(https://photos.moderncities.com/Transportation/JTA-Skyway-U2C/i-s5dv6JF/0/6ca4c25c/L/jtaRENDERBRIDGE-L.jpg)
Read More: https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/time-for-more-real-talk-on-jtas-skyway-plans/
Didn't read the article, but I see that pic and a new river crossing for autonomous cars is never going to happen.
Needed article. Some friends out of state were wondering when an article like this would come about.
Interesting exchange (https://twitter.com/davidcawton/status/1390305889127526409?s=21) between David Cawton and I tonight.
Transportation Secretary Buttigeig said he'd look into the Bay Street BUILD Grant, and Cawton came by to say:
QuoteFor those wondering, the $12.5 BUILD grant was executed last year. Sec. Pete wasn't in his role when that happened. We have not sought additional federal funding for the U2C program.
I replied to ask why not, and he said:
QuoteBecause the feds don't typically invest in projects without some level of commitment from local gov. We've consistently said that we will seek federal and state grants once this legislative process concludes.
So I said:
QuoteSo does $379m actually pay for the whole system or is it just a local share prior to federal funding?
If the latter, what happens if JTA does receive federal & state funding? Where does the local commitment money go?
And he said this,
which has since been deleted:Quote$379M is for the entire system (outside of Bay St). If fed support is won after, it can offset local money. Any offset local funds can then be redirected to other LOGT-eligible projects, (as approved by council and the JTA board).
I don't know about you all, but I've never heard of fully funding a transit project
before asking for federal dollars.
Ennis and Marcus, keep up the good fight. You are right-on with all the points you make and I can't imagine anyone being able to ignore them.
To summarize the article's points here for convenience:
5. A bad name.
4. Capacity (and speed) and ridership are too low.
3. Doesn't have dedicated right of way.
2, Misses key neighborhoods.
1. Numbers (i.e. costs) don't add up.
I would add at least two more points, the first at # 0 (i.e. in front of #1): Full blown autonomous technology isn't close to proven or perfected and JTA isn't the one to get that done. If they do manage to get it to Level 4, at best, the AV's will require a dedicated "driver," either on board or remotely. As such, there won't be much that is "autonomous" about them. The public is being sold a bill of goods to call this an "autonomous" system.
The second point has to do with user acceptance and ridership counts. Where is the inherent "demand" in numbers for using the system if it is built? Are there any studies (even by biased JTA consultants)? How about making them public? What fares will the studies be based on? Will any potential riders "trust" JTA's AV tech or avoid the system altogether for that reason?
Any one of these strikes should kill the project but these 7 together surely make it a no-brainer to abandon it.
The most egregious flaw in my mind is there are zero designs. Not only do the numbers not add up, they're made up. Not a single foot of that system has an engineering design completed, but the taxpayers are being asked to commit to funding the entire system up front.
We're being asked to cut JTA a $379 million check based on, "Trust us, we believe the ONE respondent to our Bay Street RFP can figure out the minor things...like how to transition from an elevated structure down to at-grade mixed traffic."
Quote from: marcuscnelson on May 06, 2021, 11:26:03 PM
I don't know about you all, but I've never heard of fully funding a transit project before asking for federal dollars.
Realistically, any federal dollars will go to offset the inevitable cost overruns inherent in funding a system with no designs completed and a decade- plus construction timeline. JTA has all but admitted the project will face rising costs. No way it comes in at $379M + Bay street. One huge concern is, what projects on the list that are worthwhile get cannibalized if U2C needs more money? Does the general fund have to make up the shortfall, completely defeating the point of freeing up capital there for septic tanks? You get $100M deep into this thing, nobody will be willing to walk away (Skyway, case in point).
Quote from: jaxoNOLE on May 07, 2021, 01:22:42 AM
The most egregious flaw in my mind is there are zero designs. Not only do the numbers not add up, they're made up. Not a single foot of that system has an engineering design completed, but the taxpayers are being asked to commit to funding the entire system up front.
We're being asked to cut JTA a $379 million check based on, "Trust us, we believe the ONE respondent to our Bay Street RFP can figure out the minor things...like how to transition from an elevated structure down to at-grade mixed traffic."
That's not 100% true... only about 90%.
They do have an approximate route, and a planned parking location for the AVs, and at least some planned stop locations. But JTA hasn't received the hardware to control the vehicles remotely, they don't have an integrated platform for vehicle management (at their current facility they're using 3 or 4 different sites right now), they're still trying to figure out what hardware goes in signal boxes to connect to and control the vehicles, and it's very unclear how capable these vehicles are of handling cars speeding around and cutting off without the operator taking back control. And then they're just outright claiming that running these vehicles at 12mph is fine because the average speed of buses on Bay Street is reportedly around that. They don't actually know exactly which vehicle is going to be used (apparently it's "under active procurement") and even if they pick one there's no clear answer to when the vehicle would be created or available for testing or ready for service. Odds are Navya isn't going to custom-design an autonomous vehicle for Jacksonville, and even if Local Motors can print one it's anyone's guess when they'd get around to building over a dozen of them.
