JTA is about to kick off a series of public meetings to discuss the U2C Phase II, which is the phase that will replace or remove the Skyway. They'll present the public with a series of options. As I understand it, they are:
- No build: Just trying to keep the current cars going as long as they can
- Total removal: Removal of the Skyway and overhead structure
- Partial removal: Removal of the Skyway system but leaving the overhead structure
- Partial replacement 1: Replacing the current monorail cars with new ones (drawback is there aren't many makers of such cars anymore)
- Partial replacement 2: Removing the monorail beam and using different cars (adds an expense, but there are many more vehicle options).
Round 1 Public Meetings – to introduce the public to the alternatives under consideration:
February 25, 11 a.m.–1 p.m. at Jacksonville Transportation Authority Board Room, 100 LaVilla Center Drive
February 25, 5-7 p.m. at Jacksonville Marriott Downtown Duval Ballroom, 245 Water Street
March 5, 11 a.m.-1 p.m. and 5-7 p.m. at Conference Center at the Main Library, 303 N. Laura St. (enter on Main St.)
March 24, 11 a.m.-1 p.m. and 5-7 p.m. at FSCJ Advanced Technology Center – Room T140, 401 West State Street
March 26, 11 a.m.-1 p.m. and 5-7 p.m. at Doubletree Jacksonville Riverfront, 1201 Riverplace Boulevard
A second round of public meetings will occur in May. I highly encourage everyone interested in the future of the Skyway and transit in Jacksonville to attend.
Well, I can see they are really going out in the community. [/sarcasm]
^Lol all downtown engagement...no desire to go into the adjacent neighborhoods at least?! San Marco? Riverside? Springfield? I thought the U2C was supposed to extend into these communities as well?
Plus, February 25th is right around the corner. When are they going to start promoting to the public and how are they getting that message out? Turnout will probably be low.
How sincere is JTA in soliciting public input? I thought they were already locked in to adapting the existing Skyway track to U2C vehicles. If the public demanded removal of the track or abandoning it for motorized vehicles (I assume by converting it to a "Highline" type pedestrian/bike path), it would mean a major pullback or setback for JTA's U2C vision.
Maybe someone here can explain how JTA could/would ever actually be open to all of these options? If not, what is the purpose of these sessions?
QuoteI thought they were already locked in to adapting the existing Skyway track to U2C vehicles.
It's likely what they originally thought they could eventually accomplish, they can't, still haven't figured out or it will cost a hell of a lot more than what they've been telling people so far.
Unfortunately, I can't explain what JTA comes up with. Could have told you a decade ago that the U2C plan was a pipe dream and would flop with ridership. Despite all the professionals making six figure salaries, they kept moving forward and blowing tons of public money on fire in the process.
The elevated trail thing still sounds silly and overly expensive to me. Tons of money to serve a few pedestrians, while nothing is done to help the masses around the city that still rely on unreliable transit services. Knowing JTA, they'd pivot that way before coming up with logical mass transit solutions for Jacksonville.
What I'd say is that folks from this forum should definitely come out. There's a requirement to host these meetings and public input has the ability to shift decisions on these things — just look at the Community Benefits Agreement and JTA's recent experience with the Connexion+ paratransit service. I'll be there for as many as I can.
https://www.jtafla.com/about-us/public-hearings-and-notices/skyway-rehabilitation-project-development-and-environment-study-public-meeting-1-february-25-2026/
https://www.jtafla.com/about-us/public-hearings-and-notices/skyway-rehabilitation-project-development-and-environment-study-public-meeting-2-february-25-2026/
https://www.jtafla.com/about-us/public-hearings-and-notices/skyway-rehabilitation-project-development-and-environment-study-public-meeting-3-march-5-2026/
https://www.jtafla.com/about-us/public-hearings-and-notices/skyway-rehabilitation-project-development-and-environment-study-public-meeting-4-march-5-2026/
https://www.jtafla.com/about-us/public-hearings-and-notices/skyway-rehabilitation-project-development-and-environment-study-public-meeting-5-march-24-2026/
https://www.jtafla.com/about-us/public-hearings-and-notices/skyway-rehabilitation-project-development-and-environment-study-public-meeting-6-march-24-2026/
https://www.jtafla.com/about-us/public-hearings-and-notices/skyway-rehabilitation-project-development-and-environment-study-public-meeting-7-march-26-2026/
https://www.jtafla.com/about-us/public-hearings-and-notices/skyway-rehabilitation-project-development-and-environment-study-public-meeting-march-26-2026/
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on February 14, 2026, 09:39:30 PM
How sincere is JTA in soliciting public input? I thought they were already locked in to adapting the existing Skyway track to U2C vehicles. If the public demanded removal of the track or abandoning it for motorized vehicles (I assume by converting it to a "Highline" type pedestrian/bike path), it would mean a major pullback or setback for JTA's U2C vision.
Maybe someone here can explain how JTA could/would ever actually be open to all of these options? If not, what is the purpose of these sessions?
What I was wondering. Are they looking for a way out? Is using the raised tracks enough for a light streetcar line?
Quote from: Tacachale on February 14, 2026, 05:46:42 PM
JTA is about to kick off a series of public meetings to discuss the U2C Phase II, which is the phase that will replace or remove the Skyway. They'll present the public with a series of options. As I understand it, they are:
- No build: Just trying to keep the current cars going as long as they can
- Total removal: Removal of the Skyway and overhead structure
- Partial removal: Removal of the Skyway system but leaving the overhead structure
- Partial replacement 1: Replacing the current monorail cars with new ones (drawback is there aren't many makers of such cars anymore)
- Partial replacement 2: Removing the monorail beam and using different cars (adds an expense, but there are many more vehicle options).
A second round of public meetings will occur in May. I highly encourage everyone interested in the future of the Skyway and transit in Jacksonville to attend.
Looking at Tachacale's four options, I think
#4 #5 Partial replacement 2: Removing the monorail beam and using different cars (adds an expense, but there are many more vehicle options) to be the best.
If this is not feasible, then, just remove the whole thing (Option #2, I think). If there is a USDOT "penalty," I suspect it will be less than the cost of any of the Build options when you consider continuiong operational costs.
Any option that includes building ramps to get vehicles - whether U2C pods or (very) light-rail vehicles - between the elevated guideway and street-level should be rejected. These ramps would be too disruptive to vehicular and pedestrian traffic, and access to affected properties.
At one time (if I remember correctly) JTA was talking about not just removing the monorail from the guideway for the U2C pods, but removing the entire guideway, and rebuilding it - and the station platforms - at a lower elevation. Perhaps to facilitate the level-change ramps?
==========
Fixed typo on the number of my preferred option. Can I blame fat fingers?
JWB and Gateway are actually in favor of #4 - which is dramatically cheaper than #5. You can find companies willing to build 10 new cars that will fit on the same monorail, for 40-50MM. It would be a 10-15 year solution. Unlike a lot of you, we think the U2C connecting other neighborhoods to downtown is a good idea, but retrofitting the skyway with a road for those vehicles is likely going to take too long... we really want the new solution up and running by 2028/2029, when Pearl Square will be finished and UF will be open. We believe Skyway use will increase dramatically at that point - in the same way the Tampa Streetcar went from 300K riders to 1.7MM riders after Water Street was built (link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TECO_Line_Streetcar)
Having the U2C going into the surrounding neighborhoods, where it links with the Skyway system (and maybe figuring out in the future how to make it a 1 ticket trip) will be the best thing for downtown. In 2028/2029 downtown is going to feel dramatically different and we think there should be a mass transit solution in place at that point. Building new cars that fit on the existing monorail is likely the only way to make that happen.
Interesting point Alex Sifakis. Which prompts a question - who makes the Disney monorail cars? Making shorter cars shouldn't be a huge engineering issue - unlike JTA's trying to invent a tech that private industry is perfecting and advancing every day.
Quote from: Alex Sifakis on February 15, 2026, 02:56:21 PMUnlike a lot of you, we think the U2C connecting other neighborhoods to downtown is a good idea.
Since day one when the U2C was announced, I've actually thought that this was the one area where low speed/low capacity AVs might make the most sense. Acting as a first-mile/last-mile solution to move people from urban neighborhoods into the type of tried-and-true fixed transit solution we need downtown to truly move people while stimulating TOD (streetcar would be my #1 choice).
Like the rest of you guys, #4 seems like an easy winner to me.
Thoughts on each:
#1 - No build: Just trying to keep the current cars going as long as they can
(Don't like this one, as it essentially turns the existing Skyway into even more of a lame duck)
#2 - Total removal: Removal of the Skyway and overhead structure
(Hard pass. We've spent enough on subtraction already in DT Jacksonville)
#3 - Partial removal: Removal of the Skyway system but leaving the overhead structure
(Hard pass. We've spent enough on subtraction already in DT Jacksonville)
#4 - Partial replacement 1: Replacing the current monorail cars with new ones (drawback is there aren't many makers of such cars anymore)
(If we can modernize the fleet for the $40-$50 million price that Alex quoted above, keeping the Skyway running well for another decade while we reassess our options, I think this one is the slam dunk easy choice)
#5 - Partial replacement 2: Removing the monorail beam and using different cars (adds an expense, but there are many more vehicle options).
(To me, too big of an investment, too long of a shutdown, and too long-term of an investment, until we figure out exactly what we want to get out of the system).
My caveat would be - and I hope everyone planning to speak up considers this -
if we're going to invest in new cars, we absolutely, positively have to invest in a cheap, no-frills extension into Brooklyn. The infrastructure is there. The ridership base is there. This single, relatively inexpensive addition could, quite literally, double the utility and ridership of the Skyway overnight. It should have been done years ago, and is the easiest layup imaginable for JTA.
One thing I'd love to better understand is the overall cost implication to the U2C system if we change our philosophy on Skyway modernization. I think the pushback here over the years on U2C has been less about JTA wanting to test the waters with autonomous vehicles, and more about JTA ignoring traditional fixed transit while mortgaging Jacksonville's long-term transit future on a half-billion dollar bet on slow, low-capacity, volatile technology that the private sector will ultimately do better and cheaper with their economies of scale. If someone were to tell me that JTA had a change of heart on converting the Skyway to U2C (a $250 million to $300 million effort, IIRC), and would be limiting the U2C to a <$200 million Bay Street circulator and urban neighborhood feeder into downtown, I still wouldn't love it, but I'd have a hell of a lot easier time accepting it. Would allow JTA to save some face on U2C, while also conceivably freeing up $200 to $250 million in gas tax dollars for other transit projects.
Obviously I can't speak to much, but from what I've read, the monorail beam is the big difference between Miami,'s current replacement of the MetroMover — they don't have the beam so they can use cars most similar to the Skyway's old ones. Their project is $151 million over 4 years, for a 4-4-mile system with 21 stations, 3 lines, and about 40 cars. Currently Phase II of the U2C has roughly $240 million in gas tax dollars for a system that's 2.5 miles, 8 stations, 2 lines and formerly had about 10 cars. Without the elevator element, a Skyway replacement ought to be cheaper than Miami's, whether with or without the monorail beam.
My rejection of the "get new monorail cars" was based on the statements that they can't be found. If Mr. Sifakis is correct that they are available, and only cost an arm, but not a leg (or two), that would definitely be my choice. If we can avoid the expensive and lengthy process to make the Skyway guideway U2C compatible, including the ramps or elevators or whatever JTA comes up with for the change in grade between the Skyway and the street - we have a winner.
The original Skyway (when it was called the Downtown People Mover) plan was for circulator bus routes connecting the end stations with the nearby neighborhoods. Now, if the U2C can serve that purpose, it would also overcome the resistance from some of those areas to having Big City Buses on their streets.
Has anyone (Andy?) researched the availability of new monorail cars? It would be helpful to go into the JTA meetings with facts.
Doesn't the Skyway have other issues that prevent it from being worthwhile other than just finding cars to keep it going? Like, short station platforms that limit how many persons the Skyway can move at a time? Capacity limits due to speed and traffic management? Cost of expansion and operations vs. other options?
Too many times JTA has far exceeded costs estimates while falling far short of usage and service relating to almost anything it proposes. I have trouble accepting anything they propose as the best bang for the buck unless independent and competent third parties validate it.
Even if option #4 made any kind of sense, I don't trust JTA to pull it off as they will likely promise. As such, my vote currently remains for #2 or #3. Waiting for someone to show me with certainty that any other option is better.
P.S. JTA doesn't run any kind of robust urban circulating mass transit now. What makes anyone think they would do so in the future with current management?
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on February 15, 2026, 07:43:34 PM
Doesn't the Skyway have other issues that prevent it from being worthwhile other than just finding cars to keep it going? Like, short station platforms that limit how many persons the Skyway can move at a time? Capacity limits due to speed and traffic management? Cost of expansion and operations vs. other options?
Too many times JTA has far exceeded costs estimates while falling far short of usage and service relating to almost anything it proposes. I have trouble accepting anything they propose as the best bang for the buck unless independent and competent third parties validate it.
