Uh oh.
https://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/investigates/2021-emails-show-fdot-concerns-over-jacksonville-transportation-authoritys-autonomous-vehicle-plan/JQLYRBNHHFFGLEGU2C7LFDCYKE/
This seems... bad.
JTA is nothing if not consistent--regardless of the objection raised, regardless of the source, the answer is always the same::
"BUT...INNOVATION!"
I'm encouraged to see FDOT pushing back and also to see that a journalistic inquiry has been active since November. It's a topic that has been desperately in need of honest coverage for years.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on March 07, 2024, 06:04:49 PM
Uh oh.
https://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/investigates/2021-emails-show-fdot-concerns-over-jacksonville-transportation-authoritys-autonomous-vehicle-plan/JQLYRBNHHFFGLEGU2C7LFDCYKE/
This seems... bad.
Only if people don't pretend it doesn't exist.
FDOT's concerns are the same that have been said by literally everyone in town not employed, politically connected, doing work or seeking JTA work. Public money is burning. We all know the project will eventually fail. The question is how much public money, trust and damage will be done when failure is finally realized and accepted.
After sleeping on it, I'm honestly furious at how badly this has gotten out of control.
I woke up this morning and put together a thread explaining why I'm so mad about this:
https://twitter.com/marcuscnelson/status/1766117183409487874?s=20
QuoteAction News Jax has reached out to the offices of Jacksonville Mayor Donna Deegan and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis for their thoughts on the project. Deegan has made her support of the project and Ford very clear, calling him a "visionary" in December. Deegan's office shared the following statement with Action News Jax:
"We aren't aware of those specific concerns. Based on the facts that have been presented to us, we have confidence in Nat Ford, the JTA board, and this project."
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/508/121/43f.gif)
Quote from: marcuscnelson on March 08, 2024, 10:20:50 AM
After sleeping on it, I'm honestly furious at how badly this has gotten out of control.
I woke up this morning and put together a thread explaining why I'm so mad about this:
https://twitter.com/marcuscnelson/status/1766117183409487874?s=20
Since I'm not on X, what sort of responses are you getting? (aside - interesting the URL for X still says "twitter")
Is Mr. Greer of JTA saying that FDOT's participation in the entire U2C program is limited to the $6 million* awarded for the Bay Street Innovation Corridor? That JTA won't come back to FDOT for additional grants for future phases?
*Per the FDOT statement to Action News, "FDOT has committed $13 million in funds to the $400 million project, with $7 million committed to improvements to the current bus fleet, which is something FDOT routinely funds. The remaining $6 million represents approximately 1.25% of the total funding of the project, however, FDOT has not yet paid JTA for any work associated with this agreement." This sounds to me like FDOT would have routinely given JTA $7 million for current bus fleet improvements, whether or not there was a U2C.
If the total U2C cost is somewhere north of $400 million, and the local gas tax is funding $247 million, where is the remaining more than $150 million coming from?
Charles Hunter, where's your vision?!
This isn't the type of project where logic and common sense can or should be applied.
Once JTA proves the world wrong and becomes the Tesla of the public transit world, FDOT, USDOT, COJ, DIA, local taxpayers, etc. will fight for the right to give the next billion eventually needed to fund this albatross.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on March 07, 2024, 06:04:49 PM
Uh oh.
https://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/investigates/2021-emails-show-fdot-concerns-over-jacksonville-transportation-authoritys-autonomous-vehicle-plan/JQLYRBNHHFFGLEGU2C7LFDCYKE/
This seems... bad.
This is consistent with conversations I have had with various transportation officials in the area. The only (and good) surprise is these concerns have been formally documented and expressed by FDOT experts. Of course, they mirror all the same concerns and objections raised over the last few years on the Jaxson.
Still waiting for Nate Monroe to hone in on this project. Maybe this broadcast will excite him enough to do so.
Someone should ask JTA to specifically answer to each of the concerns listed:
Quote....In an email from December of 2021, the state lays out four key concerns: low ridership, high cost, a lack of competitive bidding, and overall viability of the operation. The emails show, at best, the 3.2-mile loop will carry 250 to 300 riders a day. The newest cost estimate jumped to $65.5 million. That breaks down to more than $20 million in taxpayer dollars ($20,468,750/mile) per mile constructed.
And that's just the first phase. The estimated $400+ million overall project has three. The emails go on to say there is no official price tag on the overall design. FDOT expressed concerns about spending state money without a set bid price or competitive bidding process. Instead, JTA awarded the sole source contract to one company without knowing how much the project would cost, only setting a "do not exceed" price ceiling. That doesn't leave a lot of incentive for competitive pricing, FDOT argued.
The emails also show concerns about the project operating autonomously, the whole point of the project. It said JTA knew the vehicles wouldn't operate autonomously the first year and questioned the price of the vehicle being "extremely high but not capable of operating autonomously." It also questions whether they'll be able to operate autonomously at all, even eventually, because "urban core capable, mixed flow autonomous vehicles has lagged projections for availability."....
Very shocked to see Deegan supporting this, but going to give the benefit of the doubt and assume she wasn't fully aware of the facts. Now that this is out, I'm hoping the entire U2C project is killed and everyone at JTA is replaced by the end of the year.
I was shocked too! I am surprised and hope her administration gets their shit together on this!
Quote from: iMarvin on March 08, 2024, 05:48:28 PM
Very shocked to see Deegan supporting this, but going to give the benefit of the doubt and assume she wasn't fully aware of the facts. Now that this is out, I'm hoping the entire U2C project is killed and everyone at JTA is replaced by the end of the year.
I don't envy Deegan's position on this at all. She's got an entrenched and intransigent JTA CEO and board backed by an ambivalent-at-best and hostile-at-worst city council executing a plan that was formulated and (partially) funded before she took office. Yet, if it blows up during her tenure, she's likely to get the blame as the current executive.