They talk about creating jobs for the future but it's not like any of the AV companies are moving here or establishing factories here.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on May 07, 2021, 12:28:05 AM
I would add at least two more points, the first at # 0 (i.e. in front of #1): Full blown autonomous technology isn't close to proven or perfected and JTA isn't the one to get that done. If they do manage to get it to Level 4, at best, the AV's will require a dedicated "driver," either on board or remotely. As such, there won't be much that is "autonomous" about them. The public is being sold a bill of goods to call this an "autonomous" system.
Tell that to the U2C team. I tried, but they seemed to take that as me calling them, personally, unintelligent. When no, it's just that this is very hard and no one has figured it out yet, even companies like Google and Amazon spending billions in the field. And their plan to start is to have backup operators and transition to remote oversight from whatever control facility they end up using. Which I'd argue somewhat defeats the purpose of spending all this money on a trick AV network in the first place, but what do I know.
QuoteThe second point has to do with user acceptance and ridership counts. Where is the inherent "demand" in numbers for using the system if it is built? Are there any studies (even by biased JTA consultants)? How about making them public? What fares will the studies be based on? Will any potential riders "trust" JTA's AV tech or avoid the system altogether for that reason?
They seem to believe that young people in particular would be very interested in riding it. I pointed out that as a young person we need more than just AVs to want to live in cities, but, well...
QuoteAny one of these strikes should kill the project but these 7 together surely make it a no-brainer to abandon it.
The challenge is essentially that Nat Ford & Bernard Schmidt keep telling the board and the city that everything is fine, and they're eying the five years of sunken-cost gone into this project, as well as the institutional momentum that has parts of the agency zealously committed to seeing it through. I seriously doubt there's been a moment since 2016 where they've seriously stopped and said "is this
really the right course of action? Should we reexamine the possibility of streetcars or any alternative systems?" And it's unclear how exactly to get them to do that.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on May 06, 2021, 11:26:03 PM
I don't know about you all, but I've never heard of fully funding a transit project before asking for federal dollars.
No you don't need to fully fund a project locally to get federal dollars. That's probably why that comment was deleted.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on May 07, 2021, 03:02:05 AM
Quote from: jaxoNOLE on May 07, 2021, 01:22:42 AM
The most egregious flaw in my mind is there are zero designs. Not only do the numbers not add up, they're made up. Not a single foot of that system has an engineering design completed, but the taxpayers are being asked to commit to funding the entire system up front.
We're being asked to cut JTA a $379 million check based on, "Trust us, we believe the ONE respondent to our Bay Street RFP can figure out the minor things...like how to transition from an elevated structure down to at-grade mixed traffic."
That's not 100% true... only about 90%.
They do have an approximate route, and a planned parking location for the AVs, and at least some planned stop locations.
No, they don't have a design. What has been produced so far is a dream that still needs buy in from the DIA, FDOT and other stakeholders. They have no idea of how they'll get to grade or how they'll get to Lot J once that at-grade expressway is completed. They have no idea of what the demand will be and the capacity of the system isn't what the city will need. Instead, it's whatever those vehicles will be capable of. It's got a ton of questions and should have been answered by now, if there were a design. This thing will easily cost +$500 million and will likely fail moreso than Jax being the first to succeed at pulling it off.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on May 07, 2021, 03:02:05 AM
Tell that to the U2C team. I tried, but they seemed to take that as me calling them, personally, unintelligent. When no, it's just that this is very hard and no one has figured it out yet, even companies like Google and Amazon spending billions in the field. And their plan to start is to have backup operators and transition to remote oversight from whatever control facility they end up using. Which I'd argue somewhat defeats the purpose of spending all this money on a trick AV network in the first place, but what do I know.
So has JTA actually hired programmers, computer vision and AV experts? I still don't understand JTA's role in developing this technology.
^They want to be the first public transportation entity in the US to operate AV technology as an urban mass transit solution as opposed to the pilots already taking place all across the country. As questionable as that is, when it comes to the LOGT, they don't need a dime of the LOGT money to accomplish this dream. The $44 million Bay Street Innovation Corridor is already funded. Jax should let them implement it at-grade between the Skyway's Central Station and TIAA Bank Field. We'll learn real quick if it is worth additional tax money screwing with the Skyway, without actually touching or spending an additional dime on the Skyway.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 07, 2021, 07:51:04 AM
Quote from: marcuscnelson on May 07, 2021, 03:02:05 AM
Quote from: jaxoNOLE on May 07, 2021, 01:22:42 AM
The most egregious flaw in my mind is there are zero designs. Not only do the numbers not add up, they're made up. Not a single foot of that system has an engineering design completed, but the taxpayers are being asked to commit to funding the entire system up front.