Even if option #4 made any kind of sense, I don't trust JTA to pull it off as they will likely promise. As such, my vote currently remains for #2 or #3. Waiting for someone to show me with certainty that any other option is better.
P.S. JTA doesn't run any kind of robust urban circulating mass transit now. What makes anyone think they would do so in the future with current management?
That will be a question for the Engineers, but I tend to doubt it. For one thing, like I said Miami is undertaking a replacement of the MetroMover which is pretty much the same as the Skyway, except we converted ours to a monorail. And additionally, from 2012-2015 the Skyway was hitting ridership of 4-5k people a day. Even now the Skyway gets about 1000 a day (and that's a real number).
Another prime example of why Jacksonville can't get ahead.
Any idea on the GROSS PROFIT of Holon's parent company? Less than $700M a year.
What was Waymo's OPERATING LOSS in 2025? BILLIONS.
There is one solution. Cancel the U2C & extend the skyway to Brooklyn with new vehicles.
Does anyone know the terms of Holon's contract that JTA signed? I wouldn't doubt that Jax will get reamed if we renege at the stage.
Any support for Option #5 is essentially a vote of confidence for the existing U2C conversion plan, is it not? I can't imagine a scenario where the JTA of today moves forward with removing the monorail beam in favor of any technology other than U2C.
Short of a complete no-build, Option #4 seems like the only possibility to avoid the certainty of blowing millions on a net subtraction in functionality.
I just rode the Skyway a couple of weeks ago. I met someone that I had some musical interests in common with. I brought by 3 year old in a stroller and rode the full circuit. I am a weirdo because I did this without having a place to go lol.
With that being said, there were always people at each station waiting, even if it was only one or two. The truth is that the investment into improving this system, including new cars, efficiencies, etc is way less than it takes to try to compete with Waymo (Lol) on a system that doesn't even truly have it's own dedicated right of way.
The fact that we have a monorail that crosses the St John's River is actually quite remarkable! If they build that Brooklyn station, it will improve things overnight. Additionally, almost every single station has projects in development that can dramatically improve ridership.
The King Street station has RiversEdge, the San Marco station has friendship fountain, related project, and more coming soon. The JRTC is going to have a freaking UF Campus next to it. On top of that, the JWJ Park one is going to have easy access to Gateway Jax.
It would be truly tragic if they gutted and destroyed the Skyway just before it finally had the developments around it to get 10,000+ daily riders. (And I do think that is totally attainable)
From someone with years of real professional transportation planning experience across the country, here's my two cents:
Quote from: Tacachale on February 14, 2026, 05:46:42 PM
They'll present the public with a series of options. As I understand it, they are:
1. No build: Just trying to keep the current cars going as long as they can
Proposing this option should come with leadership immediately resigning. This is demolition by neglect at its worst and total disregard for public resources. When I moved to Jax in 2003, the Skyway was maintained and cars arrived at stations every 3 minutes peak time. It was pretty good and reliable in those days.
I guess that's when Blaylock was still around at JTA. Early in Ford's tenure, it even averaged over 5,000 riders daily, which Tampa's Streetcar still hasn't achieved and a number the U2C will struggle to have the max capacity to accomplish. The capacity issue alone, sends the feasibility of the U2C, in its current and proposed state, down the tubes from a mass transit perspective.
Between 2008 and 2022, I've worked in offices in the Southbank and Northbank and was a consistent Skyway rider. Over the last 23 years, especially since 2014 or so, I've witnessed it go down the drain. Hell at this point, there's only like 2 or 3 cars still operating with parts cannabilized from the rest of the fleet.
Quote2. Total removal: Removal of the Skyway and overhead structure
This option should also come with leadership resigning. Regardless of how we feel about the Skyway, it has mass transit infrastructure crossing the river. Its also grade separated. Both are assets worth millions. As a professional in the industry, I question looking at this and making such a decision on the future, without considering how the system would or could tie into the greater regional mass transit network. To decide to demolish valuable infrastructure assets without another plan or option to move forward with is professional negligence. This is the definition of haphazard planning and implementation.
Quote3. Partial removal: Removal of the Skyway system but leaving the overhead structure
Puzzling. What's the goal with this option? If it is to turn it into a elevated sidewalk when we already have an Emerald Trail system we're struggling to fund and we still have not addressed or proposed any viable mass transit solutions, then we have a big problem with the agency and it ability to properly carry out the mission it has been tasked with.
Quote4. Partial replacement 1: Replacing the current monorail cars with new ones (drawback is there aren't many makers of such cars anymore)
5. Partial replacement 2: Removing the monorail beam and using different cars (adds an expense, but there are many more vehicle options).
I'm going to combine these two because they are essentially the same thing and getting into the weeds of what type of technology the vehicles needs much more study than random public deciding the nitty gritty details between the pros and cons of each. But out of the five, after 10 years of talk and engagement, options 1 through 3 should be out of the window and deep evaluation of 4 and 5 should be the focus.
Quote from: Alex Sifakis on February 15, 2026, 02:56:21 PM
JWB and Gateway are actually in favor of #4 - which is dramatically cheaper than #5. You can find companies willing to build 10 new cars that will fit on the same monorail, for 40-50MM. It would be a 10-15 year solution. Unlike a lot of you, we think the U2C connecting other neighborhoods to downtown is a good idea, but retrofitting the skyway with a road for those vehicles is likely going to take too long... we really want the new solution up and running by 2028/2029, when Pearl Square will be finished and UF will be open. We believe Skyway use will increase dramatically at that point - in the same way the Tampa Streetcar went from 300K riders to 1.7MM riders after Water Street was built (link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TECO_Line_Streetcar)
Having the U2C going into the surrounding neighborhoods, where it links with the Skyway system (and maybe figuring out in the future how to make it a 1 ticket trip) will be the best thing for downtown. In 2028/2029 downtown is going to feel dramatically different and we think there should be a mass transit solution in place at that point. Building new cars that fit on the existing monorail is likely the only way to make that happen.
I bolded the biggest issues with the U2C/Skyway discussion and why I think its important to get into the details of how mass transit works and not what is being sold and discussed at a surface level perspective in Jax.
1. Forget about the U2C as currently presented. It doesn't have the ridership capacity to do what people think it will do. So we can extend to any neighborhood and it will never be what Tampa's fledging streetcar can be or grow to become as that community continues to grow and develop out.
My advise is and has always been to separate the terms "U2C" and "autonomous technology" from the transit discussion and instead focus on how we can get reliable mass transit that stimulates TOD, while also connecting downtown with adjacent urban core neighborhoods and major destinations (i.e. hospitals, colleges, shopping districts, stadiums, etc.). There's plenty of technologies that can accomplish this, including leaving it as an elevated people mover system (Option #4) or leaving it as an elevated, grade separated system but using Holon's vehicles up there and not having them move on ground in mixed-traffic conditions (Option #5).
2. Even after Water Street opened, the TECO Streetcar averaged 3,000 daily riders in Q3 2025. The Skyway was averaging nearly double at 5,000 daily riders back in 2015 before JTA let the wheels fall off by not investing in its upkeep and ongoing maintenance. Imagine what it could be with love and care, a couple of strategic investments (i.e. adding a station in Brooklyn, getting over the FEC tracks in San Marco or over State Street and to Bethel near Springfield), and with all the infill residential development that has come online since then. Could very likely easily hit 8,000 - 10,000 riders with a reliable system, regardless of what the cars (i.e. technology) are that are running up there. As of now, JTA's goals for the U2C by 2035 is somewhere between 1,000 to 3,5000 daily riders. This is going backwards.
Given the costs and time, we need something that can adequately serve our growing population that also has the ability to expand with it into the distant future. So both Options #4 and #5 still need technologies with the capacity to expand. With trains, doesn't matter if the vehicles are autonomous, electric, automated people movers, coal-fired or horse-drawn, this is as easy as adding an extra car. Again, forget the "U2C" talk and terminology......we just need to prioritize the basics of how mass transit works and is most effective to our urban context, development patterns and transit users. We've still failed to address, look and seriously evaluate and analyze things from this perspective, IMO.
3. I definitely agree that fixed mass transit (see, I didn't say U2C or Holon) connecting downtown with the surrounding urban neighborhoods is a no-brainer. This is what the public asked for a decade ago when talk of Skyway modernization first heated up. We got off track by trying to be the first at incorporating autonomous technology into a public mass transit solution. That was a mistake, as that technology and desire to be the first, became a larger priority that dealing with the basic make or breaks of how how real mass transit actually works.
For me, I don't care whether the center beam stays or goes or if the replacement vehicles are autonomous, automated, rubber-wheeled or electric. Real analysis and study will ultimately shake out the pros and cons of which option to move forward with. I just know that grade separation/dedicated ROW, having existing elevated transit infrastructure, a river crossing and eight stations already in place are major assets for downtown and Jacksonville. We'd be fools to throw it all away when we already have a proven concept (i.e. the Skyway) that blows away your Tampa streetcar example in pure ridership. When integrated with supportive land uses like Pearl Street District, Brooklyn's apartments and everything else that has came since 2015, there's a lot of untapped potential at our disposal.
I am hopeful* JTA will present information with clear graphics and text explanations of the pros and cons of each option. This information should be on display boards and in handouts. Getting the handouts from the first meeting (or photos of display boards) will inform measured responses at the subsequent meetings. (Cynic mode: which is why JTA will do neither)
Regarding the No-Build, as I am sure everyone here knows, it has to be considered as one of the options for environmental or PD&E studies. I agree the option 4/5 is the only viable option. While the PD&E will have to look at technology options (monorail vs not monorail), it doesn't hurt to get some sense of pubic sentiment, uninformed as it may be.
My endorsement of "total removal" if option 4/5 is rejected is based on frustration with JTA's decades of ineptitude with this transportation asset. I hope Mr. Sifakis is right, and monorail vehicles can be procured at a reasonable cost. Somehow, there has to be a way to figure the cost of a shutdown of a year or two (or three, or ...) if 'remove the guide-beam' is chosen - either for the U2C pods or real transit vehicles.
* "hopeful" in the sense of, "JTA is a professional organization, and this is what is expected of a professional organization," not in the, "I think JTA will do this."
ETA - after reading Alex's latest: Well said!
Because the public has been misinformed for so long, getting public feedback on the technical aspects of running a vehicle up there on a monorail beam, steel rails or rubber wheels is a fruitless exercise at this point, IMO. Even in these forum Skyway discussions, there's been comparison of the U2C (a first last mile solution) with mass transit options that generally are geared for moving masses of people. I've seen pro transit council members like Peluso and Johnson and the mayor be all over the wrong place with understanding the nuances in public. I've also seen JTA gaslight people for years. With no real analysis to provide to truly identify the difference between #4 and #5, all it really does is split the pro transit group.
I also get the no build option in general. For a road, that typically means leaving it as is (which includes it still being maintained at serviceable levels). In this case, it clearly doesn't.
Quote from: thelakelander on February 16, 2026, 05:03:57 PM
Because the public has been misinformed for so long, getting public feedback on the technical aspects of running a vehicle up there on a monorail beam, steel rails or rubber wheels is a fruitless exercise at this point, IMO. ...... I've also seen JTA gaslight people for years. With no real analysis to provide to truly identify the difference between #4 and #5, all it really does is split the pro transit group.
This was the point of my last post. JTA has no credibility, period. The original Skyway was boondoggle #1. U2C is boondoggle #2. Poorly running the bus system is close to boondoggle #3. Failing to plan for future fixed rail transit of any kind is a future boondoggle.
The hyperbole by JTA for any of the above projects and failure to come anywhere close is why mass transit in this City has a big black eye. You can say the public isn't informed but the public can smell incompetence and wasting taxpayer dollars, for sure. And, that is what is associated with JTA and anything tied to its pie-in-the-sky projects led by the Skyway and U2C.
Maybe the Skyway track is salvageable for some future use but as long as JTA is calling the shots the way they are doing today, don't expect the public to buy in. If JTA is going to continue to screw the pooch, here is a compromise: Convert the Skyway track to a pedestrian/bike path that even JTA would have a hard time screwing up. When a day ever comes that JTA is a competently run MASS transit agency, maybe convert the Skyway track back to carrying a proper vehicle as some of you are proposing here. We will save millions in dollars in the meantime that the current JTA will just be flushing down the drain.
Additionally, without a thoughtful and feasible master plan to connect the Skyway endpoints as Ennis proposes, continuing on the current path is an exercise in futility and waste. Current JTA has made it clear they are not capable of pulling this off so why give them any more resources or leeway.
If you endorse #4 or #5 options, current JTA will interpret that as support for U2C no matter what you intended and you will have then just fed the beast some more. With all due respect, this is exactly what Alex appears to be saying and you can be sure JTA will echo: "Having the U2C going into the surrounding neighborhoods, where it links with the Skyway system (and maybe figuring out in the future how to make it a 1 ticket trip) will be the best thing for downtown."
Not ideal, but time is our friend as we await better days at JTA.