I hope her administration sees the light. When the Skyway conversion comes up for funding, there will be a supplementary request to city council. That would be the last opportunity to take a stand. The timing of such relative to the reelection campaign may also be a factor. We will see.
Happened to be looking over legislation today and... did anyone notice that Aundra Wallace is apparently about to be re-appointed to the JTA board (https://jaxcityc.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6551990&GUID=531C081F-2D4E-4C03-B9E4-B98C262C205E&Options=ID%7CText%7C&Search=JTA)? Scheduled to go to the whole Council on Tuesday.
That would mean that Deegan will have made all of her available appointments with no clear expectation of change in oversight at JTA. Given how things are going that seems... concerning.
Back in 2022 (which we now know was about two months after the discussions these emails revealed), LeAnna Cumber voted against appointing (https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2022/feb/25/two-high-profile-names-return-to-city-service/) Aundra Wallace to the JTA Board of Directors because of cost escalations on the U2C and concerns with the sole-source contract to Balfour Beatty Vision 2 Reality.
QuoteCouncil member LeAnna Cumber was the sole vote against Wallace's appointment at the Council Rules Committee and at Council.
During Wallace's confirmation interview with the committee Feb. 15, Cumber said her vote was related to her opposition to the cost of JTA's Skyway modernization called the Ultimate Urban Circulator.
Cumber agreed Wallace does "great work" for the chamber and is qualified for the appointment.
But Cumber said she didn't like Wallace's responses to questions at the committee.
He declined to support a cap to the U2C's growing cost and he did not take issue with the JTA board approval of a single-response bid to design and build the project's first phase.
"I'm going to look at the numbers. I'm going to talk to staff, and we're going to see if we got the best cost available. And we're going to make informed decisions," Wallace said.
"As a board member of JTA, we'll make that decision collectively."
The transportation authority estimates the entire 10-mile automated vehicle network will cost $379 million to $400 million.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on March 08, 2024, 11:32:56 PM
Back in 2022 (which we now know was about two months after the discussions these emails revealed), LeAnna Cumber voted against appointing (https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2022/feb/25/two-high-profile-names-return-to-city-service/) Aundra Wallace to the JTA Board of Directors because of cost escalations on the U2C and concerns with the sole-source contract to Balfour Beatty Vision 2 Reality.
QuoteCouncil member LeAnna Cumber was the sole vote against Wallace's appointment at the Council Rules Committee and at Council.
During Wallace's confirmation interview with the committee Feb. 15, Cumber said her vote was related to her opposition to the cost of JTA's Skyway modernization called the Ultimate Urban Circulator.
Cumber agreed Wallace does "great work" for the chamber and is qualified for the appointment.
But Cumber said she didn't like Wallace's responses to questions at the committee.
He declined to support a cap to the U2C's growing cost and he did not take issue with the JTA board approval of a single-response bid to design and build the project's first phase.
"I'm going to look at the numbers. I'm going to talk to staff, and we're going to see if we got the best cost available. And we're going to make informed decisions," Wallace said.
"As a board member of JTA, we'll make that decision collectively."
The transportation authority estimates the entire 10-mile automated vehicle network will cost $379 million to $400 million.
Hmmm.....this gimmick is estimated to be closer to $500 million now, with that number continuing to raise.
Just an observation about the FDOT letters. For FDOT staff to even write such letters indicates a high level of concern over the project, and perhaps the JTA. FDOT is historically averse to controversy or confrontation with agencies they partner with. FDOT has long regarded JTA as a way to get desired projects done that Tallahassee was less than enthusiastic about. This goes all the way back to the old Jacksonville Expressway Authority in the 1950s and 60s.
I've been looking closer at this recently, and some things stand out to me:
During his confirmation hearing (https://jaxcityc.granicus.com/player/clip/3979?view_id=1&meta_id=464790&redirect=true) in February 2022, Aundra Wallace said the following (Around 30:45) in response to questioning by LeAnna Cumber on concerns with the rising cost of the U2C and the nature of the single response bid:
QuoteFrom the standpoint of being at JTA, my job is going to be holding people accountable for the dollars that are being spent on respective projects. I've been doing that for 25 years; I know exactly what I'm doing from that perspective... I don't care whether or not you like me or not, one-plus-one still equals two.
Since then, the JTA Board has voted for millions of dollars in cost increases on Bay Street and more recently the contract to propose demolishing and reconstructing the Skyway's guideway for vehicles that again, cannot operate in the rain or at night.
The other thing: looking closer at JTA's response to FDOT, some of the language is very interesting (JTA's responses by Greer Johnson Gillis in red):
QuoteAt the April 2021 MPO meeting, a MPO member, who is also a Jacksonville City Council Member and a public opponent of the U2C program, stated their opinion that New Starts funding could not be used for the U2C Bay Street Innovation Corridor (BSIC) project because it was not a BRT project.
[...]
Since that time, the FDOT's 2018 BUILD grant commitment of 50 percent of the non-federal share toward this transit project seems to be in jeopardy after multiple commitments in writing and approval of the allocation through the Florida Legislature.
Weird for a public agency to derisively refer to a member of City Council like that. Also to respond as such about the FDOT being concerned about the feasibility of their project.
QuoteAs confirmed above, the District 2 Office requested the JTA update the ridership projection model in September 2021, using their preferred growth projection numbers instead of the prior, industry-accepted model approved by the State through the TCAR process and the USDOT FTA through the Build Grant Award process. Knowing that these models are only predictions of the future and not an exact science, the JTA agreed, in good faith, to rework the original numbers to current projected growth. The numbers referred above by Mr. Knight, only depicts estimated riders in the first year of the 3-mile BSIC project. It doesn't take into account the build out of the entire system and number of customers to be served over the lifetime of this transit system.