We're being asked to cut JTA a $379 million check based on, "Trust us, we believe the ONE respondent to our Bay Street RFP can figure out the minor things...like how to transition from an elevated structure down to at-grade mixed traffic."
That's not 100% true... only about 90%.
They do have an approximate route, and a planned parking location for the AVs, and at least some planned stop locations.
No, they don't have a design. What has been produced so far is a dream that still needs buy in from the DIA, FDOT and other stakeholders. They have no idea of how they'll get to grade or how they'll get to Lot J once that at-grade expressway is completed. They have no idea of what the demand will be and the capacity of the system isn't what the city will need. Instead, it's whatever those vehicles will be capable of. It's got a ton of questions and should have been answered by now, if there were a design. This thing will easily cost +$500 million and will likely fail moreso than Jax being the first to succeed at pulling it off.
I would say they have a conceptual design only. My experience in large capital industrial projects is you don't know total project costs until about 90 % of the design ENGINEERING is done.
I believe this is typical Jacksonville. All of nothing. No discussion or debate. Thus the only way to "stop it" is to vote no on LOGT. Similar to Lot J. Really disappointed.
Sounds like someone is going for a Hail Mary resume line, so they can leave us with this garbage project for a pie in the sky job in some other city.
^^Add that even if they had priced it just a year ago, the prices of lumber, metals, chips, labor, logistics (and I assume much would be imported) etc. that would go into building it are sky-high now, as much as 4 to 10 times higher, depending on the item. I am being told suppliers are sometimes only holding price quotes for as little as one week.
I bet that even if the $379 million was a solid quote (doubtful for reasons cited in this thread) at one time it is now at least 30 to 50% higher today. And, it may continue to go higher.
I might add if they need to acquire any more land to build it out, that's another input inflating quickly.
I'm not confident enough to say it is a conceptual design. They don't have DIA approval to do what has been proposed. They'll need to go before DDRB like every project in downtown. They can't just draw lines on Bay Street and assume that concept with limited public buy-in will fly.
There are going to be several town halls over the next few weeks:
https://www.jobsforjax.net/meetings/
Anyone planning to attend and point out the U2C?
Quote from: jaxjags on May 07, 2021, 05:04:37 PM
I believe this is typical Jacksonville. All of nothing. No discussion or debate. Thus the only way to "stop it" is to vote no on LOGT. Similar to Lot J. Really disappointed.
This time, it will be different. Stay tuned!
Quote from: marcuscnelson on May 07, 2021, 06:34:19 PM
There are going to be several town halls over the next few weeks:
https://www.jobsforjax.net/meetings/
Anyone planning to attend and point out the U2C?
I will definitely attend Group 2 to voice my opinion, but I'm leaning more towards a "higher, better use" approach advocating for the Emerald Trail instead of a direct attack on the U2C. While millions more for U2C is still a massive waste, if we can convince them to reallocate at least $100M from U2C to other projects, including the Trail, I would accept the compromise. Something about the perfect being the enemy of the good and all that.
In fact, it reminds me of Lot J. Killing the breadbox loan wouldn't have made the deal good, but it would've been less bad enough to pass.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 07, 2021, 06:44:58 PM
Quote from: jaxjags on May 07, 2021, 05:04:37 PM
I believe this is typical Jacksonville. All of nothing. No discussion or debate. Thus the only way to "stop it" is to vote no on LOGT. Similar to Lot J. Really disappointed.
This time, it will be different. Stay tuned!
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2021/05/07/jacksonville-gas-tax-boost-could-put-150-million-into-emerald-trail/4994633001/
Ennis, thrilled to see this movement! A much better use of the dollars and will do far more for the urban core than the U2C (doesn't take much to be sure). Now, if we can just get the remaining $200+ million repurposed 8).
Quote
Change in Jacksonville gas tax plan would shift $150 million from Skyway to Emerald Trail
City Council member Matt Carlucci said Friday he favors taking $150 million from a proposed Skyway conversion project and using the money instead for adding the long-planned Emerald Trail to the list of projects that would be financed by doubling Jacksonville's local gas tax.
The shift has full backing from Mayor Lenny Curry, his chief of staff Jordan Elsbury said.
"From a policy perspective, the mayor has always supported funding the Emerald Trail," Elsbury said. "This is a revenue source that can cover it and the mayor is 100 percent supportive of the amendment."