Just to put it out there... I also disagree with the majority of this board on the negative opinions on JTA's leadership on this. Nat knows what he is doing. JTA has an incredibly tough job in this city. They get a lot more right than they get wrong. They are working on doing something really transformative, which is rarely attempted in government. It's not going to go perfectly, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try.
Many on this board were extremely skeptical of Lori Boyer and the DIA 2-3 years ago... but there was a vision, and it came together, and now (while there is still a long way to go) people are really starting to see and believe in true progress in downtown. And now, in hindsight, opinions here seem to have shifted in a positive direction on Lori and the DIA. I think at some point in the future the same thing will happen with JTA.
^ Alex, we are all probably going to find out as I believe JTA will move forward regardless of opinions stated here, for better or worse.
And, unlike most of us, you and your partners are putting $2+ billion where your mouth is so that certainly supports your vote of confidence.
I will add that JTA's ability to deliver a well run mass transit system serving the urban core will be a critical component of your success, in my opinion, so I hope you hold JTA to the standard you believe they can live up to.
Time will tell who comes closest to predicting the actual outcomes.
All the best and thanks for what you and your team are doing for our City... more than most anyone else, for sure.
Lake, thanks for the reality check. Of course, JTA's decades of selling unicorns and rainbows have spoiled the public's and politicians' view of reality. I frankly don't expect this round of public meetings, and the next, to change JTA's chosen path. These are window dressing to allow them to put a mark in the "publlc involvement" checkbox.
Given that, and giving JTA the benefit of the doubt, this is a real effort to get public input: as someone suggested up-thread, to combine options 4 and 5 into "Get new 'people mover' vehicles and provide meaningful Skyway service."
I agree that JTA has an incredibly difficult job. I think that many on this board wish JTA would focus on doing THAT job, and not trying to out-silicon-valley Silicon Valley. And, that job is providing reliable mass transit services to the people of Jacksonville, for work, education, and recreation/entertainment.
Quote from: Alex Sifakis on February 15, 2026, 02:56:21 PM
JWB and Gateway are actually in favor of #4 - which is dramatically cheaper than #5. You can find companies willing to build 10 new cars that will fit on the same monorail, for 40-50MM. It would be a 10-15 year solution. Unlike a lot of you, we think the U2C connecting other neighborhoods to downtown is a good idea, but retrofitting the skyway with a road for those vehicles is likely going to take too long... we really want the new solution up and running by 2028/2029, when Pearl Square will be finished and UF will be open. We believe Skyway use will increase dramatically at that point - in the same way the Tampa Streetcar went from 300K riders to 1.7MM riders after Water Street was built (link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TECO_Line_Streetcar)
Having the U2C going into the surrounding neighborhoods, where it links with the Skyway system (and maybe figuring out in the future how to make it a 1 ticket trip) will be the best thing for downtown. In 2028/2029 downtown is going to feel dramatically different and we think there should be a mass transit solution in place at that point. Building new cars that fit on the existing monorail is likely the only way to make that happen.
Alex, I just reread your entire post. Let's say you can implement option #4 for the cost and timeline you represent by NOT using U2C.
Could you then also live with NOT using U2C to go into the surrounding neighborhoods but rather other solutions, even just plain buses, for now? Do you really think JTA can out-Waymo Waymo, especially for a reasonable cost and in the accelerated timeline you are hoping for? What do you see that we don't with respect to U2C successfully being truly autonomous like Waymo, on budget ($400 million or less), delivered on time (within the next 2 years) and generating appropriate ridership for the investment vs. other possibilities?
Quote from: Alex Sifakis on February 16, 2026, 09:01:04 PM
Just to put it out there... I also disagree with the majority of this board on the negative opinions on JTA's leadership on this. Nat knows what he is doing. JTA has an incredibly tough job in this city. They get a lot more right than they get wrong. They are working on doing something really transformative, which is rarely attempted in government. It's not going to go perfectly, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try.
I'll definitely disagree here. Nothing personal against Nat, but the facts are the facts on the technical challenges of what's being sold locally. Saying this from a position of being in the profession and being an in-house consultant where the client tests various forms of emerging technologies to a much higher degree than anything locally. This is one we need to cut bait and back away from.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on February 16, 2026, 08:34:08 PM
Maybe the Skyway track is salvageable for some future use but as long as JTA is calling the shots the way they are doing today, don't expect the public to buy in. If JTA is going to continue to screw the pooch, here is a compromise: Convert the Skyway track to a pedestrian/bike path that even JTA would have a hard time screwing up. When a day ever comes that JTA is a competently run MASS transit agency, maybe convert the Skyway track back to carrying a proper vehicle as some of you are proposing here. We will save millions in dollars in the meantime that the current JTA will just be flushing down the drain.
This would be another boondoggle. This would still cost hundreds of millions and serve a fraction of the population recreationally, if even feasible. The width of the Skyway is so narrow, you would not be able to allow bikes up there. Then after all the money is burnt, we're still looking at a few billion and decades for a transit replacement, considering the type of river crossing needing to be constructed for an alternative. Some real analysis work and planning should be done prior to a decision to raze or eliminate 2.5 miles of dedicated transit ROW. It would really be shortsighted to make that move without a viable mass transit alternative decided on, funded and moving forward.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on February 16, 2026, 09:37:49 PM
I agree that JTA has an incredibly difficult job. I think that many on this board wish JTA would focus on doing THAT job, and not trying to out-silicon-valley Silicon Valley. And, that job is providing reliable mass transit services to the people of Jacksonville, for work, education, and recreation/entertainment.
I'd agree with this. Focusing on the basics would really be a great thing. Its difficult enough trying to provide transit services for city spread out over 800 square miles, without making some tough decisions. It gets worse when factoring in the local politics, cottage industries and consulting practices in town that have little to do with logic or the agency's core mission and reason for existing.
Quote from: Alex Sifakis on February 16, 2026, 09:01:04 PM
Just to put it out there... I also disagree with the majority of this board on the negative opinions on JTA's leadership on this. Nat knows what he is doing. JTA has an incredibly tough job in this city. They get a lot more right than they get wrong. They are working on doing something really transformative, which is rarely attempted in government. It's not going to go perfectly, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try.
Many on this board were extremely skeptical of Lori Boyer and the DIA 2-3 years ago... but there was a vision, and it came together, and now (while there is still a long way to go) people are really starting to see and believe in true progress in downtown. And now, in hindsight, opinions here seem to have shifted in a positive direction on Lori and the DIA. I think at some point in the future the same thing will happen with JTA.
Lori Boyer had years of experience in LUZ, Economics and Government Affairs. I would agree many here didn't understand the position she was in but she was absolutely qualified.
Nat Ford, nothing against him personally either, has literally zero technical background or experience with AV's. The entire JTA staff has zero technical background or experience with AV's.
There simply is no equating the two. Again the main 'co-founder' of this program, per Nat Ford's own words... is a civil engineer. This isn't news but the sad reality is that our business community doesn't have the Technology Leadership to call this BS out. Yes we're just some plp upset online but if a local Technology business with greater or equal influence to JWB (for example) called out the program, this wouldn't be a conversation right now & we wouldn't see absolute silence from the rest at the top.
In other cities, this program would already be dead with a clean leadership sweep. Truly incredible what is happening at JTA right now.
The U2C money could genuinely preserve the skyway for decades and decades to come with new cars, modernization, and a great Brooklyn station.
Skyway, even in it's dilapidated form is still a monorail that crosses our massive river. That's a pretty cool thing as we are building up so much around the Skyway stations. Increased ridership is inevitable.
Imagine also having left over money for finishing the Emerald Trail quicker, starting development of First Coast Commuter Rail, bringing Amtrak downtown, etc.
And the hits keep on coming...
QuoteJTA reports nearly $9M deficit in late December; auditors flag revenue and expenditure concerns
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — The Jacksonville Transportation Authority reported a nearly $9 million deficit in late December, according to a newly released council auditors' report.
Action News Jax reporter Yona Gavino has been following JTA's finances and asked the city auditor how this happened.
"This latest audit follows my last report on this in January, showing JTA was nearly $19 million over budget last year," Yona Gavino said.
Last year's overspending by JTA was driven by costs that included $10 million for its Connexion service and $7 million for its autonomous shuttle program. But revenue concerns don't stop there....
....JTA says it will end the year on budget, but auditors point to a potential problem with the math. The agency is banking on sales and gas tax revenue to come in exactly as planned, but initial projections show those collections might fall short, according to the council auditor's report....
....It's not just revenue—expenditures are climbing, too. Auditors say programs like Connexion Plus, JTA's service for the elderly and disabled, were significantly under-budgeted....
....Add in unexpected health insurance hikes for staff and lower fare revenue from a new pilot program, and the deficit grows.
JTA is now working on a budget amendment to address the gap, but the auditor says it's still unclear how they'll fix it.
In a statement, the city auditor said in part: "While JTA projects that they will be on budget for the ½ cent transportation tax and gas taxes, our first quarter projections indicate they may come in lower than budget. However, this is only a portion of potential budgetary issues and it really is too soon to tell from just one quarter."
https://www.wokv.com/news/local/jta-reports-nearly-9m-deficit-late-december-auditors-flag-revenue-expenditure-concerns/CLWUFLXJYVAFFGB5QJSGZGEYSE/
Does anyone know how well protected the Emerald Trail money is if JTA continues operating deeply in the red? As in, do they have the ability to use gas tax money intended for the Emerald Trail to reconcile budgets on the transit side?
Is anyone here planning to attend either of the Day One meetings this Wednesday?
I'll be there on behalf of the mayor's office. Would be great if others came too.
Only going to make March meeting
I will try to make the March 5th meeting when I'm back in town.
Quote from: Ken_FSU on February 23, 2026, 07:27:17 PMDoes anyone know how well protected the Emerald Trail money is if JTA continues operating deeply in the red? As in, do they have the ability to use gas tax money intended for the Emerald Trail to reconcile budgets on the transit side?
This is the million dollar question. Emerald Trail should have had most of this money in the first place. We could have been proceeding at a dramatically quicker pace with a proven, sustainable, economically beneficial project instead of wasting so many millions in R&D and trying to compete with Silicon Valley on autonomous vehicles (lol)
I love the idea of a Transit Agency running primarily (65% of JTA's Total Budget) off of a Gas Tax while single handedly making sure that Gas Vehicles are the only form of transit that is remotely viable.
Interesting thread, sorry to be looking so late.
Like others have said, the glaring question is probably what outcome JTA is either expecting from this process or attempting to direct the process towards. It's not clear to me the extent to which these meetings are separate from or part of the U2C program, and where the options stand in relation to JTA's previous efforts to move that program forward using the Skyway's infrastructure. For all we know it could largely be for naught because this is just checking a box on plans they already have.
I do think that we might as well take this process (since I imagine JTA are paying consultants handsomely to facilitate it) to consider for a moment what our longer-term objectives might be with urban transit and its relationship to broader regional systems. As thelakelander has pointed out before, we have now spent the ~$70 million on NAVI, it'll have been a year in service in just a few more months. Now is a great time to ask ourselves if we feel that has been a success for mass transit in Jacksonville or if it is time to change course for something that could be. What we should not do now is insist on coming up with excuses to put more shuttles in places they might not work well simply to justify the City's incentives or JTA's lobbying for the Holon plant, whenever that opens. Even if these meetings are specific to the elevated system, we need to look at it in relation to what else we might invest in going forward, and how people might actually use it to get around.
As far as the options themselves, I agree that No-Build is unacceptable for the nation's tenth-largest city. Total removal I have a similar distaste for, given what a waste of all that infrastructure that would be. The partial removal alternative is rather vague, I don't understand what the benefit would be of just tearing out the monorail with no plan after that.
Partial Replacement 1 is potentially interesting, although I suspect the greatest risk. The present Skyway system is already somewhat bespoke (and old), given the only other clearly parallel system being the now-demolished Tampa Airport monorail, and a possible (distant) cousin at Newark Airport is beginning its replacement program now. There's a reason the APM market has drastically shrunken over the decades, and a "like" replacement that wouldn't require more substantial reworks of signal and operating systems is going to be very bespoke, and the largest APM firms like Alstom or Mitsubishi either don't have directly compatible systems or likely wouldn't see this as worth their time. Your vendor options would probably be some mix of either Schwager Davis or Woojin from last time, and maybe some attempt by BYD/RIDE if there somehow aren't federal constraints on that, with perhaps some other very small manufacturer that isn't on the radar. Basically all of those options mean likely importing the trains and/or spending a good chunk of the contract amount building the ability to build trains. I would expect that no matter what at this point, there is not an alternative that would deliver passenger transit service by 2028-29 besides No-Build. By the time you complete this public process, go to vendors in a bidding process, sign a contract with one, they get subcontractors, make all the necessary agreements, actually design, build, and ship the trains, and test them to enter service, I think you are looking at mid-2030 at the earliest, probably later. O'Hare Airport had a longer timeline with much more proven technology that Bombardier-Alstom already had experience building in Taiwan.