Is JTA suggesting that FDOT's growth projection model is inaccurate? And even if the estimated ridership of the Bay Street Innovation Corridor is for the first year, shouldn't it be immediately alarming that only 250 riders are anticipated when this will be connecting to venues that seat tens of thousands of people? Only a fraction of a percent of them would ride the $66 million line being proposed?
QuoteThe JTA understands the FDOT's desire to evaluate certain components of the innovative BSIC project to its funding criteria for BRT, simply because the FDOT currently does not have new criteria to evaluate its participation in new and innovative projects.
This just sounds insulting.
QuoteJTA understands this is not the typical way that FDOT procures traditional transportation projects. However, based on industry feedback, the JTA proceeded in this innovative direction. As a result, this has led to an Agreement where the costs are not-to-exceed a total amount with the vendor. Since the time the BUILD grant was awarded, construction costs have significantly increased. The JTA does anticipate an increase in the project cost; however, the FDOT will bear no financial responsibility other than the $13 million of its matching grant funds. Any costs above and beyond the $44 million estimated in 2018 and awarded for the BSIC will be overseen and require approval by the JTA Board of Directors, who are appointed by the Mayor and Governor. It should also be noted the BSIC development contract is an open-book contract allowing for justification of all costs incurred.
The justification over and over again for this project is not that it would provide effective transit but that it is "innovative" which is somehow meaningful. It also seems worth nothing that basically all of the unlimited risk for this project is on local taxpayers via the JTA Board, because all of the other grant funding is capped.
QuoteD2's last meeting with JTA was on November 2, 2021. At the meeting FDOT requested that JTA revisit the scope to cut cost and JTA requested FDOT provide guidance on metrics for this type of project. D2 also reiterated concerns about the bidding and the vehicle cost being extremely high but not capable of operating autonomously. JTA indicated that the vehicle will likely not operate autonomously the first year but felt by year two they would operate autonomously.
With regard to revisiting the scope to cut costs, the JTA is unable to do so based on the executed Grant Agreement with USDOT. The FDOT's funding share has been and still remains a not-to-exceed $13 million matching grant. As stated above, this $13 million will only go toward the elements within the proposed response that are traditional transit system elements. In hope, this will alleviate the concern by the FDOT District 2 Office associated with the project scope.
I'm wondering what the terms agreed to in the grant agreement are. Did JTA gamble their credibility with the federal government on the premise that they would invent autonomous transit? And is the offer here seriously that FDOT should simply ignore what JTA is doing with taxpayer money as long as FDOT's stake in that isn't directly connected to the riskiest portion?
Quote from: marcuscnelson on March 11, 2024, 11:56:48 AM
QuoteAs confirmed above, the District 2 Office requested the JTA update the ridership projection model in September 2021, using their preferred growth projection numbers instead of the prior, industry-accepted model approved by the State through the TCAR process and the USDOT FTA through the Build Grant Award process. Knowing that these models are only predictions of the future and not an exact science, the JTA agreed, in good faith, to rework the original numbers to current projected growth. The numbers referred above by Mr. Knight, only depicts estimated riders in the first year of the 3-mile BSIC project. It doesn't take into account the build out of the entire system and number of customers to be served over the lifetime of this transit system.
^ Just WOW! This is exactly the same fake logic that JTA used to build the original Skyway... Yes, we are 98% short of traffic projections but just keep pumping in more dollars to expand the system and the riders will come. NOT! The system grew in size, but not the ridership. Overall, JTA only pays attention to prostituted studies that tell them what they want to hear, even if it defies all common sense and logic.
U2C is deja vu of the original Skyway except it is even a bigger waste of money. USDOT, like FDOT now, never really believed in the Skyway and it only got funded through pork barrel politics. JTA is trying the same game here. This is really about the JTA "full employment act" than delivering an effective transit solution. And, the JTA board is a rubber stamp just like JEA's board was when Zahn was there. No lessons learned here since?
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on March 11, 2024, 01:08:29 PM
Quote from: marcuscnelson on March 11, 2024, 11:56:48 AM
QuoteAs confirmed above, the District 2 Office requested the JTA update the ridership projection model in September 2021, using their preferred growth projection numbers instead of the prior, industry-accepted model approved by the State through the TCAR process and the USDOT FTA through the Build Grant Award process. Knowing that these models are only predictions of the future and not an exact science, the JTA agreed, in good faith, to rework the original numbers to current projected growth. The numbers referred above by Mr. Knight, only depicts estimated riders in the first year of the 3-mile BSIC project. It doesn't take into account the build out of the entire system and number of customers to be served over the lifetime of this transit system.
^ Just WOW! This is exactly the same fake logic that JTA used to build the original Skyway... Yes, we are 98% short of traffic projections but just keep pumping in more dollars to expand the system and the riders will come. NOT! The system grew in size, but not the ridership. Overall, JTA only pays attention to prostituted studies that tell them what they want to hear, even if it defies all common sense and logic.
U2C is deja vu of the original Skyway except it is even a bigger waste of money. USDOT, like FDOT now, never really believed in the Skyway and it only got funded through pork barrel politics. JTA is trying the same game here. This is really about the JTA "full employment act" than delivering an effective transit solution. And, the JTA board is a rubber stamp just like JEA's board was when Zahn was there. No lessons learned here since?