That amendment to the gas tax legislation would still leave the Jacksonville Transportation Authority with $229 million in the Jobs for Jax project list for turning the elevated structure where Skyway trains run into a system that uses autonomous vehicles that also can operate on city streets....
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2021/05/07/jacksonville-gas-tax-boost-could-put-150-million-into-emerald-trail/4994633001/ (https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2021/05/07/jacksonville-gas-tax-boost-could-put-150-million-into-emerald-trail/4994633001/)
Great step! I'm curious though, if the Emerald Trail is only listed at around $31 million to implement, where's the other $120 million going?
Great news, indeed, though I fear the concept of the tax at all still faces stiff opposition. If the Carlucci amendment passes, I'm a solid yes on the package and will push my CM to be one as well. It's a far superior option to the Becton proposal.
Very encouraging to see the mayor's office backing the change as well.
Becton's proposal sounds like placing a band aid on a bullet wound. $100 million in road improvements doesn't stretch far to achieve much of anything in a place that's nearly 800 square miles.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on May 08, 2021, 12:15:00 AM
Great step! I'm curious though, if the Emerald Trail is only listed at around $31 million to implement, where's the other $120 million going?
The $31 million appears to reflect only the direct dollars Groundworks is responsible for raising.
Overall, once detailed design, engineering and bids are put out and price inflation over time is taken into account for each individual segment, like any project of this nature, these costs are sure to rise quite a bit and may already be doing so.
More importantly, Groundworks notes their estimate excludes many other costs that the City, FDOT, JEA, the Feds or others will be asked to fund above and beyond. This includes the restoration of McCoy's (currently estimated at $60 million) and Hogans Creeks plus the acquisition of any additional lands. They also note their budget doesn't include day-lighting McCoys Creek at the Times Union Building. And, there will be some significant road, drainage and utility improvements/adjustments/rebuilds/replacements that are not in Groundwork's numbers. I expect they will ultimately encounter many expensive "surprises" given the age of the areas the Trail will run through so a contingency allowance for that will be a must too.
There may also be a desire at some point to build an endowed maintenance fund to insure the Trail is maintained at a high level and not left to the whims of changing City budgets.
In the end, I expect the total project could easily go over $150 million but, even so, given it's impact on the City, it will be a bargain compared to the expenditure of similar or greater amounts on a Lot J, the AV Skyway or many other projects built or proposed by the City over the years.
QuoteThe estimated cost for the implementation of the 19.7 mile system is approximately $31.0 million dollars with 6.8 miles of Implementation Tier 1 trail segments for approximately $13.6 million dollars. Acquisition is not included in the estimate. The Implementation Committee should assess acquisition costs several months prior to the beginning of each trail segment.
* The estimated cost for Segment 5 does not include creek restoration and daylighting of the creek. Further planning and design will be required to produce an accurate cost estimate.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1K2DvO0qiaWuB3lchIy2hkqf3zKRHF_rM/view (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1K2DvO0qiaWuB3lchIy2hkqf3zKRHF_rM/view)
Now this is getting interesting. I know I was pessimistic that viable alternatives of raising the tax base would occur and was supportive of the previous list, but this is a big plus! If you want to compare to nearby areas, this would be a bigger trail investment than Orlando and Tampa have ever made at once. Orlando's network is bigger just because of the longer-term support.
As much as I think the U2C is a stupid idea that's destined to fail in spectacular fashion, I'd be a hard yes on the gas tax if $150 million was shifted from the Skyway into the Emerald Trail. That's a huge concession from JTA. Genuinely believe that the impact of the Emerald Trail will be transformative enough to offset the losses from JTA dicking around with the clown cars. Can totally live with ~$750 million worth of quality projects in a $1 billion project list if it gets the Trail built. Let's make it happen.
Compare this article's assessment of Tesla's autonomous efforts, effectively at only Level 2, to JTA's implication that it is approaching Level 5. The article notes Level 4 applies only to "certain conditions." Since driving on city streets today doesn't appear to meet the "certain conditions" standard and JTA says that they can pull that off, JTA is implying a Level 5 standard. Given Tesla's big lead on development of AV tech and their reach for Level 5, true AV's, I am sure they would love to know how JTA has managed to leapfrog them so easily 8):
QuoteWhat Tesla CEO Elon Musk says publicly about the company's progress on a fully autonomous driving system doesn't match up with "engineering reality," according to a memo that summarizes a meeting between California regulators and employees at the automaker.
The memo, which transparency site Plainsite obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request and subsequently released, shows that Musk has inflated the capabilities of the Autopilot advanced driver assistance system in Tesla vehicles, as well the company's ability to deliver fully autonomous features by the end of the year.