Which brings us to Partial Replacement 2. In theory, it provides the greatest flexibility, but yes also includes a lot of unknowns. It'd be a difficult thing to rush through, and given JTA's history of repeatedly screwing this up might not be worth the risk of needing to commit to a new system for the long-run. At the same time, there are also risks to not committing. I can't speak for Mr. Sifakis but I'm not totally sure how developments with plans for things like less parking or better orientation towards transit access will look at their plans with the knowledge that we are making a temporary choice that could very well still be demolished in another decade or so anyway. Maybe that's fine, I'm just not sure. At the end of the day, we really need to decide what we actually want from transit, or whether we want to join the likes of Seminole County in not really caring about it at all.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on February 15, 2026, 03:34:07 PMInteresting point Alex Sifakis. Which prompts a question - who makes the Disney monorail cars? Making shorter cars shouldn't be a huge engineering issue - unlike JTA's trying to invent a tech that private industry is perfecting and advancing every day.
The monorail trains currently used at Disney World were built by Bombardier (now Alstom). It's worth noting that those trains haven't actually been newly constructed since the Skyway was originally opened in 1989. I'm doubtful Alstom would be willing to take on the liability of a very small and relatively bespoke order when the responsible facility for APM systems is already plenty busy with much more standard system replacements at many airports.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on February 15, 2026, 07:43:34 PMDoesn't the Skyway have other issues that prevent it from being worthwhile other than just finding cars to keep it going? Like, short station platforms that limit how many persons the Skyway can move at a time? Capacity limits due to speed and traffic management? Cost of expansion and operations vs. other options?
Too many times JTA has far exceeded costs estimates while falling far short of usage and service relating to almost anything it proposes. I have trouble accepting anything they propose as the best bang for the buck unless independent and competent third parties validate it.
Even if option #4 made any kind of sense, I don't trust JTA to pull it off as they will likely promise. As such, my vote currently remains for #2 or #3. Waiting for someone to show me with certainty that any other option is better.
P.S. JTA doesn't run any kind of robust urban circulating mass transit now. What makes anyone think they would do so in the future with current management?
The Skyway for at least the last quarter-century has only used about half of its station platforms. In theory, if you were to buy new trains that were actually as long as the whole platform, and then ran them reliably at all hours day and night (which is absolutely technically possible, aside from maintenance downtime), you'd have plenty of capacity (and potentially demand) to extend elsewhere. Speed would definitely be an issue for making time-competitive extensions to say, the Beaches, but you'd probably want to use different technology for that anyway. For extending the current system to Brooklyn or into San Marco, or replacing NAVI with an elevated line to the Sports Complex, its speed is fine.
Quote from: Alex Sifakis on February 16, 2026, 09:01:04 PMJust to put it out there... I also disagree with the majority of this board on the negative opinions on JTA's leadership on this. Nat knows what he is doing. JTA has an incredibly tough job in this city. They get a lot more right than they get wrong. They are working on doing something really transformative, which is rarely attempted in government. It's not going to go perfectly, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try.
Many on this board were extremely skeptical of Lori Boyer and the DIA 2-3 years ago... but there was a vision, and it came together, and now (while there is still a long way to go) people are really starting to see and believe in true progress in downtown. And now, in hindsight, opinions here seem to have shifted in a positive direction on Lori and the DIA. I think at some point in the future the same thing will happen with JTA.
I find myself asking a lot about the right and wrong reasons to do things lately. JTA having a tough job as a transit agency in America is certainly the right reason for a lot of things, even creative and dare I say "innovative" things to make every dollar count. I would really hesitate to include the decisions they've made with the U2C as being among those. As much as JTA themselves and the Mayor and plenty of other boosters have said to that end, they would all have much more credibility on this issue if their focus was clearly on how to best provide mass transit for the region than on whether to do something "really transformative."
It was only a few short years ago that JTA executives were
very confidently telling the Board and City officials that they were at no risk of a fiscal cliff like many other transit agencies. That lofty position seems to have evaporated in short order.
Channel 4 is reporting on a
completely different set of five options from the first public meeting today:
https://www.news4jax.com/news/local/2026/02/25/jta-hosting-first-public-meeting-for-input-on-skyway-modernization-plan/
QuoteOption 1: Repair and retrofit existing cars
Option 2: Replace cars with new, modern trains
Option 3: Convert the skyway into a dedicated roadway for autonomous vehicles
Option 4: Demolish the skyway and put autonomous vehicles on the street
Option 5: Turn the skyway into a walkable trail
I see Mr. Sifakis on camera endorsing the new Option 1, which specifies that there would be a new train control system, while it's not precisely clear if the rehabbed/rebuilt cars would only be overhauls of the existing carshells or new trains compatible with the existing guideway.
There's also now an online survey (https://publicinput.com/phase2skyway?utm_source=publicinput&utm_medium=qr_code) discussing the options, which are separate from the No-Build option.
There's a render of Option 2:
(https://publicinput.com/img/oywmj1v7rwu5ulenb9yx_1600_945.JPG)
Option 3:
(https://publicinput.com/img/hk9ochz6e1pelrsodrox_1600_1066.PNG)
Option 4:
(https://publicinput.com/img/mleh9b92gabqwapljkbb_1000_1000.PNG)
And Option 5:
(https://publicinput.com/img/trquayy6eymu4jsseync_1000_1000.PNG)
Looking at the new options now, I think 3, 5, and probably 4 are clearly unacceptable. It's a waste of good infrastructure to put the AVs up there, and trying to build a trail with how small the Skyway ROW is compared to New York or Philadelphia and the needs at street level is throwing good money after bad. Option 4 isn't good either, but if we are really
completely wedded to autonomous shuttles over any other option for whatever reason, might as well go that way with it and spend the difference on new surface lanes for those, the Emerald Trail, and other transit.
Between Options 1 and 2, I think it would be wiser to pick a longer-term strategy of compatibility with Miami or other standard-ish APM systems, but if speed is
really of the essence then Option 1 for now with plans for a larger reworking later on might also work, assuming vendors are willing and able to produce something.
Per the survey, I think my ranking would be:
Quote- Alternative 2: New Automated People Mover (APM) Trains
- Alternative 1: Retrofit the Existing Cars
- No Build
- Alternative 4: Remove Skyway Structure and Operate Autonomous Vehicles on Existing Streets
- Alternative 5: Repurpose Skyway as a Multiuse Trail and Operate Autonomous Vehicles on Existing Streets
- Alternative 3: Convert Track and System to Autonomous Vehicles (AVs)
For me option 2 is a no brainer. I'm no engineer, but just out of curiosity. Can the skyway be converted to a elevated light rail track? They will have to make major adjustments according to the survey for a new APM because of weight and APM are hard to come by very few companies make them. So in another 10/15 years we'll be back to square 1 or here trying to come up with a solution. Relieving the skyway with NAVI is just flat out irresponsible. Its unproven technology and what it Holon goes under and closes shop, then who's going to supply the parts? We're back here again to the survey. At least with LRT they are commonly used and there's more manufactures.
Out of curiosity, what are the weight bearing limits of the Skyway track? Would that limit what can ride on it?
Same, regarding continued stressing from anything running more frequently or at higher speeds.
What do engineers have to say about repurposing the structure for anything going forward and what the remaining life of the structure would be? Concrete doesn't last forever, just look at the cracks/wear/replacement lives of interstates, bridges, sidewalks, and even airport runways. There is also any settling over time.
Seems an evaluation for the above would be in order before wasting a lot of time on what's next. Any updated engineering studies out there?
^ I Know that weight answer. We have all the old plans and data in our archives. I'll have to look it up later. I look forward to learning more in person next week. However, of whats been shared here, here's my opinion of the options.
1. Repair of existing cars is maintenance of the system. This should be required, not a future option. There's still a limited self life with this option, so it should be combined with #2.
2. If we're going to sink a few hundred million into this, Option 2 is the only one that makes sense. You get decades of service, the higher capacity to accommodate future growth and expansion. Of the options, its the only viable long term mass transit solution on the table.
3. This option is not practical. Why spend possibly just as much as option 2 for a lower capacity, high risk and unproven personal transit option. This is apples to oranges, in terms of option 2 being real mass transit and option 3 replacing dedicated transit with a lesser first/last mile alternative.
4. We already have vans on the ground that no one is using. This isn't a viable option. We have proof of concept of its expense and attraction to ridership.
5. This option is misleading. The rendering as illustrated is twice the width of the actual Skyway infrastructure. All the dead load of weight from the landscaping would result in structural failure. Making it an elevated sidewalk would be just as expensive or more as Option 2 and serve significantly less people.
In Midtown Atlanta for some meetings tonight. Waymo AVs everywhere, providing more advanced, more flexible, lower cost service than the U2C, without a 30-year, $400 million drag on the local gas tax. There is a literal private sector solution already on the streets. What are we even doing at JTA?
There are also food delivery robots cruising up and down the sidewalks.
Another issue with the elevated walkway is taking away people that we want walking at street level and putting them on an elevated trail. Just put mixed used paths on the ground. This is not comparable to ny bc you desire to walk the high line to escape the hustle and bustle. We don't have this kind of urban situation here. Nothing close to it.
Quote from: jcjohnpaint on February 26, 2026, 08:00:09 AMAnother issue with the elevated walkway is taking away people that we want walking at street level and putting them on an elevated trail. Just put mixed used paths on the ground. This is not comparable to ny bc you desire to walk the high line to escape the hustle and bustle. We don't have this kind of urban situation here. Nothing close to it.
Agree. The High Line is one of my favorite things to see in NY. Part of the appeal is what you mentioned. There is also have an army of volunteers to tend to it, including docents who give tours. The High Line also interacts with adjacent buildings like the Whitney. And tells stories about the history of the Meatpacking District and Chelsea.
Option 6. Before committing to any of the proposed alternatives, imo Jax should consider waiting a few more years to see how the AI and autonomous vehicle revolution evolves.
We are in the middle of one of the most significant technological transformations since the Industrial Revolution. Artificial intelligence and autonomous systems are improving at an extraordinary pace. What seems cutting-edge today may be outdated or far more affordable, efficient, and capable in just a short time.
For those who haven't seen it, I highly recommend reading this Twitter/X post (85M+ views) that provides a great overview of how rapidly AI is accelerating:
https://x.com/mattshumer_/status/2021256989876109403
While organizations like Gateway Jax, UF, and others understandably want momentum and visible progress, Jax's history provides a cautionary lesson. The original Skyway and U2C show the risks of locking into expensive infrastructure during the early stages of evolving technology. If Jacksonville rushes a decision now, it risks saddling taxpayers with another long-term financial and operational burden just as better, more flexible solutions emerge.
A short-term pause to evaluate how AI and autonomous systems evolve could prevent another long-term mistake.
The High Line is also a former frieght railroad corridor. Built to support the weight of loaded box cars, tank cars, steam locomotives, etc. Different structure altogether.
When we propose this type of stuff without considering feasibility and cost, etc. it simply confuses the public and wastes time. More than a decade ago, the public feedback was to fix up and expand the Skyway, not turn it into a system of autonomous human driven camper vans or being the first at experiementing with a risky form of technology. Lets get back to the basic purpose and move forward.
Quote from: CityLife on February 26, 2026, 09:14:06 AMOption 6. Before committing to any of the proposed alternatives, imo Jax should consider waiting a few more years to see how the AI and autonomous vehicle revolution evolves.
We are in the middle of one of the most significant technological transformations since the Industrial Revolution. Artificial intelligence and autonomous systems are improving at an extraordinary pace. What seems cutting-edge today may be outdated or far more affordable, efficient, and capable in just a short time.
For those who haven't seen it, I highly recommend reading this Twitter/X post (85M+ views) that provides a great overview of how rapidly AI is accelerating:
https://x.com/mattshumer_/status/2021256989876109403
While organizations like Gateway Jax, UF, and others understandably want momentum and visible progress, Jax's history provides a cautionary lesson. The original Skyway and U2C show the risks of locking into expensive infrastructure during the early stages of evolving technology. If Jacksonville rushes a decision now, it risks saddling taxpayers with another long-term financial and operational burden just as better, more flexible solutions emerge.
A short-term pause to evaluate how AI and autonomous systems evolve could prevent another long-term mistake.
AI has surely evolved greatly over the past several years in particular. However, the technology is still very raw & industry experts don't agree on how it will progress. More importantly as it relates to autonomous driving, the feasibility & liability factors overshadow any local attempt at meaningfully tackling a last mile solution. These projects involve companies with annual budgets that exceed the State of California. The compounding of technical resources is absolutely vital with projects of this magnitude.
Jacksonville, with an annual budget of $2B, will not be involved in any meaningful AI or autonomous vehicle advancement. We should very simply hitch alongside other cities with products like Waymo & Robotaxi... which literally lose more money annually than our entire city budget for the hope of wide spread integration in the future.
The technology is scaling so hard, that the entire City of Jacksonville is simply unable to afford it. Holon, aka Benteler, will never build unless they are handed bags of cash. It's a loss from the jump & they know that. Hence, why there are still no permits & the date is continuously pushed back.