Yes, same old story, just a different day. To the Skyway's benefit, it did carry 5,000 riders a day a decade ago before JTA started running it into the ground. This nonsense is only predicted to carry 250 riders a day. Anywhere else, a project would have died a quick death years ago with those types of putrid estimates.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 11, 2024, 02:19:20 PM
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on March 11, 2024, 01:08:29 PM
Quote from: marcuscnelson on March 11, 2024, 11:56:48 AM
QuoteAs confirmed above, the District 2 Office requested the JTA update the ridership projection model in September 2021, using their preferred growth projection numbers instead of the prior, industry-accepted model approved by the State through the TCAR process and the USDOT FTA through the Build Grant Award process. Knowing that these models are only predictions of the future and not an exact science, the JTA agreed, in good faith, to rework the original numbers to current projected growth. The numbers referred above by Mr. Knight, only depicts estimated riders in the first year of the 3-mile BSIC project. It doesn't take into account the build out of the entire system and number of customers to be served over the lifetime of this transit system.
^ Just WOW! This is exactly the same fake logic that JTA used to build the original Skyway... Yes, we are 98% short of traffic projections but just keep pumping in more dollars to expand the system and the riders will come. NOT! The system grew in size, but not the ridership. Overall, JTA only pays attention to prostituted studies that tell them what they want to hear, even if it defies all common sense and logic.
U2C is deja vu of the original Skyway except it is even a bigger waste of money. USDOT, like FDOT now, never really believed in the Skyway and it only got funded through pork barrel politics. JTA is trying the same game here. This is really about the JTA "full employment act" than delivering an effective transit solution. And, the JTA board is a rubber stamp just like JEA's board was when Zahn was there. No lessons learned here since?
Yes, same old story, just a different day. To the Skyway's benefit, it did carry 5,000 riders a day a decade ago before JTA started running it into the ground. This nonsense is only predicted to carry 250 riders a day. Anywhere else, a project would have died a quick death years ago with those types of putrid estimates.
^Just to add, the Skyway's first phase was supposed to yield 10,000 paying riders a day for Phase 1 per the prostituting consultants. 5,000 a day of "free" riders after an expansion is not close to the promises made. All these projects are based on selling the promoted fantasies of those making a living off of them. Seems they have no trouble finding gullible politicians and boards to seduce. Meanwhile, "Rome burns."
I think I've said this before, but what's especially frustrating is that JTA were at least able to convince the federal government (or rather, our federal delegation) to make the bulk of the investment on the original Skyway. Not building up around the Skyway fell to us locally, but that initial investment had real buy-in, and at least the system built with that money could do what was promised.
Of the more than $300 million already declared for the U2C, over 90% of that funding is local. And yet it's for what they struggled to classify as a BRT system for funding purposes, and after 8 years of R&D (sorry, T&L) still can't function in basic conditions like nighttime or rain.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 11, 2024, 02:19:20 PM
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on March 11, 2024, 01:08:29 PM
^ Just WOW! This is exactly the same fake logic that JTA used to build the original Skyway... Yes, we are 98% short of traffic projections but just keep pumping in more dollars to expand the system and the riders will come. NOT! The system grew in size, but not the ridership. Overall, JTA only pays attention to prostituted studies that tell them what they want to hear, even if it defies all common sense and logic.
U2C is deja vu of the original Skyway except it is even a bigger waste of money. USDOT, like FDOT now, never really believed in the Skyway and it only got funded through pork barrel politics. JTA is trying the same game here. This is really about the JTA "full employment act" than delivering an effective transit solution. And, the JTA board is a rubber stamp just like JEA's board was when Zahn was there. No lessons learned here since?
Yes, same old story, just a different day. To the Skyway's benefit, it did carry 5,000 riders a day a decade ago before JTA started running it into the ground. This nonsense is only predicted to carry 250 riders a day. Anywhere else, a project would have died a quick death years ago with those types of putrid estimates.
It's such a shame, because I would be happy to support Skyway expansion to useful places. Brooklyn should have happened a decade ago, San Marco too. I would be perfectly content with spending $66 million on Bay Street if it meant building the capacity to actually move thousands of people from the Sports Complex around Downtown. Imagine if instead of having to try and layer a separate Gameday Xpress on top of the existing transit network, we could just run the First Coast Flyer as normal (better yet, at its originally promised frequency) and the Skyway could fulfill its mission by consistently and reliably moving those fans out of traffic and to and from the stadium. Maybe the service would be worth charging for at that point.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on March 11, 2024, 03:35:48 PM
^Just to add, the Skyway's first phase was supposed to yield 10,000 paying riders a day for Phase 1 per the prostituting consultants. 5,000 a day of "free" riders after an expansion is not close to the promises made. All these projects are based on selling the promoted fantasies of those making a living off of them. Seems they have no trouble finding gullible politicians and boards to seduce. Meanwhile, "Rome burns."
The question you have to ask is "who would be riding it where?" In the 80s the answer seemed to be office workers who would drive 90% of the way to work and then somehow take the Skyway instead of the plentiful parking in a garage or maybe convention guests, and obviously that wasn't accurate. Offices moved to the suburbs and conventions didn't get that busy. Then and now, transit hasn't actually been a factor in shaping downtown, as we see with how the DIA basically ignores it.
If we actually want people to ride transit, the use case for riders has to make sense. Making so we don't actually have to keep building new parking garages downtown (instead of proposing that and then building them anyway like in the 80s) could be one. Having a transit network that actually feeds riders into it is another. Building communities and destinations around those stations (or building them where there are destinations) is another. We've done basically none of that, made it as easy as possible to avoid it, and then asked why people don't use it. And instead of fixing that problem, we're throwing money at something even less usable and more expensive so that we can call ourselves innovators. I can't imagine the kind of person who would feel compelled to ride an autonomous shuttle over any other option, and that's probably why only 250 people a day are projected to use it.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on March 11, 2024, 03:35:48 PM
^Just to add, the Skyway's first phase was supposed to yield 10,000 paying riders a day for Phase 1 per the prostituting consultants. 5,000 a day of "free" riders after an expansion is not close to the promises made.
How many people were working in downtown back in the 1970s and 80s verses now?