Tesla vehicles come standard with a driver assistance system branded as Autopilot. For an additional $10,000, owners can buy "full self-driving," or FSD — a feature that Musk promises will one day deliver full autonomous driving capabilities. FSD, which has steadily increased in price and capability, has been available as an option for years. However, Tesla vehicles are not self-driving. FSD includes the parking feature Summon as well as Navigate on Autopilot, an active guidance system that navigates a car from a highway on-ramp to off-ramp, including interchanges and making lane changes. Once drivers enter a destination into the navigation system, they can enable "Navigate on Autopilot" for that trip.
Tesla vehicles are far from reaching that level of autonomy, a fact confirmed by statements made by the company's director of Autopilot software CJ Moore to California regulators, the memo shows.
"Elon's tweet does not match engineering reality per CJ," according to the memo summarizing the conversation between regulators with the California Department of Motor Vehicles' autonomous vehicles branch and four Tesla employees, including Moore.
The memo, which was written by California DMV's Miguel Acosta, states that Moore described Autopilot — and the new features being tested — as a Level 2 system. That description matters in the world of automated driving.
There are five levels of automation under standards created by SAE International. Level 2 means two primary functions — like adaptive cruise and lane keeping — are automated and still have a human driver in the loop at all times. Level 2 is an advanced driver assistance system, and has become increasingly available in new vehicles, including those produced by Tesla, GM, Volvo and Mercedes. Tesla's Autopilot and its more capable FSD were considered the most advanced systems available to consumers. However, other automakers have started to catch up.
Level 4 means the vehicle can handle all aspects of driving in certain conditions without human intervention and is what companies like Argo AI, Aurora, Cruise, Motional, Waymo and Zoox are working on. Level 5, which is widely viewed as a distant goal, would handle all driving in all environments and conditions.
Here is an important bit via Acosta's summarization:
DMV asked CJ to address from an engineering perspective, Elon's messaging about L5 capability by the end of the year. Elon's tweet does not match engineering reality per CJ. Tesla is at Level 2 currently. The ratio of driver interaction would need to be in the magnitude of 1 or 2 million miles per driver interaction to move into higher levels of automation. Tesla indicated that Elon is extrapolating on the rates of improvement when speaking about L5 capabilities. Tesla couldn't say if the rate of improvement would make it to L5 by end of calendar year....
....As of the March meeting, there were 824 vehicles in a pilot program testing a beta version of "city streets." About 750 of those vehicles were being driven by employees and 71 by non-employees. Pilot participants are located across 37 states, with the majority of participants in California. As of March 2021, pilot participants have driven more than 153,000 miles using the City Streets feature, the memo states. The memo noted that Tesla planned to expand this pool of participants to approximately 1,600 later that month....
https://techcrunch.com/2021/05/07/tesla-refutes-elon-musks-timeline-on-full-self-driving/ (https://techcrunch.com/2021/05/07/tesla-refutes-elon-musks-timeline-on-full-self-driving/)
I don't have much confidence in JTA being able to pull the U2C off as proposed. It's an expensive pipe dream at this point. You'd have to be looking at this thing through some seriously thick rose colored glasses if you think otherwise, based on the well known challenges that must be overcome. Now with this said, this doesn't mean that we won't light a load of local public money on fire in this R&D process.
QuoteThere may also be a desire at some point to build an endowed maintenance fund to insure the Trail is maintained at a high level and not left to the whims of changing City budgets.
This is an excellent idea. This was done in Greenville for Falls Park and it has worked very well. Most or all of the money was from philanthropy, btw.
^ this is something that has been discussed for the trail system as well as potential riverfront parks.
Quote from: Ken_FSU on May 08, 2021, 09:06:57 PM
As much as I think the U2C is a stupid idea that's destined to fail in spectacular fashion, I'd be a hard yes on the gas tax if $150 million was shifted from the Skyway into the Emerald Trail. That's a huge concession from JTA. Genuinely believe that the impact of the Emerald Trail will be transformative enough to offset the losses from JTA dicking around with the clown cars. Can totally live with ~$750 million worth of quality projects in a $1 billion project list if it gets the Trail built. Let's make it happen.
I am pleased Matt is making this effort. This may persuade some hard no's to yes. I may become a yes. Also, as Matt said and I think we need to keep in mind is the funding of the septic tank removal. This MUST remain as part of the overall plan. That was the original focus of the LOGT, if we can believe the Mayor. The sceptic side of me wonders if showcasing the septic/sewer issue was to slip the U2C bye.
Regardless a city the size of Jacksonville should not have septic tanks in the urban and near urban areas.
This came across my email inbox today, from
The Verge (per their "About" page it is a "
multimedia effort founded in 2011 to examine how technology will change life in the future for a massive mainstream audience."