Quote from: Jax_Developer on February 26, 2026, 10:04:43 AMQuote from: CityLife on February 26, 2026, 09:14:06 AMOption 6. Before committing to any of the proposed alternatives, imo Jax should consider waiting a few more years to see how the AI and autonomous vehicle revolution evolves.
We are in the middle of one of the most significant technological transformations since the Industrial Revolution. Artificial intelligence and autonomous systems are improving at an extraordinary pace. What seems cutting-edge today may be outdated or far more affordable, efficient, and capable in just a short time.
For those who haven't seen it, I highly recommend reading this Twitter/X post (85M+ views) that provides a great overview of how rapidly AI is accelerating:
https://x.com/mattshumer_/status/2021256989876109403
While organizations like Gateway Jax, UF, and others understandably want momentum and visible progress, Jax's history provides a cautionary lesson. The original Skyway and U2C show the risks of locking into expensive infrastructure during the early stages of evolving technology. If Jacksonville rushes a decision now, it risks saddling taxpayers with another long-term financial and operational burden just as better, more flexible solutions emerge.
A short-term pause to evaluate how AI and autonomous systems evolve could prevent another long-term mistake.
AI has surely evolved greatly over the past several years in particular. However, the technology is still very raw & industry experts don't agree on how it will progress. More importantly as it relates to autonomous driving, the feasibility & liability factors overshadow any local attempt at meaningfully tackling a last mile solution. These projects involve companies with annual budgets that exceed the State of California. The compounding of technical resources is absolutely vital with projects of this magnitude.
Jacksonville, with an annual budget of $2B, will not be involved in any meaningful AI or autonomous vehicle advancement. We should very simply hitch alongside other cities with products like Waymo & Robotaxi... which literally lose more money annually than our entire city budget for the hope of wide spread integration in the future.
The technology is scaling so hard, that the entire City of Jacksonville is simply unable to afford it. Holon, aka Benteler, will never build unless they are handed bags of cash. It's a loss from the jump & they know that. Hence, why there are still no permits & the date is continuously pushed back.
I think we're largely saying the same thing. Imo, Jax should wait for technology to evolve before making decision. Jax is not in the position to be a leader in this space and should follow others lead.
Another thing, is that JTA's current leadership should also not be tasked with any major long term decisions until the U2C can be proven to be successful. It would be like giving a first time movie director $200 million for a $25 million flop, and then turning around and green lighting another $200 million dollar project.
Quote from: CityLife on February 26, 2026, 09:14:06 AMOption 6. Before committing to any of the proposed alternatives, imo Jax should consider waiting a few more years to see how the AI and autonomous vehicle revolution evolves.
We are in the middle of one of the most significant technological transformations since the Industrial Revolution. Artificial intelligence and autonomous systems are improving at an extraordinary pace. What seems cutting-edge today may be outdated or far more affordable, efficient, and capable in just a short time.
For those who haven't seen it, I highly recommend reading this Twitter/X post (85M+ views) that provides a great overview of how rapidly AI is accelerating:
https://x.com/mattshumer_/status/2021256989876109403
While organizations like Gateway Jax, UF, and others understandably want momentum and visible progress, Jax's history provides a cautionary lesson. The original Skyway and U2C show the risks of locking into expensive infrastructure during the early stages of evolving technology. If Jacksonville rushes a decision now, it risks saddling taxpayers with another long-term financial and operational burden just as better, more flexible solutions emerge.
A short-term pause to evaluate how AI and autonomous systems evolve could prevent another long-term mistake.
I partly disagree, for reasons that go back to the fundamentals of why transportation systems work (or don't). Any solution with the Skyway or U2C needs to be built around the question of how people are meant to get around Jacksonville (or any city) at scale. Ultimately the basic challenge with something like Waymo is going to be the same as with Uber or just people driving: geometry. A car takes up space, and a car that only has one or two occupants proportionally takes up a lot of space, especially when you then need a lot of them to move a lot of people at once, for football games or festivals or just because a lot of people live there and all want to go places at the same time.
The car does not simply blip in and out of existence, so it has to exist
somewhere at all times, so either we build the space for it to be or we start charging for access to limited space. The former strategy has guided many American cities to expensive demolition by highway, and the latter strategy tends to be politically unpopular, even if necessary.
The Skyway's relative lack of success has more to do with Downtown's lack of success than issues inherent to choice of technology. Meanwhile with NAVI, the choice actually has more to do with that, between its limited operating hours and uncomfortable ride and limited capacity in ways that make it deeply unappealing to potential riders. And that system then means over a dozen vehicles to move a few dozen people per day, and if demand were to increase those vehicles would immediately be full and uncomfortable.
I'm sure that people working in AI feel very passionate about the output of their work, but it's also worth noting that many of the people saying these things about autonomous vehicles felt
exactly the same way a decade ago, which is why Jacksonville is even stuck contending with this "solution" in the first place. I am confident that we will eventually see a number of self-driving cars on our streets, but even then you are still going to need a baseload mode of mass transportation, for the same reasons that a city doesn't work with only taxis or only Ubers. Waymo doesn't fix sixty thousand people leaving a Jaguars game at once, or several thousand new residents if all these development proposals are actually built out. To that end, it still makes sense to have mass transit, and the technical question becomes what the best way to do that is. NAVI/U2C is not that, and Waymo geometrically won't do that either.
QuoteAny solution with the Skyway or U2C needs to be built around the question of how people are meant to get around Jacksonville (or any city) at scale.
This is one of the most important questions around this topic that continues to be downplayed, overlooked and not prioritized. I can understand the average person skipping over it but I don't understand why the experts at JTA (or their well paid consultants) refuse to address/acknowledge it. We can't determine the Skyway's future (or anything potentially replacing it) and come up with various pre-determined options like we're doing right now, without first looking into how these 2.5 miles of track fit within the overall regional mass transit network. This is a pretty backwards way of planning. Failure after a bunch of wasted tax money, will likely end up as the result.
For those smarter and more well-informed about these things that myself, the repayment of federal grants is often cited by JTA as the boogeyman in the room. If JTA engaged the FTA in good faith and said, "Listen, we got this grant from the UMTA (which doesn't even technically exist anymore) 37 years ago when monorail was all the rage, and it hasn't worked out the way we would have liked." Are they REALLY going to demand repayment? If we come forward with a smarter transit plan moving forward?
^ Problem is we then went back and got a federal earmark in the 1991 bill that turned the UMTA into the FTA for everything beyond that initial 0.7 mile starter segment, which then took several more years to construct. I'm not sure they're incentivized to just let it go and be clear that you can just abandon things you previously committed their money to.
I don't think we've proven that it can't be a part of a smart transit plan moving forward. I've never understood the argument or position to demo or doing anything that would trigger a repayment.
We've got thousands of more residents living in and around downtown than we had 20 years ago. There are thousands of more coming. We're also investing a significant amount of cash in public realm assets such as the riverfront parks and the Emerald Trail. Real development around Skyway stations and facilities in LaVilla, Pearl Street, Brooklyn and the Southbank is now happening after years of dreams. Land use is finally beginning to align with the transit investment and infrastructure already in place.
Until there's a viable regional transit plan and funds lined up to implement a real alternative, maintain what we have because there is the possibility that the grass isn't greener on the other side of the fence.
^ I agree, which is why I said earlier that I would rather go with the No Build alternative than one that actively devalues the investment in the guideway through reconstruction for the U2C or a cheap copy of the High Line.
The design of the Skyway doesn't lend itself to running to the airport or beaches like some less-informed folks have suggested, but for modest extensions to Brooklyn, San Marco, and (granted this might be foreclosed by the parallel investment in NAVI) the Sports Complex it's a plenty suitable light metro system that would fix well within a broader transit network. But JTA has spent a decade and millions now on "mobility integrators" and "Silicon Valley of the East" instead, and the City for whatever reason has enabled those fantasies instead of trying to actually leverage its own investments in development incentives and infrastructure to demand a real transit plan. And now the state has put suburbanites potentially in the driver's seat on future decisions and forefeit a future focus on more urban connectivity.
It's a real shame that things have gotten to such a point that people like Alex Sifakis are having to be here or on the news at public meetings to beg for something that is at least cheap and (potentially) fast because we've done so little to give developers any transit for Transit Oriented Development in the very center of town.
I just have a feeling that they are going to make whichever decision makes the least sense.
Option 6: Find a retrofit option for existing Skyway BUT find a retrofit option to take it from elevation to ground for future expansion that is less expensive than building elevated sections. This can open up to areas beyond the Core.
A section of Riverside Ave is SIX Lanes. You can easily take two of those lanes to have a ground network to stop at all the retail development/Whole Foods/residential and extend it to RAM, Cummer, 5 Points.
It's low hanging fruit yet we're creating ideas for expensive bumper cars.
Quote from: thelakelander on February 25, 2026, 10:27:28 PM1. Repair of existing cars is maintenance of the system. This should be required, not a future option. There's still a limited self life with this option, so it should be combined with #2.
Quote from: thelakelander on February 26, 2026, 09:27:22 AMWhen we propose this type of stuff without considering feasibility and cost, etc. it simply confuses the public and wastes time. More than a decade ago, the public feedback was to fix up and expand the Skyway, not turn it into a system of autonomous human driven camper vans or being the first at experiementing with a risky form of technology. Lets get back to the basic purpose and move forward.
I agree with both of these sentiments so much. Just fix the dang thing. For the life of me, I cannot understand why our city institutions consistently propose ideas straight out of Willie Wonka's Factory, that nobody asked for. Anecdotally, I tried to be a good Jaxon and take the Skyway to and from work for about a month a few years ago, and it was a disaster. The trains were routinely late, not just by a few minutes, by thirty minutes (or more, who knows, I had to drive). The trains were occasionally out of service. I can't imagine what it is like now. Just get the Skyway running on time, and people will use it. We don't need a Constitutional Convention to figure that out.
Our very own Ennis gets a shout-out in a Jax Business Journal article about the JTA-Skyway.
QuoteSome advocates involved with infrastructure projects in Duval such as urban planner Ennis Davis argued the problem was not the guideway itself but the city's failure to integrate it with surrounding neighborhoods and transit options. Rather than scrap it, they urged Jacksonville to modernize the system and connect it to fixed transit serving Riverside, Brooklyn and San Marco — a vision rooted in walkable, transit-oriented urban living.
Might be behind a paywall sorry.
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2026/02/27/jta-ponders-skyway-future-facing-up-to-100m-risk.html?ana=e_JA_me&j=44395773&senddate=2026-02-27&empos=p4
What I don't understand is we voted on this prior to the NAVI, and if I remember correctly we voted to keep the system and extend into Brooklyn. We got NAVI, so JTA did not listen. We are they doing this again, and why would they listen to anyone this time?
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on February 20, 2026, 11:23:32 PMAnd the hits keep on coming...
QuoteJTA reports nearly $9M deficit in late December; auditors flag revenue and expenditure concerns
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — The Jacksonville Transportation Authority reported a nearly $9 million deficit in late December, according to a newly released council auditors' report.
Action News Jax reporter Yona Gavino has been following JTA's finances and asked the city auditor how this happened.
"This latest audit follows my last report on this in January, showing JTA was nearly $19 million over budget last year," Yona Gavino said.
Last year's overspending by JTA was driven by costs that included $10 million for its Connexion service and $7 million for its autonomous shuttle program. But revenue concerns don't stop there....
....JTA says it will end the year on budget, but auditors point to a potential problem with the math. The agency is banking on sales and gas tax revenue to come in exactly as planned, but initial projections show those collections might fall short, according to the council auditor's report....
....It's not just revenue—expenditures are climbing, too. Auditors say programs like Connexion Plus, JTA's service for the elderly and disabled, were significantly under-budgeted....
....Add in unexpected health insurance hikes for staff and lower fare revenue from a new pilot program, and the deficit grows.
JTA is now working on a budget amendment to address the gap, but the auditor says it's still unclear how they'll fix it.
In a statement, the city auditor said in part: "While JTA projects that they will be on budget for the ½ cent transportation tax and gas taxes, our first quarter projections indicate they may come in lower than budget. However, this is only a portion of potential budgetary issues and it really is too soon to tell from just one quarter."
https://www.wokv.com/news/local/jta-reports-nearly-9m-deficit-late-december-auditors-flag-revenue-expenditure-concerns/CLWUFLXJYVAFFGB5QJSGZGEYSE/
More bad news for JTA, but, hey, the U2C funding appears to be "solid" through thick and then. Comparing to the Russian or Iranian economies under sanctions... How long can U2C hang on? With pay cuts, will rats start abandoning a sinking ship?
QuoteBudget shortfall forces 15% pay cuts for top JTA administrators
In a warning sign for government budgets, the Jacksonville Transportation Authority is cutting salaries for its top executives and senior leaders by 15% because sales tax revenue is projected to come in well below expectations.
A budget amendment approved Feb. 27 by the JTA board made a multimillion dollar course correction that also will eliminate some professional services contracts and administrative positions.
"The adjustments made today, while difficult, are necessary to ensure we end this year with a balanced budget while preserving the transportation services that citizens of Northeast Florida rely on each and every day," JEA CEO Nat Ford said...