With that said, I wish they could promise 5k riders now. We're about to pay double the Skyway for a bus full of daily riders and can only use these vans when it doesn't rain.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 11, 2024, 04:36:24 PM
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on March 11, 2024, 03:35:48 PM
^Just to add, the Skyway's first phase was supposed to yield 10,000 paying riders a day for Phase 1 per the prostituting consultants. 5,000 a day of "free" riders after an expansion is not close to the promises made.
How many people were working in downtown back in the 1970s and 80s verses now?
A lot more than today. That said, keep in mind these numbers came from "expert transit consultants" who were supposed to be qualified to give reasonably accurate estimates based on the circumstances of the times. Being off some 98% tells me they were prostituting themselves for fees or were grossly incompetent. My bet is on the former.
My beef it that if one took a true businesslike approach to Downtown transit, it would not be the Skyway but, most likely, to start, running plain 'ol buses. Once transit numbers build, one could look at more capital intensive solutions like trolleys. Far down the list, if it ever made it on it to begin with, would be an elevated Skyway with slow moving and small cars that will never have the ability to move large numbers of people in a short period of time to meet peak demands or to amortize the investment over large numbers of riders. And, if Downtown ever approached Disney World's traffic count supporting a monorail, I would call Disney, not JTA 8).
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on March 11, 2024, 07:15:58 PM
My beef it that if one took a true businesslike approach to Downtown transit, it would not be the Skyway but, most likely, to start, running plain 'ol buses. Once transit numbers build, one could look at more capital intensive solutions like trolleys.
But this isn't how mass transit works. Buses don't grow into trolleys, LRT and monorails. They all serve a different purpose and type of trip. With that said, if we're not willing to integrate our transportation infrastructure investment with supportive land use decisions, then forget about anything other than buses.....which will also stay mostly empty.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on March 11, 2024, 07:15:58 PM
My beef it that if one took a true businesslike approach to Downtown transit, it would not be the Skyway but, most likely, to start, running plain 'ol buses. Once transit numbers build, one could look at more capital intensive solutions like trolleys. Far down the list, if it ever made it on it to begin with, would be an elevated Skyway with slow moving and small cars that will never have the ability to move large numbers of people in a short period of time to meet peak demands or to amortize the investment over large numbers of riders. And, if Downtown ever approached Disney World's traffic count supporting a monorail, I would call Disney, not JTA 8).
If you were starting from scratch and in a vacuum, perhaps. For better or worse, we have to exist in the context of the history of both American transit funding and the City of Jacksonville. Should we have taken a different course of action historically? Probably, not just in terms of transit technology but of our overall development practices.
But we didn't, and despite everything I still struggle to believe that attempting to demolish everything and start over completely from scratch now would be ideal. We absolutely need to end the practice of chasing options just because the technology could be cool one day, but that means we should be attempting to build & operate a transit system based on the context of the city that effectively moves people and enhances quality of life. In some cases that could and probably should still justify fixed transit options.
Brightline is a business, and they didn't start by trying to run buses between Miami and West Palm Beach. They had a vision, didn't depend on hypothetical tech, and built the consensus around building out a system. Their numbers started out small too, but they've increased because they started with strong bones and the ambition to actually improve, not with the cheapest possible thing
or futuristic fantasies.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 11, 2024, 07:58:01 PM
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on March 11, 2024, 07:15:58 PM
My beef it that if one took a true businesslike approach to Downtown transit, it would not be the Skyway but, most likely, to start, running plain 'ol buses. Once transit numbers build, one could look at more capital intensive solutions like trolleys.
But this isn't how mass transit works. Buses don't grow into trolleys, LRT and monorails. They all serve a different purpose and type of trip. With that said, if we're not willing to integrate our transportation infrastructure investment with supportive land use decisions, then forget about anything other than buses.....which will also stay mostly empty.
Again, the fact that transit never even gets
mentioned in the context of downtown development other than the U2C getting tossed in to pump up the investment statistics should be a sign that we're doing this wrong, but it seems our leaders might not be able to recognize that.
You've mentioned before the simple start of actually coordinating TOD around existing transit stations, which I agree with. The next step if we can manage that is to actually
plan to grow around where we
might build transit.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 11, 2024, 07:58:01 PM
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on March 11, 2024, 07:15:58 PM
My beef it that if one took a true businesslike approach to Downtown transit, it would not be the Skyway but, most likely, to start, running plain 'ol buses. Once transit numbers build, one could look at more capital intensive solutions like trolleys.
But this isn't how mass transit works. Buses don't grow into trolleys, LRT and monorails. They all serve a different purpose and type of trip. With that said, if we're not willing to integrate our transportation infrastructure investment with supportive land use decisions, then forget about anything other than buses.....which will also stay mostly empty.
True, but if there is not demand for buses circulating in the urban core which require a lower threshold for ridership to justify the investment, I don't see how you jump over that and say urban transit requiring far more investment (e.g. trollies, elevated options, etc.) is justified. Crawl before you walk, walk before you run. Not comparing to transit solutions that run outside the urban core.... agree, those are different options to consider.
^You don't know what the demand is. Demand is dependent on several factors and ranges, depending what is being served, where, frequency, quality of ride, access, reliability, etc. Marcuscnelson's quote about Brightline is a good example. You can't base the demand of the market they are serving and catering too with the demand of a bus. They are two totally different animals. These days, you can't even tie it to the cost of infrastructure. As JTA is proving, autonomous minivans driven by humans, can cost you more than the Skyway, LRT, trolleys and a host of other forms of transit. Btw, I'd define urban core by density and character of the built environment, not what the DIA considers to the Downtown. At the very least, we're looking at the 30-square-mile pre-consolidated city. Being able to connect the real destinations like medical centers, colleges and walkable neighborhoods, will make or break any type of transit system. In Jax, we're broken and JTA isn't helping the issue.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on March 11, 2024, 08:03:37 PM
You've mentioned before the simple start of actually coordinating TOD around existing transit stations, which I agree with. The next step if we can manage that is to actually plan to grow around where we might build transit.