Quote
After years of positive vibes about the future of autonomous vehicles and nearly unrestricted access to cash from Kool-Aid-drunk venture capitalists, the AV industry is confronting some hard truths. The first is that autonomous vehicles are going to take a lot longer to reach mass scale than previously thought. The second is that it's going to be a lot more expensive, too. And the third hard truth: going it alone is no longer a viable option.
...
For years, Missy Cummings, director of the Humans and Autonomy Lab at Duke University, has been criticizing rosy predictions about our driverless future. She's consistently warned that the technology is much further away and harder to get right than anyone in the industry cares to admit.
...
"It's kind of like the elephant in the room," she said of the shrinking of the AV world. ...
But Cummings doesn't think people in the industry will be able to ignore the truth for much longer. "There is an embarrassingly large sum of money that's been invested in this, so people feel like they have to keep going down that path because surely all these people who invested all this money can't be wrong," she says. "Not everyone is delusional. Just most people in this business."
...
Reilly Brennan [general partner at venture capital firm Trucks] thinks the concept of autonomous vehicles that can drive anywhere under any conditions is still possible, but much further out than originally thought. They will require huge financial investments — "11 figures" by Brennan's estimates — and a willingness to tolerate zero cash flow until the technology is mature and safe enough to launch. There are only so many companies with deep enough pockets to take on that challenge: major car companies like Ford, GM, and Volkswagen or tech giants like Apple, Alphabet, and Intel. Everyone else is probably not long for this world.
The mid-level engineers always knew this to be true, Brennan said. It was the CEOs who were making the erroneous predictions about the availability of self-driving taxis by 2020. "I think the CEOs of those companies knew that they were going to be playing golf by 2020," he said.
The "11 figures" mentioned by Brennan, is tens of Billions of dollars.
I don't see, in the Emerald Trail article, where JTA has agreed to - much less supports - reduction of their $379 Million U2C LOGT line item. We get nice-sounding words about cooperating with the City, and diverting
potential future federal funds to the Emerald Trail. [putting on full cynic hat] That way if those federal funds don't come through, they can say, "Well, we tried." and they still get the $379M for the U2C. And, in their conversations "with attorneys ... about whether the LOGT money can be used for the Emerald Trail" are they coming from the viewpoint that it CAN be, or looking at how to PREVENT moving money from their U2C to the Emeral Trail?
Quote
JTA spokesman David Cawton said the agency "has been and will continue to be committed partners with the mayor's office and City Council."
He said JTA has been working with attorneys over the past few weeks about whether local gas tax money can be used for the Emerald Trail.
"We have been at the table regarding this very project in seeking redirection of federal dollars secured by the JTA to go towards the Emerald Trail, as well as utilizing JTA real estate along the trail," he said. "We will continue to work with City Council through this process."
^JTA support would make it easier, but Council is under no obligation to give a dime more to U2C. I'm not sure this has the votes to pass, especially with full funding for U2C. I think JTA would be very unwise to take a hard line stance on U2C funding given the narrow margin for error and Curry's office backing the Carlucci amendment.
^^ Most assuredly, Curry got Nat Ford on board before going on record that he supported Carlucci's plan. Curry and Ford are tight (Ford even contributed to Curry's campaign) and have a long track record of seemingly working to avoid offending each other and/or supporting each other's priorities (Ford's Bay Street Innovation Corridor, Curry's Hart Bridge Ramp Demolition, etc.). Curry also picks 3 JTA board members and we now know Curry expects his board picks to serve his interests. As such, I suspect Ford knew this was coming before it went public and has agreed to this plan.
So, that being said, does anyone have guesses on the vote count? Hazouri is on record estimating up to 6 votes in favor of a referendum, which suggests they'd be "no" if forced to decide for themselves. Does that translate into 13 likely "yes" votes? What's the margin of uncertainty?
The Civic Council wants to cut U2C funding from $379 million to $190 million.
https://twitter.com/mimendenhall/status/1391800426224291846?s=20
Quote from: Charles Hunter on May 09, 2021, 12:12:31 PM
This came across my email inbox today, from The Verge (per their "About" page it is a "multimedia effort founded in 2011 to examine how technology will change life in the future for a massive mainstream audience."
Quote
After years of positive vibes about the future of autonomous vehicles and nearly unrestricted access to cash from Kool-Aid-drunk venture capitalists, the AV industry is confronting some hard truths. The first is that autonomous vehicles are going to take a lot longer to reach mass scale than previously thought. The second is that it's going to be a lot more expensive, too. And the third hard truth: going it alone is no longer a viable option.
...
For years, Missy Cummings, director of the Humans and Autonomy Lab at Duke University, has been criticizing rosy predictions about our driverless future. She's consistently warned that the technology is much further away and harder to get right than anyone in the industry cares to admit.
...
"It's kind of like the elephant in the room," she said of the shrinking of the AV world. ...
