bid on the conversion. By then, based on their timeline they'd be months or a year away from opening Bay Street.
Side note, on the way back to my car I ended up behind the JTA team, they're totally pumped. And I guess credit to them there, they sold Council on a quarter-billion dollars for their future project. I'd be pumped too. Apparently I got a little too close to Ford at one point and David Cawton stopped me.
I like Nat Ford but when it comes to the U2C and timeline, I don't believe much of what him or anyone at JTA have to say. So much of this is outside of their control and there's no telling what the unknowns of today will reveal tomorrow, in terms of timeline and cost.
Kudos to the JTA team. They shot for the moon and while they did not get it, they did secure $240 million in local dedicated funding for a big pet project. That's a huge coup for any type of public transit project. I'm also happy that the Emerald Trail ended up with a big source of funding as well, when just a few weeks ago, politicians were claiming it wasn't eligible at all. That move will play out to be more beneficial to Jax than any other project in the LOGT.
I'd argue more highly than that. They aimed for an Apollo 11, and got Apollo 10. They seem remarkably confident, wrongly so or not, that they'll find a way to scrounge up the money for the neighborhood extensions. Sure that's not a given, but I think from their perspective just getting to replace the Skyway is enough.
Now, as far as all the sunshine-and-rainbows stuff about "Silicon Valley of the east:" no. That's not happening, and this project won't do that. The fact that council didn't notice that Cupertino and Mountain View aren't exactly glitzy super 5G hubs anyway should have been evidence enough.
They already have the Bay Street extension, so they'll be able to claim they extended the system. Hopefully there will be more scrutiny and public input on any further extensions as they'll have to come back and justify additional funding for those pieces. JTA's involvement with the Emerald Trail now may also be an opportunity to integrate any extensions with the pedestrian mobility provided by the trail. The irony is that the more successful they are at enticing ridership with good route design, the more obvious the capacity limitations will become.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 26, 2021, 02:45:00 PM
Kudos to the JTA team. They shot for the moon and while they did not get it, they did secure $240 million in local dedicated funding for a big pet project. That's a huge coup for any type of public transit project.
My fear with this "win" is that it's inevitable failure will hamper any future discussions of transit projects that aren't roadways, just as the Skyway does today.
- "Hey, you want $300 mil to run a commuter train to St. Augustine, well the U2C was a failure so why should we believe you on the merits of this project?"
- "Oh you want $100 mil to prepare the Prime Osborn for a possible Brightline connection, we'd rather wait until its too late just to be sure Brightline is coming since we've already spent too much on U2C"
- "Streetcars in Downtown? This sounds like U2C..2."
Quote from: marcuscnelson on May 26, 2021, 03:02:30 PM
I'd argue more highly than that. They aimed for an Apollo 11, and got Apollo 10. They seem remarkably confident, wrongly so or not, that they'll find a way to scrounge up the money for the neighborhood extensions. Sure that's not a given, but I think from their perspective just getting to replace the Skyway is enough.
Now, as far as all the sunshine-and-rainbows stuff about "Silicon Valley of the east:" no. That's not happening, and this project won't do that. The fact that council didn't notice that Cupertino and Mountain View aren't exactly glitzy super 5G hubs anyway should have been evidence enough.
25% in local funding would have been good. They actually have closer to 70% in local funding. They all should do back flips and have drinks tonight. Ford and the boys earned their salaries on this one. The feat achieved with the LOGT is more remarkable than the U2C from a professional perspective.
Quote from: itsfantastic1 on May 26, 2021, 03:55:30 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on May 26, 2021, 02:45:00 PM
Kudos to the JTA team. They shot for the moon and while they did not get it, they did secure $240 million in local dedicated funding for a big pet project. That's a huge coup for any type of public transit project.
My fear with this "win" is that it's inevitable failure will hamper any future discussions of transit projects that aren't roadways, just as the Skyway does today.