^We tried doing that with the original COJ 2030 Mobility Plan back in 2010. Naturally, most of it has not been followed. The transit projects identified back then have all been put on the backburner for the U2C.
In light of the huge win that the Emerald Trail just got awarded, is it possible that the JTA and Jax leaders have assurances of major federal funding coming soon to help fund the U2C project? There are times when agencies and politicians cannot announce publicly what they know and this could be one of them. It's the only logical explanation I can think of to explain why there is any support for the U2C project.
I don't know about that. I think people are willing to let the $66 million Bay Street corridor thing play out. It appears that construction on the O&M warehouse in LaVilla is imminent.
However, the U2C has a larger obstacle than money. The technology doesn't work and isn't ready for what JTA wants to ultimately do. That issue won't be resolved by tax money or local politics and will. If they are successful in having human driven vehicles run on Bay Street (this is quite possible to do since there are already human driven vehicles on the street), the low ridership certainly won't help.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 11, 2024, 04:36:24 PM
We're about to pay double the Skyway for a bus full of daily riders and can only use these vans when it doesn't rain.
Is this true Lake? Wild if so.
--
The biggest issue with the U2C is that it is more tech-dependent than transit-dependent. Putting transit experts on it really doesn't make sense if they aren't complimented with imaging & sensing engineers. The transit industry typically relies on known variables when creating new systems & the processes involved with developing something new are so vastly different.
Nearly every major transit improvement was not done solely by a transit expert or agency, but by engineers.
Examples:
- Planes
- Trains
- High Speed Rail
- Buses
Considering that most transit uses one of these options, the notion that Nat Ford & JTA are going to invent a new form of groundbreaking technology should already be a big "haha". I've mentioned before, but the integrity of the entire system should be called into question. When you look at Waymo, who has struggles, they outclass the AV talent of the entire first coast. That's right, Waymo, a single company with less than 3000 employees, has more AV talent than our entire MSA & they still have struggles in sedans.
They need to kill this program or bring in someone with the right credentials to actually given informed opinions. Everything we have been told now is the equivalent of giving a college kid or highschooler some liberty on a "cool" science project. I have to imagine that the entire state's transit department isn't that dumb, and the likelihood this actually gets built (I think) is super low. We might see some form of Phase 1, but there's no way this goes the distance imo. If it does, that should be a good sign that the DT situation will never really be where many of us want it to be. The limitation of any meaningful transit in our DT will hinder development for decades to come & will prevent code from changing meaningfully.
Quote from: Jax_Developer on March 12, 2024, 09:50:09 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on March 11, 2024, 04:36:24 PM
We're about to pay double the Skyway for a bus full of daily riders and can only use these vans when it doesn't rain.
Is this true Lake? Wild if so.
The Skyway cost a little under $200 million and the majority of it was paid for by federal and state dollars. Even with DT being a fraction of the size and vibrancy it was during the Skyway's planning phase, it still moves thousands daily.....when its working....
On the other hand, the U2C will easily cost more than $500 million with the lions share coming from local taxpayer pockets if JTA has their way. JTA's own emails with FDOT indicate the first $66 million phase down Bay Street will only attract 250 riders a day. Since they can't use AVs, they'll be driving vans made by Ford on Bay Street. What a freaking waste. There's not much else I can say to polish this turd of an investment that will serve so little.
Quote from: Jax_Developer on March 12, 2024, 09:50:09 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on March 11, 2024, 04:36:24 PM
We're about to pay double the Skyway for a bus full of daily riders and can only use these vans when it doesn't rain.
Is this true Lake? Wild if so.
We've been putting articles on this site for six years now bringing honesty into JTA's fluff. The capacity is limited. The technology kinda works-ish as long as the conditions are absolutely perfect, the surrounding vehicular traffic is minimal and its not mixed in with heavy pedestrian or bike traffic. The challenges are numerous. The expenses have been wildly underestimated.
I've been on several PBS Jax radio interviews where I've flat out mentioned that the technology
doesn't work in the rain, doesn't work at night... and if you are a person of color walking in dim conditions- watch out as the technology doesn't think you are a person and is likely to run you over (because this is what has happened on test tracks and in real life conditions). It can't distinguish 'road closed' signs nor traffic officers giving it hand signals (like would happen along Bay Street on event days) and if you place a safety cone in front of it- it will just flat out stop.
At the end of the day, these are minivans being manned with drivers (in hopes of saving others from the shortcomings of the technology) that will be driving up and down Bay Street at less than 20mph- and only if conditions are perfect. This is what JTA is investing your taxpayer money in, and building new facilities in prime locations (and not paying property taxes on) just to house.
Now they want to completely modify the existing Skyway elevated pathways (after telling us back in 2016 they were just going to remove the guideways), which is an insane amount of money... and they still haven't figured out a way to get the vehicles off the guideways and on to the street level (at one point they were considering elevators, lol).
Beyond this, they want to take out on-street parking along Bay Street... and had to modify the Four Seasons and Jaguars office building to include turnaround lanes for these stupid minivans. Its a complete waste of time, money and more importantly- real estate.
Its a way to move money from taxpayers hands, to other private party's hands (including Nat Ford's wife... who is a paid consultant on this fiasco)... and not actually move people from where they are to where they want to go.
Quote from: CityLife on March 12, 2024, 08:59:44 AM
In light of the huge win that the Emerald Trail just got awarded, is it possible that the JTA and Jax leaders have assurances of major federal funding coming soon to help fund the U2C project? There are times when agencies and politicians cannot announce publicly what they know and this could be one of them. It's the only logical explanation I can think of to explain why there is any support for the U2C project.