But Cummings doesn't think people in the industry will be able to ignore the truth for much longer. "There is an embarrassingly large sum of money that's been invested in this, so people feel like they have to keep going down that path because surely all these people who invested all this money can't be wrong," she says. "Not everyone is delusional. Just most people in this business."
...
Reilly Brennan [general partner at venture capital firm Trucks] thinks the concept of autonomous vehicles that can drive anywhere under any conditions is still possible, but much further out than originally thought. They will require huge financial investments — "11 figures" by Brennan's estimates — and a willingness to tolerate zero cash flow until the technology is mature and safe enough to launch. There are only so many companies with deep enough pockets to take on that challenge: major car companies like Ford, GM, and Volkswagen or tech giants like Apple, Alphabet, and Intel. Everyone else is probably not long for this world.
The mid-level engineers always knew this to be true, Brennan said. It was the CEOs who were making the erroneous predictions about the availability of self-driving taxis by 2020. "I think the CEOs of those companies knew that they were going to be playing golf by 2020," he said.
The "11 figures" mentioned by Brennan, is tens of Billions of dollars.
Back at the turn of the century, the media + General Motors had a run where they were talking about hydrogen powered cars being in the not too distant future.
20 years later, hydrogen cells running cars is still one of those things that is supposedly not too distant in the future.
growing algae for biofuels to replace oil is another one of those. GWB had a big thing about it and switchgrass and such for a couple years.
History is full of these sort of technologies.
Brennan is right to say 100% autonomous is a thing, just ain't gonna be a thing anytime soon.
Does Ford & his JTA cohorts realize that these robocars still struggle to see black people?
Is that why they're planning on running them through white neighborhoods?
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on May 10, 2021, 03:44:55 PM
Does Ford & his JTA cohorts realize that these robocars still struggle to see black people?
Is that why they're planning on running them through white neighborhoods?
The team is made up of a lot of black people, including Bernard Schmidt who is VP of "Automation & Innovation," so I want to believe they've given at least an ounce of thought to that. But it's unclear how exactly they're expecting to find the billions of dollars in R&D required to improve the technology for it to work.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on May 10, 2021, 01:47:42 PM
The Civic Council wants to cut U2C funding from $379 million to $190 million.
https://twitter.com/mimendenhall/status/1391800426224291846?s=20
Here's a more detailed update:
QuoteThe Civic Council says the Skyway has been a "failed federal experiment" and while the JTA conversion plan shows promise, the agency should find federal, state and private support for half the cost.
"The remaining $190 million should be invested in the road and transportation needs across the county to improve travel times, ease congested traffic areas, improve walkability and enhance pedestrian and bicycle-friendly transportation options," the council said in a letter sent to Mayor Lenny Curry and City Council members.
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2021/05/10/jacksonville-civic-council-backs-gas-tax-increase-deep-skyway-cut/5024159001/
Interesting they somewhat quote Cumber with the "failed experiment" line. I brought that up to the U2C team when I visited and they brought up Detroit and Miami as being successful systems because they "fully built out" their people-mover networks.
It'd sure be nice if that $190 million could go into accelerating Amtrak & getting the ball rolling on commuter rail, even if we're going to be saddled with the U2C R&D, which at least now has to seek state & federal funding.
QuoteThe Civic Council says the Skyway has been a "failed federal experiment" and while the JTA conversion plan shows promise, the agency should find federal, state and private support for half the cost.
"The remaining $190 million should be invested in the road and transportation needs across the county to improve travel times, ease congested traffic areas, improve walkability and enhance pedestrian and bicycle-friendly transportation options," the council said in a letter sent to Mayor Lenny Curry and City Council members.
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2021/05/10/jacksonville-civic-council-backs-gas-tax-increase-deep-skyway-cut/5024159001/
LOL. Civic Council is reading the tea leaves too. No gas tax passage if too much goes to the AV/Skyway. They are saying to the Mayor we will match Carlucci's proposal and raise you $40 million just to be sure we don't lose this initiative.
If we are lucky, JTA has to go to the Feds for the other 50% after the gas tax passes but before they can spend any money. And, then, the Feds say "hell no" as, even by their standards, this is an "off the rails" (no pun intended) "crazy experiment." Next, JTA abandons the project and the remaining half gets reallocated to projects that will truly be good for Jacksonville. And, we all live happily ever after... ;)
Quote from: marcuscnelson on May 10, 2021, 06:23:19 PM
Interesting they somewhat quote Cumber with the "failed experiment" line. I brought that up to the U2C team when I visited and they brought up Detroit and Miami as being successful systems because they "fully built out" their people-mover networks.
It'd sure be nice if that $190 million could go into accelerating Amtrak & getting the ball rolling on commuter rail, even if we're going to be saddled with the U2C R&D, which at least now has to seek state & federal funding.