- "Hey, you want $300 mil to run a commuter train to St. Augustine, well the U2C was a failure so why should we believe you on the merits of this project?"
- "Oh you want $100 mil to prepare the Prime Osborn for a possible Brightline connection, we'd rather wait until its too late just to be sure Brightline is coming since we've already spent too much on U2C"
- "Streetcars in Downtown? This sounds like U2C..2."
I don't see commuter rail or a streetcar happening here within the next 20 years. Both of those are pipe dreams. Our best bets from a rail perspective will be whatever can come with Amtrak or Brightline down the road.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 26, 2021, 04:11:17 PM
Quote from: itsfantastic1 on May 26, 2021, 03:55:30 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on May 26, 2021, 02:45:00 PM
Kudos to the JTA team. They shot for the moon and while they did not get it, they did secure $240 million in local dedicated funding for a big pet project. That's a huge coup for any type of public transit project.
My fear with this "win" is that it's inevitable failure will hamper any future discussions of transit projects that aren't roadways, just as the Skyway does today.
- "Hey, you want $300 mil to run a commuter train to St. Augustine, well the U2C was a failure so why should we believe you on the merits of this project?"
- "Oh you want $100 mil to prepare the Prime Osborn for a possible Brightline connection, we'd rather wait until its too late just to be sure Brightline is coming since we've already spent too much on U2C"
- "Streetcars in Downtown? This sounds like U2C..2."
I don't see commuter rail or a streetcar happening here within the next 20 years. Both of those are pipe dreams. Our best bets from a rail perspective will be whatever can come with Amtrak or Brightline down the road.
I agree with Itsfantastic1's comments. JTA won the battle but will likely lose the war when the U2C makes the original Skyway failure look like chicken feed. Mass transit or any other JTA transit-related proposal, whether in 5 years or 50 years, is going to have a black eye over this. Look, the Skyway has already done that for 30 years and counting.
I can see them having to "rebrand"/"rebuild" JTA at some point to remove the stigma associated with it over this project. Pure insanity to approve the U2C. Almost 100% chance it fails.
Quote from: jaxoNOLE on May 26, 2021, 03:55:20 PM
The irony is that the more successful they are at enticing ridership with good route design, the more obvious the capacity limitations will become.
My understanding of their plan is that they believe they'll be able to deploy a potentially infinite number of pods, individually or in platoons, to address capacity. Does it make sense? Not really. Does it matter? Apparently not, if they can spin enough tales about the future.
Quote from: itsfantastic1 on May 26, 2021, 03:55:30 PM
My fear with this "win" is that it's inevitable failure will hamper any future discussions of transit projects that aren't roadways, just as the Skyway does today.
- "Hey, you want $300 mil to run a commuter train to St. Augustine, well the U2C was a failure so why should we believe you on the merits of this project?"
- "Oh you want $100 mil to prepare the Prime Osborn for a possible Brightline connection, we'd rather wait until its too late just to be sure Brightline is coming since we've already spent too much on U2C"
- "Streetcars in Downtown? This sounds like U2C..2."
It's amazing that 1) out of nearly a billion dollars, half of which was theirs to decide on what to do with, they only dedicated about $3.4 million to rail-based transit, for essentially studies and 2) they've criticized rail-based transit with such zeal.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 26, 2021, 04:11:17 PM
I don't see commuter rail or a streetcar happening here within the next 20 years. Both of those are pipe dreams. Our best bets from a rail perspective will be whatever can come with Amtrak or Brightline down the road.
At this point, streetcars are dead. Not because of any genuine obsolescence, but because this is going to suck all the air out of the room in terms of implementing non-bus transit. Seeing as JTA have at this point not only refused, but denigrated streets, I'd wave the white flag on that. Commuter rail, I'm
slightly more optimistic on only because of the possibility that it could find a way with the upcoming infrastructure bill.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on May 26, 2021, 04:21:04 PM
I agree with Itsfantastic1's comments. JTA won the battle but will likely lose the war when the U2C makes the original Skyway failure look like chicken feed. Mass transit or any other JTA transit-related proposal, whether in 5 years or 50 years, is going to have a black eye over this. Look, the Skyway has already done that for 30 years and counting.