I doubt it. They announced funding (https://www.transit.dot.gov/about/news/biden-harris-administration-announces-nearly-4-billion-support-14-major-transit) for 14 transit projects and Jacksonville didn't make the list. Another Florida city (Miami) did, however...
Just for comparison, the Miami project costs $500 million with a projected ridership of 9,400. Jacksonville plans on spending the same amount for 250 riders. Why would any support this project?
Quote from: fieldafm on March 12, 2024, 01:24:07 PM
Quote from: Jax_Developer on March 12, 2024, 09:50:09 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on March 11, 2024, 04:36:24 PM
We're about to pay double the Skyway for a bus full of daily riders and can only use these vans when it doesn't rain.
Is this true Lake? Wild if so.
We've been putting articles on this site for six years now bringing honesty into JTA's fluff. The capacity is limited. The technology kinda works-ish as long as the conditions are absolutely perfect, the surrounding vehicular traffic is minimal and its not mixed in with heavy pedestrian or bike traffic. The challenges are numerous. The expenses have been wildly underestimated.
I've been on several PBS Jax radio interviews where I've flat out mentioned that the technology doesn't work in the rain, doesn't work at night... and if you are a person of color walking in dim conditions- watch out as the technology doesn't think you are a person and is likely to run you over (because this is what has happened on test tracks and in real life conditions). It can't distinguish 'road closed' signs nor traffic officers giving it hand signals (like would happen along Bay Street on event days) and if you place a safety cone in front of it- it will just flat out stop.
At the end of the day, these are minivans being manned with drivers (in hopes of saving others from the shortcomings of the technology) that will be driving up and down Bay Street at less than 20mph- and only if conditions are perfect. This is what JTA is investing your taxpayer money in, and building new facilities in prime locations (and not paying property taxes on) just to house.
LIDAR & the other sensing technology being used in self driving
can be built to mitigate effects that weather and lighting do to them but to your point there are still heavy limitations on the technology for the identifying aspects you mentioned. White cars are another issue with LIDAR for example.
It sounds like JTA hasn't considered or the systems that they are intending to use will not be designed with these tolerances in mind. Makes sense as the different methods & testing used to make that happen would probably balloon the U2C figure even more. I guess I had not seen the reports, or didn't look into it enough, to see that these won't work in the rain. Truthfully, thought that that was a given, considering where we are lol. Makes this even more crazy.
The FTA seems aware that this is a horrible investment, which is why they're only out about $15 million on the half-billion-dollar project, and JTA has only managed to secure grants through discretionary programs. The U2C would have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving the ratings process required to access the capital grant program Miami is using for the Northeast Corridor because projects in that program have to prove that they're actually good investments with sound backing.
City Council decides tonight whether to reappoint Aundra Wallace to the JTA Board of Directors, and it's unclear if they've given any serious thought to how they could ask whether this is a good idea. Instead it seems everyone is willing to just let disaster unfold and see if they actually have to do anything once the money has been squandered.
Quote from: Jax_Developer on March 12, 2024, 01:52:52 PM
LIDAR & the other sensing technology being used in self driving can be built to mitigate effects that weather and lighting do to them but to your point there are still heavy limitations on the technology for the identifying aspects you mentioned. White cars are another issue with LIDAR for example.
It sounds like JTA hasn't considered or the systems that they are intending to use will not be designed with these tolerances in mind. Makes sense as the different methods & testing used to make that happen would probably balloon the U2C figure even more. I guess I had not seen the reports, or didn't look into it enough, to see that these won't work in the rain. Truthfully, thought that that was a given, considering where we are lol. Makes this even more crazy.
They've tried. Lord knows they've tried. But even after nearly a decade of work the technology just isn't good enough to reliably deliver on that. General Motors invested $9 billion into an autonomous vehicle company using the best tech in the business and ultimately gave up after being implicated in serious accidents. Who knows how much Google has invested into Waymo, and their system remains very experimental. Tesla's system might have just killed the former Secretary of Transportation's sister. This is the level of quality that Nat Ford is hellbent on dragging this city into. This is what Debbie Buckland thinks she's going to be famous for one day. This is what Aundra Wallace, after telling City Council that he's going to hold people accountable, has allowed to proceed for two years now.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on March 12, 2024, 02:11:44 PM
Quote from: Jax_Developer on March 12, 2024, 01:52:52 PM
LIDAR & the other sensing technology being used in self driving can be built to mitigate effects that weather and lighting do to them but to your point there are still heavy limitations on the technology for the identifying aspects you mentioned. White cars are another issue with LIDAR for example.
It sounds like JTA hasn't considered or the systems that they are intending to use will not be designed with these tolerances in mind. Makes sense as the different methods & testing used to make that happen would probably balloon the U2C figure even more. I guess I had not seen the reports, or didn't look into it enough, to see that these won't work in the rain. Truthfully, thought that that was a given, considering where we are lol. Makes this even more crazy.
They've tried. Lord knows they've tried. But even after nearly a decade of work the technology just isn't good enough to reliably deliver on that. General Motors invested $9 billion into an autonomous vehicle company using the best tech in the business and ultimately gave up after being implicated in serious accidents. Who knows how much Google has invested into Waymo, and their system remains very experimental.
Much of the complication is over the speed at which the algos can process information for a result. Theoretically, that's some of the reason why JTA wants to do Phase 1 on a fixed system. The less variables for the algo to process, the easier for the system to process information for issues like rain, snow etc. Hence why Waymo and every AV opeartor has a speed ceiling on their vehicles.