...JTA started the 2025-26 fiscal year in October with a $162.4 million operating budget, which was a 2.7% increase from last year, according to the agency's presentation last summer to City Council. The budget projected $99.2 million in sales tax money for its operating costs, the same amount of sales tax collection as the prior year.
The budget amendment approved by the board will cut $14.2 million in expenses from the operating budget. The biggest reason for the reduction is JTA projects it will collect about $11 million less in sales taxes for the fiscal year that runs through the end of September....
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2026/02/27/jta-cuts-salaries-after-sales-tax-collections-drop/88896495007/?tbref=hp
Putting aside other guideway considerations (i.e, height to station platforms, bringing them down to grade,etc), does the specific holon urban, of which JTA starts with an oder of 100, from the git-go dimensionally fit inside the width of the guideway? I always thought that that would essentially be a given consideration....
Interesting video. What caught my eye is that Las Vegas has a monorail transit system that, apparently, is functioning well. Do they know that their monorail cars will disappear at any minute, and must be replaced with ... something.
This is why cities like New York and every major European city flourishes. They have invested in their train system on a super scale. This promotes density and walkable neighborhoods near stations.
I asked chat gpt, what Jacksonville would be like if it had train stations and density of few European cities.
Response
City Model
Density (per sq mi)
Jacksonville Population
London
~14,500
~12.7 million
Paris
~55,000 (very dense core)
~48 million
Barcelona
~41,000
~35.9 million
Munich
~12,000
~10.5 million
Birmingham
~11,000
~9.6 million
Leeds
~4,800
~4.2 million
48 million is just insane. But what could've been with density rather than sprawl.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on March 07, 2026, 11:42:22 AMInteresting video. What caught my eye is that Las Vegas has a monorail transit system that, apparently, is functioning well. Do they know that their monorail cars will disappear at any minute, and must be replaced with ... something.
The Las Vegas Monorail uses newer and much more "standard" monorail technology built by Bombardier (now Alstom), so whenever their trains need replacement it'd be relatively straightforward to upgrade with newer generations of that same train, which are being built now for new systems in the Dominican Republic, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and China.
It was funny when he was waiting for the self-driving Tesla to show up and the driver was in training, so he waited 12 minutes. Made me laugh. So NAVI. He then praises the Monorail.
Mark Woods from the Times-Union backing converting the Skyway into a trail.
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/columns/mark-woods/2026/03/13/jta-wants-public-opinion-on-skyway-options/89083621007/
I respect Mark's opinion, though as I've said before I disagree with the value of spending the money to try and convert the Skyway into a trail. The Skyway is not the heavy rail tracks that the High-Line is built on. The Underline is a promising model, and one that Jacksonville will already be using somewhat when the Emerald Trail is finished along Hogan Street.
Mark makes a valuable point about the question of a federal payback and the rather vague nature in which that's often discussed. I do think it's important to note the reminder that much of the relevant infrastructure was built in the late 1990s, not the 1980s, and that is likely where federal payback is an issue. All the same, it has been over a decade already since the last time we seriously discussed options like we are now. And it seems plenty sensible to ask, especially with options like Alternatives 4 and 5, what that might mean for the city from a payback standpoint.
Another important point is that we don't have any real cost estimates on each of these options. The estimates we have heard on U2C conversion vary wildly, and while once upon a time JTA claimed that the U2C was the most affordable option, that seems unlikely to still be true. The online survey mentions assessing the benefits, tradeoffs, community impacts, and projected costs of each option, but we don't have those yet, and it's unclear if the board is going to seriously evaluate those without bias, especially if executives are relying on the economic impact of the Holon facility as justification. All of those are key factors in making a decision that is actually focused on getting people around Jacksonville as opposed to innovation for the sake of it.
The single largest problem in the northbank right now is the lack of pedestrian foot traffic on the streets. Lack of feet on the streets negatively impacts safety perception, makes retail and restaurant unsustainable, and hinders our ability to retain or attract office tenants.
If the City of Jacksonville & JTA decide to spend $100 million to physically remove and separate people from the streets by way of an elevated trail, I'm done.
We'll have an editorial on this next week.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 13, 2026, 12:35:03 PMWe'll have an editorial on this next week.
Looking forward to it! Wonder if you can also add cost implications of each proposition? What ifs?
I'd be interested to know what if they kept it as is and focus on commuter rail at this point.
Or what would take to pivoted and covert to more of a traditional system - that can use the elevated guideway. For a complete buildout, how would this transform downtown by extending to nearby neighborhoods or even beyond (what it was originally intended to do).
Extending the current people mover system to the burbs doesn't seem feasible with the limited things to do downtown, time it would take to transport residence, and the capacity of each cart. A higher capacity rail system seems can transport more people, it's faster, but heavier so won't be able to use the existing stricter per se.
What would it take get a reliable public transport to take ~15 - 40k people to and from a Jags game and other high occupancy events for example? If we were to host a draft - fans traveling into town or much for further in the future another Super Bowl. I personally hate sitting in traffic at the jags games and concerts in that area, tailgating is fun but getting in and out sucks. Would love to read your thoughts.
Thoughts on costs will most certainly be included. I had the opportunity to attend the March 5th workshop. Costs and constructability) will make some of these options unfeasible. Its a bit premature, in my opinion, to show options like an elevated trail, to the general public. When someone realizes you're basically demolishing the Skyway, then rebuilding a larger elevated structure for a sidewalk for +$100-200 million and will need millions more to maintain annually, general opinion of transportation engineering/planning novices like Mark W's, will change.
Somewhere up-thread it was noted that the Las Vegas elevated people-mover uses Bombardier-Alweg cars and track. Seems conversion to that system would be the most economically viable. Even assuming the guide-beam would have to be replaced.
^Bombardier (now Alstom) themselves appeared to recommend against that nine years ago (https://sustainability.jtafla.com/media/w0rezike/technical-memorandum-iii-skyway-technology-options-evaluation-final-april-2017.pdf), proposing instead to remove the guidebeam entirely and utilize a modernized version of the original VAL technology used on the Skyway, which is also used in Chicago and Taiwan. I'm not sure there's anything about the Skyway that would incline them to think otherwise now.
There really are no good vehicle options for the Skyway. Every one of them bleeds money down a rat hole. There are no prospects that any option will generate real demand, especially in proportion for the investment required. This is why I say just put it out of its misery and, at least for now, abandon it at a minimum, tear it down as a maximum. The trail option provides a middle ground without the huge money sucking operating costs of a vehicle option. It even leaves open the future possibility to implement a vehicle option if one could ever truly be justified.
I have said it here before, and Mark Woods just echoed my past comments, there is next to no chance the City has to pay the Feds back. Politically, it could be cancelled out if properly addressed, regardless of the party in power. JTA is using that to put a knife to the City's throat to keep JTA's wishes alive. When you have a war that costs an estimated $2 billion every day, I don't think the Feds will lose sleep over $100 million, if that is even a real number (still waiting to see support for that).
Quote from: Ken_FSU on March 13, 2026, 12:06:05 PMIf the City of Jacksonville & JTA decide to spend $100 million to physically remove and separate people from the streets by way of an elevated trail, I'm done.
Ken, what do you think the Skyway is attempting to do if vehicles run on it? Remove people from street level! All isolated from their surroundings in an air conditioned bubble. And for multiple times a $100 million. At least a pedestrian trail would have a much better chance of engaging users with Downtown, would likely attract more people to Downtown due to its uniqueness and would cost a fraction to operate per user vs. a vehicle solution.
I would also bet NYC would tell you that the High Line has added countless new visitors to Manhattan, surely adding to its economy. It also serves as a great way for pedestrians to move about without saying a prayer before crossing an intersection, waiting for traffic lights or breathing street level exhaust fumes, all while adding a memorable vibe to an otherwise ordinary walk. I note that there are numerous on/off points so many people are not walking the entire length. If developed in a TOD manner, small businesses could crop up at such entry/exit points for users to enjoy and patronize. Ideally, tying it in to the Emerald Trail would feed a steady stream of traffic over it. All of this would be better than any vehicle solution that will literally amount to "pie in the sky."
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on March 14, 2026, 01:04:11 AMThere really are no good vehicle options for the Skyway. Every one of them bleeds money down a rat hole. There are no prospects that any option will generate real demand, especially in proportion for the investment required. This is why I say just put it out of its misery and, at least for now, abandon it at a minimum, tear it down as a maximum.
There are some options and there is some demand. Just depends on what your baseline number for success is. Whatever it is, any form of fixed transit in Jax will likely blow your baseline if this is your position on mass transit in general.
QuoteThe trail option provides a middle ground without the huge money sucking operating costs of a vehicle option. It even leaves open the future possibility to implement a vehicle option if one could ever truly be justified.
Again, this isn't a cheap option and serves the least amount of people. Its actually significantly higher than retrofitting and repairing the existing rolling stock option that Alex mentioned a few weeks back.
QuoteI have said it here before, and Mark Woods just echoed my past comments, there is next to no chance the City has to pay the Feds back. Politically, it could be cancelled out if properly addressed, regardless of the party in power. JTA is using that to put a knife to the City's throat to keep JTA's wishes alive. When you have a war that costs an estimated $2 billion every day, I don't think the Feds will lose sleep over $100 million, if that is even a real number (still waiting to see support for that).
From my understanding, Jax will actually have to payback money but I also agree that JTA has used this to put a knife to the City's throat to keep their wishes alive. However, my opinion of the situation and how to move forward is significantly different. We shouldn't be tearing it down, so that's not a real threat to me. It basically needs to stay a peoplemover and JTA and Jax need to actually figure out what our regional mass transit future is, figure out how much it will cost to implement, secure funding and actually begin implementing something before moving on abandoning anything. If we take out that river crossing prematurely, the river will become a significant obstacle to cross and likely add another billion to whatever high frequency fixed-transit project we "think" is a good replacement.
QuoteKen, what do you think the Skyway is attempting to do if vehicles run on it? Remove people from street level! All isolated from their surroundings in an air conditioned bubble. And for multiple times a $100 million. At least a pedestrian trail would have a much better chance of engaging users with Downtown, would likely attract more people to Downtown due to its uniqueness and would cost a fraction to operate per user vs. a vehicle solution.
I spend a lot of time in LaVilla. We have a very nice pedestrian trail there called the Emerald Trail. I may walk it again today. As a user, I don't see a bunch of people using it, like they do with similar trails in cities with higher densities (i.e. Atlanta BeltLine). It gets less daily users than the broken down Skyway does now. It would be crazy for Jax to spend +$10 million to redo Hogan Street now for the Emerald Trail, then turn around and rip it up again for a parallel elevated footpath that would cost more than leaving a peoplemover serving a larger population in place.
QuoteI would also bet NYC would tell you that the High Line has added countless new visitors to Manhattan, surely adding to its economy.
Lol we have to acknowledge some real life parameters. The High Line was a freight railroad and Manhattan has a population density of 75,000 residents per square mile. Apples and oranges. This continued comparison with the Skyway would be equivalent of a mass transit advocate claiming we should build a subway because that works in NYC, London and Paris.
(https://photos.moderncities.com/photos/i-dqFVgqZ/0/L/i-dqFVgqZ-L.jpg)
(https://photos.moderncities.com/photos/i-9NJD9Fm/0/L/i-9NJD9Fm-L.jpg)
(https://photos.moderncities.com/photos/i-7JSR6sd/0/L/i-7JSR6sd-L.jpg)
(https://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1313149640_rZxGLV4-M.jpg)
This is a toothpick in comparison with its ability to structurally support the dead load of people, trees and landscape. Unlike the High Line, this would not be adaptive reuse locally. Jax would have to demolish the Skyway and build a new High Line from scratch.
QuoteIdeally, tying it in to the Emerald Trail would feed a steady stream of traffic over it. All of this would be better than any vehicle solution that will literally amount to "pie in the sky."
Unfortunately for High Line type backers, the Skyway serving that role is exactly the definition of pie in the sky. I hate that JTA is taking people down this road for an option that will ultimately never happen. Like the U2C, we'll spend another decade blowing millions on studies, only to end up looking for a way out, when it becomes apparent it won't work as shown on those renderings.
Quote from: MakeDTjaxGre@tAgain on March 13, 2026, 04:58:16 PMI'd be interested to know what if they kept it as is and focus on commuter rail at this point.
There's not really a reasonable option to simply "keep it as is," ten years ago with the original Skyway Modernization Program it was clear we needed a real solution going forward and that's still the case. You still need to at least either figure out overhauling the original trains and replacing the operating system or replacing both. Perhaps to more your point, that doesn't have to mean expanding the system (though we really ought to).
I think it's important right now for everyone to understand that as of now, this administration does not appear to be supporting any new major transit investment that was not already included in the federal pipeline (like the commuter rail projects in South Florida) before 2025. Anything we do before 2029 then either needs to be just planning for future federal funding to be built in the 2030s or done slightly sooner without it.