I can see them having to "rebrand"/"rebuild" JTA at some point to remove the stigma associated with it over this project. Pure insanity to approve the U2C. Almost 100% chance it fails.
At this point, as far as I can see, all we can really do is sit back and watch the car accident happen in slow motion. Hell, maybe we'll somehow be wrong, I don't know. Otherwise, we better have one hell of an "I told you so" ready for if it does fall apart.
If that's that, I guess we should turn to whatever's next. If I remember right, within a month or so we'll start hearing about the procurement for Bay Street.
It's hope the cord is cut short after it starts. One of many fiscally irresponsible moves made in the last few years
Quote from: marcuscnelson on May 26, 2021, 05:30:33 PM
It's amazing that 1) out of nearly a billion dollars, half of which was theirs to decide on what to do with, they only dedicated about $3.4 million to rail-based transit, for essentially studies and 2) they've criticized rail-based transit with such zeal.
During this process, I found this to be one of the more shocking things. In defense of the U2C, they literally criticized every other form of public transit as being outdated, archaic and not cutting edge.
QuoteAt this point, streetcars are dead. Not because of any genuine obsolescence, but because this is going to suck all the air out of the room in terms of implementing non-bus transit. Seeing as JTA have at this point not only refused, but denigrated streets, I'd wave the white flag on that. Commuter rail, I'm slightly more optimistic on only because of the possibility that it could find a way with the upcoming infrastructure bill.
Streetcars as an option died before Nat Ford arrived in town. I also haven't been optimistic about commuter rail since 2008 or so. Nothing has been done to suggest that a JTA commuter rail led project will happen over the next few decades. I doubt that it is even feasible, considering the poor land use policy and nothing in the works to serious encourage density around future station sites. I also expect that infrastructure bill to end up being a lot less than what has been touted and much of it will probably go to more shovel ready projects, not the stuff that we may or may not get to a study on sometime in the next decade or so. If we're lucky, maybe Amtrak gets some money to upgrade an existing service or start a new one, similar to the Pacific Surfliner between LA and San Diego. If that happens, there's really no need to wait for JTA to try and figure out commuter rail.
Quote
I can see them having to "rebrand"/"rebuild" JTA at some point to remove the stigma associated with it over this project. Pure insanity to approve the U2C. Almost 100% chance it fails.
I hold out hope that they at least get Bay Street off the ground and evaluate if it works or not before fooling around with the Skyway infrastructure itself.
QuoteAt this point, as far as I can see, all we can really do is sit back and watch the car accident happen in slow motion. Hell, maybe we'll somehow be wrong, I don't know. Otherwise, we better have one hell of an "I told you so" ready for if it does fall apart.
If that's that, I guess we should turn to whatever's next. If I remember right, within a month or so we'll start hearing about the procurement for Bay Street.
I get the impression that Bay Street will take a lot longer than they are saying today. You can procure all you want, but you still can't do a lot of what they've talked about doing. Some of these things are simply out of local control.
Below you have the Council's thinking on U2C in a nutshell... basically, a wing and a prayer. No other factual basis for spending $247 million on it. Hard to convert votes when they are made on this basis. It also explains how the City keeps making boneheaded moves like this.
Quote...Council members said they have confidence — the word "faith" was used by some — in Jacksonville Transportation Authority CEO Nat Ford's abilities.
"Sometimes, we have to get out of our way in Jacksonville," council member Brenda Priestly Jackson said to Ford. "We've very fortunate to have you and have an opportunity to be innovative and leading."
Council member Ron Salem said Ford, who came to Jacksonville in 2012, has been a non-stop advocate for the Skyway conversion.