Perhaps, but that begins to beg the question of where you actually save any money. Once you're having to increase capital costs for better tech and more dedicated infrastructure to remove variables, why would you do all that just to run small, slow shuttles? If you have to spend the money on dedicated lanes anyway, you might as well just run normal BRT with drivers and you'd save on the cost of maintaining the tech stack while being able to carry more people, faster. And that's assuming you could even run the shuttles driverless, which you can't because you still need an attendant able to drive the vehicle and ready to take over if the computer gets confused for the foreseeable future.
At some point the only reason to do this, and the only reason JTA has left, is for the value of "being innovative." And that's worth basically nothing when it comes to building good transit that people will use and developers feel confident building around.
I completely agree with you Marcus.
This is what happened, in very short summary.
- JTA realizes, through fact, that the technology is not capable of seamless street travel with before mentioned variables
- JTA's timeline for this realization becomes thin
- JTA understands that the technology can only "handle" fixed dedicated lanes because it significantly reduces the technology curve to achieve
- JTA goes all in on dedicated lanes for the Bay St Corridor, to literally, keep the project feasible
- New Plan, delay Phase 1 as much as possible and hope that the technology becomes workable in the meantime
This is where we are at now. Lol. Just practically where the technology is at. If its on fixed guideways, and can't operate in the rain... well... yeah don't get me started because then why not parter with an existing provider??
Quote from: marcuscnelson on March 12, 2024, 02:11:44 PM
City Council decides tonight whether to reappoint Aundra Wallace to the JTA Board of Directors, and it's unclear if they've given any serious thought to how they could ask whether this is a good idea. Instead it seems everyone is willing to just let disaster unfold and see if they actually have to do anything once the money has been squandered.
If you think there is any real attempt at bringing in board members that want anything but to keep the status quo... then you are sadly mistaken. Frankly, the Mayor's office had the opportunity to spur some real change in the board leadership, but chose not to.
Nat Ford is looking to take a job at another transit agency... so we're going to be stuck with his boondoggle, while he escapes the inevitable failure that is coming.
He... he's what?
Quote from: fieldafm on March 12, 2024, 05:16:13 PM
Nat Ford is looking to take a job at another transit agency... so we're going to be stuck with his boondoggle, while he escapes the inevitable failure that is coming.
That is what keeps me perennially irked about this project -- while almost ten years, ~$20(?) million in test & learn, and $66 million on BSIC is scandalous, we
still don't have to be stuck with the worst of this project: the Skyway conversion. There's a solution to this trolley problem; someone in a position of power just needs to throw the switch to mitigate the damage. Sadly, we don't have enough who are willing.
The most insane part is we've managed to figure out the biggest hurdle to transit everywhere. Funding. The U2C has federal, state, and a HUGE local portion dedicated to it.
We're just using it to fund the... this, for some reason.
I can't restate this enough. The hardest part is done. The thing that kills every project in the US has been averted (somewhat). If the project needs more federal grants, the large local portion will help it win.
We just need to fund something better.
Funding has never been our issue. That's a benefit of consolidation. Unfortunately, vision and follow through has been a struggle. But yeah. Imagine what we'd could fund with the amount of local money set aside for the U2C. We're in the cost per mile of streetcars, LRT and real BRT, but we're getting an unproven gimmick that will serve a handful of people and not spur TOD.
If we are lucky, the Feds shot their Jax wad with funding the Emerald Trail this week and we are now off US DOT's radar for a good while so U2C moves to the bottom of any list for funding.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on March 12, 2024, 09:52:49 PM
If we are lucky, the Feds shot their Jax wad with funding the Emerald Trail this week and we are now off US DOT's radar for a good while so U2C moves to the bottom of any list for funding.
It's not even about luck. It's a bad project. Even if we went to Washington with the full $250 million to match, the U2C would not successfully rank in the scoring well enough to be awarded funding. Philadelphia had a similar project with this problem (although it was a rail line, not... this), too much money for too few riders and too many NIMBYs choking out TOD, so the FTA said they wouldn't touch it. Now Philadelphia is pushing for good projects and surprise surprise, money is heading their way, just like with the Emerald Trail.
The meager federal funding the U2C has received was 1) mostly given by an administration much more willing to tolerate this kind of thing, back when maybe it made an ounce more sense and 2) were comparatively tiny grants given through discretionary programs that don't require the rating system that major capital projects do. Even the First Coast Flyer required a more stringent review. That's why so much of the funding is in JTA and the city's court instead.
I really hope this project gets killed, it's such a waste of funding and will serve so few people. A bus route covering the proposed U2C network would be far cheaper and serve SO many more people.
And it could even run at night or in the rain!
JTA is playing a cruel joke on us with this one...
https://jtafla.bonfirehub.com/opportunities/87644
U2C cancelled?
Interesting, but I don't think so. This appears to be canceling the $6.5 million contract with HNTB (https://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,37849.0.html) for design on converting the Skyway (testing off the superstructure and building a new one for AVs). It's not clear why they would cancel this after initially pretty publicly announcing it, but could be for any number of reasons.
They just announced another Autonomous Vehicle Day (https://autonomousvehicleday.com/) event, which I can't imagine they would do if they were actually about to (wisely) bail on this.
On a related note, City Council made initial approvals to reappoint Aundra Wallace to the JTA Board of Directors this week. Councilman Johnson had an interesting quote (around 50:41) (https://jaxcityc.granicus.com/player/clip/5572?view_id=1&redirect=true) about that:
Quote...I have to say this publicly, in some spaces, in some places, Mr. Wallace and his team have been characterized as not doing the right thing for some institutions in this city. One thing I know for sure is that he is equitable in what he does, and he tries to ensure that everybody has an opportunity to sit at the table. Now whether they take that up or not is on them, but Mr. Wallace does the work, and so I am honored to support the work that he does and to be a cosponsor of this legislation, for him to be a part of the JTA board.