That's then to say, in terms of commuter rail, that the productive "focus" right now would probably be figuring out what the governance of any system we would build then needs to be in order to actually build anything. JTA as-is seems completely incapable of that, as thelakelander has discussed before, so either it needs to be reformed at the state level to actually have multi-county powers that would make it able to build a rail system, or a new commuter rail agency with those powers needs to be established.
Quote from: MakeDTjaxGre@tAgain on March 13, 2026, 04:58:16 PMOr what would take to pivoted and covert to more of a traditional system - that can use the elevated guideway. For a complete buildout, how would this transform downtown by extending to nearby neighborhoods or even beyond (what it was originally intended to do).
Extending the current people mover system to the burbs doesn't seem feasible with the limited things to do downtown, time it would take to transport residence, and the capacity of each cart. A higher capacity rail system seems can transport more people, it's faster, but heavier so won't be able to use the existing stricter per se.
What would it take get a reliable public transport to take ~15 - 40k people to and from a Jags game and other high occupancy events for example? If we were to host a draft - fans traveling into town or much for further in the future another Super Bowl. I personally hate sitting in traffic at the jags games and concerts in that area, tailgating is fun but getting in and out sucks. Would love to read your thoughts.
I've been of the opinion for a while now that the Skyway needs modernization as an APM with modest expansions to Brooklyn, the Sports Complex, and San Marco, at which point it should be supplemented by a larger rail transit system meant for those faster trips between Downtown, St. Johns Town Center, the Beaches, and the Westside. For a technical solution, I'd look to something akin to the rail systems that exist and are being built in Vancouver, Montreal, Honolulu, and all over Europe and Asia: automated light metro. Something that's faster than the Skyway, not so large like the rail systems in New York or Washington that they're too expensive to build, but because of the automation are relatively cheap to operate at high frequency and thereby with high capacity.
So for example, during a Jaguars game you might have a rail line (like Montreal's REM for reference) that carries about 800 people per train, and then run that every 3 minutes or less, to the point that in an hour you can move 16,000 people from there to the Beaches or Town Center without adding more traffic to the roads; and then a modernized Skyway (like the O'Hare ATS for reference) that carries about 100 people per train every 3 minutes and moves another 2,000 people to Brooklyn or the Southbank in that hour, again without putting all those people in dozens of 9-passenger vans or hundreds of cars that are then sitting on Bay Street or the bridges. In theory, modern automated rail systems like in Europe and Asia can run as frequently as every 90 seconds, which would then double that throughput number.
And then on top of that you might also have a regional rail system to Clay, Nassau, and St. Johns that people are transferring to, as well as buses and BRT and the Emerald Trail. You would definitely want the overall transit network to be capable of stadium traffic, especially if you are building them to the stadiums, but the real value would be in the ability to have regional connectivity that can move thousands of people
without thousands of their cars, at really any time of day or night. That kind of flexibility is where people start getting the freedom to change their habits and not be reliant on driving for every trip, every time like most are now, especially after things like sports games or concerts or parties where they might be inebriated. Obviously that's a big investment, but the status quo is also an enormous investment, and one that as we see now is leaving us vulnerable to things like increased gas prices.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on March 14, 2026, 03:28:24 PMI've been of the opinion for a while now that the Skyway needs modernization as an APM with modest expansions to Brooklyn, the Sports Complex, and San Marco, at which point it should be supplemented by a larger rail transit system meant for those faster trips between Downtown, St. Johns Town Center, the Beaches, and the Westside.
I share this opinion. Similar to Miami's Metromover, this was actually the original vision for the Skyway. We just quit on it. As far as paying back the feds go, I'd make Jax payback money too. The Southbank expansion of the Skyway isn't close to the end of its shelf life. This is a ton of concrete to throw away because we've failed the transit investment. Still too flimsy and narrow for the elevated bike/ped trail dream though.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Neighborhoods/Downtown-LaVilla-Durkeeville-Walk---March-2026/i-BPXDWcv/0/NLFdM3fDNmLfqWw4WrRBSMx788V7cbxXdCzBCvMKL/X2/20260314_093622-X2.jpg)
Common width of elevated Skyway infrastructure.(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Neighborhoods/Downtown-LaVilla-Durkeeville-Walk---March-2026/i-qPhTZsg/0/LBSDRRXjBh4hbf4bH5nJWXKnFZ9fb3HdR6CNVQFwV/X2/20260314_093951-X2.jpg)
Skyway car graveyard at Brooklyn. Panera Bread can be seen across the street. This is an easy expansion that doesn't require extending elevated track.(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Neighborhoods/Downtown-LaVilla-Durkeeville-Walk---March-2026/i-XMF8pVF/0/KGkGKvHHbtH5knMp3DvKWpcMq6KHJjgbQW3hBf7Gw/X2/20260314_093858-X2.jpg)
Skyway cars can be seen at ground level from the doors of Brooklyn's Panera Bread.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Neighborhoods/Downtown-LaVilla-Durkeeville-Walk---March-2026/i-7WrzF4C/0/MwgvM9Gf8d2VDdgdKvD5956nvjMRHrSJVfs7mS3qs/X2/20260314_094134-X2.jpg)
Also right across the street from Whole Foods, which opens on May 21.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Neighborhoods/Downtown-LaVilla-Durkeeville-Walk---March-2026/i-BwLVfPs/0/NLZZzRzbZWPbtMbp5SP4zxGFbNzX7QPwPCzd2KsXj/X2/20260314_124214-X2.jpg)
Publix and an urban retail district building built by Gateway at Rosa Parks Station. After years of going from nowhere to nowhere, there are some viable destinations popping up at the Brooklyn, Rosa Parks and LaVilla legs of the existing route.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Neighborhoods/Downtown-LaVilla-Durkeeville-Walk---March-2026/i-hFFLNrk/0/NWcgjD2vsbthz6ssbq5cmbGs3VBhHTC2q5K8b6jKN/X2/20260314_122855-X2.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Neighborhoods/Downtown-LaVilla-Durkeeville-Walk---March-2026/i-8zMPL2c/0/KP626SMHDRwWMWtjJbKZSfWHbbg9wW5FWSs2qhTcz/X2/20260314_122559-X2.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Neighborhoods/Downtown-LaVilla-Durkeeville-Walk---March-2026/i-2xBdj34/0/MwFwD5PzhLMb7PfHz8dmT8jMBchz6KcTGV49T7K4r/X2/20260314_122239-X2.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Neighborhoods/Downtown-LaVilla-Durkeeville-Walk---March-2026/i-vg8pw3X/0/M9GgZSt3KMHgK9hxdxpdvXZmKHH839x2pXQfQdtPX/X2/20260314_123111-X2.jpg)
I know this doesn't necessarily fit with the skyway, but there are plenty of times when I'm on Aberdeen Street, looking at the remnants of trail transportation, where I'm like.. "how cool it'd be to take a rail car from here to downtown." If there's one thing I've learned in the last 18 years here, it'd make such a viable form of transportation, even in today's world.
^This could be as simple as a hybrid commuter rail line down the CSX A line, where you could ride from a station in Murray Hill's First Block into downtown's Union Station!
Thoughts
Quotefrom marcusnelson
So for example, during a Jaguars game ... a modernized Skyway (like the O'Hare ATS for reference) that carries about 100 people per train every 3 minutes
I checked, the O'Hare ATS people movers runs in 3-car trains of 45' long cars. Could a 45-foot long vehicle make the Bay-Hogan curve? The Acosta Bridge appoaches? Other curves? How long were the old DPM cars?
Something interesting I found when looking at this was this
QuoteWikipedia - (Chicago) Airport Transit System - Fleet
The ATS originally used the French-based VAL technology, which features fully automated, rubber-tired people mover cars that previously saw use on the Jacksonville Skyway until 1989. The system is capable of traveling at speeds of up to 50 mph (80 km/h), and now uses 12 3-car Bombardier Innovia APM 256 trains, which replaced the previous 15 Matra VAL 256 vehicles.
and
QuoteAs of 2023, the previous 15 VAL trains are sitting in a vacant lot on airport property near Irving Park Road and Taft Avenue.
Wonder if we could get a good deal on them?
I don't think they are the old JTA DPM cars. Looking at a Google aerial, they look longer than the cars I remember that used to be here. But, that
was 27 years ago.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/IL-19+%26+Taft+Ave,+Chicago,+IL+60131/@41.954605,-87.9133493,44a,35y,39.48t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x880fb469d99922bd:0xa842bec19a134938!8m2!3d41.9536172!4d-87.9142007!16s%2Fg%2F11gf4c01ck?authuser=0&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDMxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
Here's a Google Streetview image of those cars: https://maps.app.goo.gl/dZLrhHeqSB5Q2hjn9
(https://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-7001-p1150861.JPG)
Here's the full length of the existing Skyway vehicles:
(https://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/plog-content/images/transit/skyway-operations-center/p1150862.JPG)
Hmmm - maybe those are the old JTA DPM cars in storage in Chicago. I think they were retired before having to negotiate the Bay-Hogan curve? I think they were retired when the system was expanded beyond the non-curved Starter Line
The current cars are about 20 feet to an articulation point (assuming those are inches).
Quote from: thelakelander on March 14, 2026, 05:43:04 PM^This could be as simple as a hybrid commuter rail line down the CSX A line, where you could ride from a station in Murray Hill's First Block into downtown's Union Station!
That's even better since Murray Hill is literally right down the road from me. Man, if only.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on March 14, 2026, 07:38:09 PMThoughts
Quotefrom marcusnelson
So for example, during a Jaguars game ... a modernized Skyway (like the O'Hare ATS for reference) that carries about 100 people per train every 3 minutes
I checked, the O'Hare ATS people movers runs in 3-car trains of 45' long cars. Could a 45-foot long vehicle make the Bay-Hogan curve? The Acosta Bridge appoaches? Other curves? How long were the old DPM cars?
Something interesting I found when looking at this was this
QuoteWikipedia - (Chicago) Airport Transit System - Fleet
The ATS originally used the French-based VAL technology, which features fully automated, rubber-tired people mover cars that previously saw use on the Jacksonville Skyway until 1989. The system is capable of traveling at speeds of up to 50 mph (80 km/h), and now uses 12 3-car Bombardier Innovia APM 256 trains, which replaced the previous 15 Matra VAL 256 vehicles.
and
QuoteAs of 2023, the previous 15 VAL trains are sitting in a vacant lot on airport property near Irving Park Road and Taft Avenue.
Wonder if we could get a good deal on them?
I don't think they are the old JTA DPM cars. Looking at a Google aerial, they look longer than the cars I remember that used to be here. But, that was 27 years ago.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/IL-19+%26+Taft+Ave,+Chicago,+IL+60131/@41.954605,-87.9133493,44a,35y,39.48t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x880fb469d99922bd:0xa842bec19a134938!8m2!3d41.9536172!4d-87.9142007!16s%2Fg%2F11gf4c01ck?authuser=0&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDMxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
According to JTA themselves on page 25 here (https://sustainability.jtafla.com/media/w0rezike/technical-memorandum-iii-skyway-technology-options-evaluation-final-april-2017.pdf), the train type used at O'Hare and formerly on the Skyway, the modern iteration of which is the Innovia APM 256, has the same minimum curve radius (100 feet) as the current UMIII trains. It's possible that there are curvature, weight, and grade questions on the newer sections of the Skyway and if so JTA should try to figure those out instead of insisting on a worse solution for the sake of innovation. I believe with the platform length on the Skyway, 2-car APM 256 trains should fit (with some modest platform adjustments for the wider trains), 3-car trains might be too long, either way you are reconstructing the maintenance facility.
I don't think it's a good idea to try and take trains that have already served long careers in Jacksonville and Chicago to make fit, if that is the goal we might as well try to rebuild the trains we already have, that'd be cheaper.
Quote from: deathstar on March 15, 2026, 12:25:03 PMQuote from: thelakelander on March 14, 2026, 05:43:04 PM^This could be as simple as a hybrid commuter rail line down the CSX A line, where you could ride from a station in Murray Hill's First Block into downtown's Union Station!
That's even better since Murray Hill is literally right down the road from me. Man, if only.
There has been some path dependency for a while now with the insistence that the first commuter rail line (if ever built) should be on the FEC to St. Augustine (which granted, is promising in theory) instead of the much lower hanging fruit of working with Clay County to buy the A-Line and build a service along it, especially with the number of stations in Duval alone you could potentially include (Riverside, Murray Hill, FSCJ Kent, Ortega Park, NAS JAX) before even getting into Clay.
Rory pushing for Waymo.
https://www.news4jax.com/news/local/2026/03/19/jacksonville-city-councilman-pushing-to-roll-out-waymo-safety-analysts-have-some-concerns/?utm_source=Jacksonville+Today+Audience&utm_campaign=ebbf6df2c0-FRI03202026&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-ebbf6df2c0-643026430
What laws at the state need to change for Waymo to be in Jax, that they didn't have to change for them to expand to Orlando, Miami and Tampa? Neither Waymo or NAVI are mass transit solutions. However, if we're a market that Waymo thinks aligns with their business model, they'll seek to expand here regardless of Diamond, JTA or NAVI. If Jax doesn't want NAVI, then stop funding it.