Assuming the U2C total cost is $423 million, I'd be in favor of slicing that LOGT number down to $61 million. Combined with the $44 million already secured for the Bay Street Innovation Corridor, that would be a 25% local match. If the project is viable, they should have no problem securing state and federal dollars for the rest. The extra cash saved would do wonders for lowering existing bus system headways and moving forward other initiatives like returning Amtrak to downtown.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 10, 2021, 06:49:18 PM
Quote from: marcuscnelson on May 10, 2021, 06:23:19 PM
Interesting they somewhat quote Cumber with the "failed experiment" line. I brought that up to the U2C team when I visited and they brought up Detroit and Miami as being successful systems because they "fully built out" their people-mover networks.
It'd sure be nice if that $190 million could go into accelerating Amtrak & getting the ball rolling on commuter rail, even if we're going to be saddled with the U2C R&D, which at least now has to seek state & federal funding.
Assuming the U2C total cost is $423 million, I'd be in favor of slicing that LOGT number down to $61 million. Combined with the $44 million already secured for the Bay Street Innovation Corridor, that would be a 25% local match. If the project is viable, they should have no problem securing state and federal dollars for the rest. The extra cash saved would do wonders for lowering existing bus system headways and moving forward other initiatives like returning Amtrak to downtown.
The $44 million is already made up into state, local & federal shares, and confusingly enough I'm not sure it could technically be counted in the cost of the whole system for those purposes. Focusing on the $379 million requested for everything beyond Bay Street, it looks like they'd be asking for about $95 million to have a 25% share. Which personally, is still too much to be betting on untested technology (again) but I'd live.
Which still leaves $284 million for the Emerald Trail, buses, Amtrak, and commuter rail. Assuming $150 million from Carlucci's proposal goes to Emerald Trail, we could perhaps spend $40 million on the bus service improvements (if I recall, that's more than any one of the FCF phases), ~$65 million on a local share to build commuter rail along the FEC (I'd like to imagine there would be a P3 with Brightline to include their funding as part of a First Coast expansion), and the remaining ~$30 million on the terminal, which would likely tie into the commuter rail work anyway (and perhaps include funding from Amtrak).
There, the idea's free as long as we make it happen. Hell, I'll write the amendment if we can do it like that.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on May 10, 2021, 06:35:16 PM
QuoteThe Civic Council says the Skyway has been a "failed federal experiment" and while the JTA conversion plan shows promise, the agency should find federal, state and private support for half the cost.
"The remaining $190 million should be invested in the road and transportation needs across the county to improve travel times, ease congested traffic areas, improve walkability and enhance pedestrian and bicycle-friendly transportation options," the council said in a letter sent to Mayor Lenny Curry and City Council members.
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2021/05/10/jacksonville-civic-council-backs-gas-tax-increase-deep-skyway-cut/5024159001/
LOL. Civic Council is reading the tea leaves too. No gas tax passage if too much goes to the AV/Skyway. They are saying to the Mayor we will match Carlucci's proposal and raise you $40 million just to be sure we don't lose this initiative.
If we are lucky, JTA has to go to the Feds for the other 50% after the gas tax passes but before they can spend any money. And, then, the Feds say "hell no" as, even by their standards, this is an "off the rails" (no pun intended) "crazy experiment." Next, JTA abandons the project and the remaining half gets reallocated to projects that will truly be good for Jacksonville. And, we all live happily ever after... ;)
The Civic Council is reading The Jaxson ;)
Never assume there's a project too obviously flawed at the start for the Feds to throw money at.
Recent examples include Cali's HSR + Honolulu's monorail.
Having a dedicated funding source in place, the gas tax increase, will help a lot when going to the Feds. It will also help that JTA will be asking for maybe about $225 million. This is almost nothing compared to what others are asking for. For example, Austin just passed a plan for $7 billion in new trans projects. They're assuming the Feds will kick $3 to $4 billion.
Are those projects flawed, or just difficult? California's problem has largely been NIMBYism, project management, lack of upfront funds and tunnel boring. They've only actually spent $7 billion so far, and the projected future costs are based on the expectation of it taking years for money to trickle in, meaning inflation of both money itself and project costs.
HART is challenging because it's fully elevated, but they're getting there and it's likely cheaper than it would have been to build brand new highways for the capacity they needed.
And aren't those projects in other cities much larger, with a greater effect? The U2C in relatively small in geographic coverage, to the point that people here ask why it isn't extending into a lot of the underserved communities. If we started talking about big projects like multiple commuter rail lines, expansions to places like Palatka or Palm Coast or Baldwin, or an expansive light rail network, or even some kind of regional service to tie us to Gainesville, we'd probably start approaching those numbers too.