"If this goes well, Mr. Ford, you're the hero," Salem said. "If it doesn't, you're not."....
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/2021/05/26/247-million-skyway-conversion-project-survived-challenge/7446909002/
I will be watching with morbid fascination to see what the actual cost estimates end up being for the conversion once it goes out for bid.
Yeah some of the reasons for support being made were pretty amateur hour. I really wish that more had put serious effort in learning more about the challenges. To do that, you have to put your own homework in as opposed to believing in an individual's sales pitch.
I noticed today that the U2C website is down for some reason. Not sure what that's about.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on June 15, 2021, 11:43:20 AM
I noticed today that the U2C website is down for some reason. Not sure what that's about.
Maybe DIA is advising JTA on how to rebrand the thing :D. We should hold our own logo contest on the Jaxson to help them out given DIA's sorry efforts.
In honor of Shad Khan's famous quote about Jax when he first arrived here, we could call it "No Mo Jo to the No Co."
Website's back. No obvious changes, so maybe it was just an error on their part.
JTA also used part of this month's Making Moves (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_D-uhE2DKa4) episode to show off the TOD video they made.
Here is a picture of Nat Ford's "future" today. Compare the resources soaked up by Waymo and the time and testing already made vs. having a long way to go to achieve true "autonomy" to JTA's plans:
QuoteAlphabet's Waymo self-driving car unit raises $2.5B amid reports of 'eventual' IPO
* Alphabet's self-driving car unit Waymo said Wednesday that it's raised $2.5B from Andreessen Horowitz, Fidelity and other A-list investors as the company reportedly moves closer to a go-public deal.
* Waymo, which has been developing self-driving cars since Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOG)(NASDAQ:GOOGL) launched the unit more than a decade ago, disclosed in a blog post that its latest fundraising round included a virtual who's who of top financial firms.
* Besides Andreessen Horowitz and Fidelity, other backers included Silver Lake, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, Abu Dhabi sovereign-wealth fund Mubadala, Tiger Global, T. Rowe Price and others.
* Alphabet itself also put in money, as did strategic investors AutoNation (NYSE:AN) and auto-parts supplier Magna International (NYSE:MGA).
* However, the $2.5B raised fell short of the up to $4B that Waymo had reportedly been seeking. Waymo's blog post didn't say anything about that.
* Alphabet originally paid for Waymo's development entirely on its own, but raised more than $2B last year from many of the same investors who participated in the latest funding round.
* The company is developing cars and trucks that will operate themselves using Waymo Driver, a system of sensors and computers that can operate vehicles without humans behind a wheel.
* Waymo already operates a driverless ride-hailing firm called Waymo One in the Phoenix area, and has a self-driving truck operation called Waymo Via as well.
* "With tens of millions of miles driven on public roads across 25 U.S. cities and tens of billions of miles driven in simulation, our experience has shown us and our investors the massive opportunity ahead," the company wrote in Wednesday's blog post. "We're building and deploying the Waymo Driver to serve riders, deliver parcels, move freight, and eventually, to empower personal car ownership."
* Bloomberg quoted unnamed sources in May as saying that Waymo has "discussed plans to eventually list publicly" separate from Alphabet, although the unit didn't mention that in Wednesday's blog post.
* Waymo also faces huge technical challenges in developing vehicles that can safely drive themselves. The unit is said to currently lose big bucks with little revenue, and the division recently faced the departure of CEO John Krafcik and other top executives.
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3707042-alphabet-waymo-self-driving-car-unit-raises-2-point-5-billion-dollars?mail_subject=goog-alphabet-s-waymo-self-driving-car-unit-raises-2-5b-amid-reports-of-eventual-ipo&utm_campaign=rta-stock-news&utm_content=link-1&utm_medium=email&utm_source=seeking_alpha
New TU article featuring a bunch of middle schoolers getting to see the test facility.
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/traffic/2021/06/23/jacksonville-kids-experience-citys-future-automated-people-movers/7768270002/