Does JTA have the power to block Waymo's entrance into the Jacksonville market? Hoping the answer is a decisive "no."
I don't know the answer to that question and the article doesn't specify why the same state laws that apply to Florida's other cities would not apply to Jax.
Waymo is also basically ride share. Thats not what JTA is attempting to try and do with NAVI, from a transit perspective.
All this sounds is like another person with no professional experience or credibility in the field, trying to force solutions to problems or obstacles that may not exist.
I read the article as saying local laws must be changed, not state laws.
Near the end of the article
QuoteDiamond must secure support from the mayor's office and navigate changes to city laws.
Thats even more confusing. What local laws?
Quote from: thelakelander on March 20, 2026, 05:17:39 PMThats even more confusing. What local laws?
I wondered that, too. OF course, the author of the article can't be bothered to explain.
Yes, Diamond has never needed Deegan's help or approval for anything else he's tried to get passed. So very confused to why all of a sudden he'd need it now.
I also find it hard to believe Jax's leaders would stop Waymo for wanting to expand here (if Waymo really wanted to come), but then turn around and give up hundreds of millions for NAVI and Holon.
I'd lean to this report needing a bit of technical fact checking.
I perceive that local laws have always governed taxi-type services including issuing "medallions." As such, I would expect a Waymo service would come under similar laws as they are "selling" a public service. So, not surprised that there would be some degree of local regulation/licensing/permitting above and beyond any state rules.
I would also expect the biggest resistance to Waymo will come from incumbent ride providers. If JTA opposed Waymo, seeing it as a threat to NAVI/U2C, it would just prove the point made here that NAVI/U2C is an expensive version of Waymo. I would think JTA would then have some heavy explaining as to why they ever endeavored on U2C when we could have Waymo for free or even as a revenue source to the City if it was taxed/licensed for a fee.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on March 20, 2026, 08:00:09 PMI perceive that local laws have always governed taxi-type services including issuing "medallions." As such, I would expect a Waymo service would come under similar laws as they are "selling" a public service. So, not surprised that there would be some degree of local regulation/licensing/permitting above and beyond any state rules.
I imagine that Waymo would say they are more like Uber and Lyft than a traditional taxi service. I think I would agree with them.
QuoteI would also expect the biggest resistance to Waymo will come from incumbent ride providers. If JTA opposed Waymo, seeing it as a threat to NAVI/U2C, it would just prove the point made here that NAVI/U2C is an expensive version of Waymo. I would think JTA would then have some heavy explaining as to why they ever endeavored on U2C when we could have Waymo for free or even as a revenue source to the City if it was taxed/licensed for a fee.
Bingo! First, I don't think the Jax market is attractive to Waymo at this point. That is, unless Waymo wants to get in on the ground floor before any other AV services come.
Second, unless Waymo were coming with 15 to 20 -passenger vans, any complaint by JTA would be an admission that the U2C is nothing more than an expensive and less capable Waymo.
I don't think Waymo has significant interest in being here. We're small beans compared the the markets they are doing business in. Even if they were here, it doesn't really kill the NAVI experiment.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 21, 2026, 05:43:51 AMI don't think Waymo has significant interest in being here. We're small beans compared the the markets they are doing business in.
I think you are selling short Waymo's goal to ultimately be everywhere, sooner than later. Below is an example of Waymo and Uber partnering. So, in just this example, it is possible, wherever Uber is, Waymo could follow.
QuoteAt Uber, we're reimagining how the world moves—a future where autonomous vehicles and human drivers work side by side to help make transportation affordable, sustainable, and accessible for all.
We've partnered with Waymo to bring autonomous ridesharing to Austin and Atlanta, only on the Uber app. In these cities, riders may get matched with a Waymo fully autonomous, all-electric Jaguar I-PACE vehicle. With Waymo's technology and Uber's proven platform, we're ready to bring you the ride of the future, today.
https://www.uber.com/us/en/u/waymo-on-uber/
My main point is, if Waymo really wants to be here, like an Ikea or Bass Pro, they'll come. They don't need Diamond to do their bidding and I'd doubt JTA, the mayor or council would attempt to stand in their way. I'm highly skeptical that there's a local law or plot keeping them away.
They'll likely roll out their expansion plan like many of the others. Hit the markets that work best for their product/service first, then expand to smaller markets that make sense.
Laws and intentions aside, I do hope that Rory's posturing about Waymo draws additional attention to the JTA's frivolous, duplicative spend on AV technology. Disagree slightly that NAVI and Waymo are two different things. From day one, JTA has positioned the long-term future of NAVI as a fleet-based system of AVs that could be hailed via app and clustered/surged for special events. To me, that's essentially rideshare, like Waymo, or Uber, or Lyft. And something we have no business investing limited mass-transit dollars into.
I'm also not sold on Waymo seeing Jacksonville as a great fit in the short-term. We lack the local population density of most Waymo markets, and I assume we run lighter on business travel, large events/conferences, and tourism than markets like Miami, Orlando, or Tampa. I don't get the sense that traditional rideshare like Uber flourishes in Jax, just because of how much dead space there is between rides.
Waymo is ride share. JTA is all over the place with NAVI...it just depends on what the audience in the room is more interested in hearing.
JTA has tried selling NAVI as a Skyway replacement and somehow positioned the huge positive of mass transit dedicated ROW as a negative for the existing system (when this is the greatest asset it has).
However, when they describe NAVI as being "flexible", its still not a taxi or ride share. Its just a bastardized version of a fixed route without visible guideway while also not having the capacity to move masses of transit users on its own. More of a modern version of bus "flexibility " when compared to technologies that require "permanent" fixed routes. Its like a little Frankenstein that is inadequate in any direction you want to go, when compared to tried and true things we already know will work.
Waymo won't stop it anymore than Uber or Lyft, as it can't be inaccurately promoted as a transit solution for Jax. Unfortunately, local common sense and logic will have to reign supreme over politics to drastically shift this beast.
The only thing stopping the U2C is Jacksonville. Lake, the focus of the existing AV movement has been centered around the technology. Once that piece is finalized, these companies will start shifting towards various tailored services. Think of Uber today. They have standard, premium, black, ADA, XL, etc. The same concept will occur with AV providers.
The solution will almost certainly reduce public transit ridership. Pay a little more for your own ride. Pay a little less for a ride share. At some point, the cost of these solutions will be so discriminated (economically) that the benefits of public transit just won't make any sense to the vast majority of riders.
If we think about the number of trips being taken by ev scooters & ev bikes in more major cities, this form of transit has certainly replaced what would have otherwise been a public transit solution. The AV tech giants of the world will essentially do the exact same thing. Solo females would be the most obvious demographic in that idea of tailored solutions. How much more will you pay for a cleaner, safer & more efficient form of transit. That number is understandably different for everyone.
- When it comes to convenience, the U2C loses.
- When it comes to route flexibility, the U2C loses.
- When it comes to service area, the U2C loses.
- When it comes to reliability, JTA loses.
When it comes to capacity, well... I don't think a few more seats is gonna really change a thing. At the end of the day, Waymo/Robotaxi is so obviously a better product, with immensely better teams & solutions, I give it a little bit of time before we see headlines on why Jacksonville doesn't need Waymo. Lol.
^The problem I see is that we like to move goal posts locally. Waymo being here won't kill the U2C. It will continue to limp right along, burning millions in local tax money, until Jax decides to take it out back and put it out of its misery.
I can't argue with JaxDeveloper's crystal ball on how the proliferation of for-profit ride-share service - both AV and with drivers - will decrease fixed-route and flexible public transit. My concern is for those who cannot afford ride-share rates? Transit providers, in general, and JTA in particular, will be faced with declining patronage, but patrons who truly need the service.
Is the future of "public transportation" providing vouchers so the "transit dependent" can use ride-share services? Which brings about a whole new bureaucracy of means testing, distribution (even if electronic, there's a cost), and auditing.
Ridehailing has already contributed to a drop in transit ridership pretty much everywhere. How much more of a shift autonomous ridehailing will cause is an open question that'll be based on how much cheaper or prolific they can actually be.
They certainly could end up being cheaper, but we've yet to see what the real market actually looks like. Uber and Lyft based their growth on keeping prices (and wages) artificially low for years. That was obviously unsustainable in the long term and they've since jacked up the prices to show a profit (while still screwing the drivers, not to mention all their lobbying and monopolistic practices). Now we have Waymo and Cyber Taxi, and they're starting to get down to Uber's prices... but they're also artificially keeping their prices down (not to mention their lobbying, monopolistic practices, and throwing drivers to the curb entirely). It'll be years until we know what the true market for all this is although the effects on public transit ridership will be felt long before we get that picture.
Also, last of this round of Skyway meetings is happening at the Doubletree on the Southbank tomorrow, Thursday, March 26 at 11 am and 5 pm. Come on out and make your voice heard:
https://www.jtafla.com/about-us/public-hearings-and-notices/skyway-rehabilitation-project-development-and-environment-study-public-meeting-march-26-2026/
I agree with the moving goal posts Lake.
Charles, every single form of technology has had a similar price curve. Nothing different here. There is no ability for a human driver service to compete with a product that has no direct labor cost and that's why companies are willing to lose billions to disrupt the human transportation market.
The situation that will eventually present itself is painfully obvious for those who are aware of how tech markets work. Right now we are in the Early Adapter phase, once it hits mass, the transit industry will be shifted forever. The only form of transit that I can't see being heavily affected are heavy transit options. Things like rail where an open road competitor will never be able to realistically compete due to external factors that ultimately lead to heavy transit being much much more cost effective & efficient. Price curves in the Tech industry are relentless & there are no other industries than even come close.
Inflation since 2005 is ~67%.
Entry Level HDTV in 2005: $3,000+
Entry Level HDTV in 2025: $200
Entry Level Personal Computer in 2005: $400 - $600
Entry Level Personal Computer in 2025: $300 - $500 (with more than 1000x the computing power)
We are going to see the exact same outcome with AV's. These companies are starting with regular street cars with 'kits' on them. Eventually they will all be modular. How many modular cars would you expect Waymo to be able to produce with $500,000? Something tells me way more than 1. The real price will be below what Uber/Lyft charge now - that's why they are motivated to be in the AV race. Sure it'll take years, but any solution JTA proposes will be more costly, slower, and with a team with zero track record.
Let's stick to the basics & stop with this local AV crap. Fix the existing Skyway, do the Brooklyn Extension, and if there's money leftover, find a reasonable extension. The existing Bus system is crap & that only further supports integration of other solutions.
Quote from: Jax_Developer on March 25, 2026, 06:06:58 PMThe existing Bus system is crap & that only further supports integration of other solutions.
Good points Jax D. Only thing I take some issue with is the last sentence. Bus system is crap because JTA is crap. I have ridden buses or trolleys in other cities and they provided excellent and reliable service. JTA is focused on the fantasy U2C and Skyway at the expense of the bus system, in my opinion.
Fox 30/47 did an expose awhile back on how poorly JTA's bus metrics are compared to national averages proving JTA is the problem, not buses. Buses, properly operated, are flexible in use and service, cost effective, quickly adaptable and expandable to changing demands and carry decent numbers of passengers. Nothing else compares.
As I have noted before, JTA has given MASS transit in this City a giant black eye between poor bus operations, the Skyway and, now, U2C.
How much of JTA's budget woes relate to the Skyway and U2C/NAVI operating losses? Could possibly balance the budget right there ;D !
QuoteBudget woes force 31 layoffs at Jacksonville Transportation Authority
Key Points:
The Jacksonville Transportation Authority laid off 31 administrative employees due to budget corrections.
Senior leadership, including the CEO, took a 15% salary cut to help balance the budget.
The budget issues stem primarily from an $11 million shortfall in projected sales tax revenue.
Transit services for riders, including buses and the St. Johns River Ferry, will not be reduced.
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2026/03/26/jacksonville-transportation-authority-lays-off-31-employees/89340713007/?tbref=hp
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on March 25, 2026, 10:45:19 PMQuote from: Jax_Developer on March 25, 2026, 06:06:58 PMThe existing Bus system is crap & that only further supports integration of other solutions.
Good points Jax D. Only thing I take some issue with is the last sentence. Bus system is crap because JTA is crap. I have ridden buses or trolleys in other cities and they provided excellent and reliable service. JTA is focused on the fantasy U2C and Skyway at the expense of the bus system, in my opinion.
Fox 30/47 did an expose awhile back on how poorly JTA's bus metrics are compared to national averages proving JTA is the problem, not buses. Buses, properly operated, are flexible in use and service, cost effective, quickly adaptable and expandable to changing demands and carry decent numbers of passengers. Nothing else compares.
As I have noted before, JTA has given MASS transit in this City a giant black eye between poor bus operations, the Skyway and, now, U2C.
I fully agree. Just pointing out the current situation.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on March 27, 2026, 12:11:05 AMHow much of JTA's budget woes relate to the Skyway and U2C/NAVI operating losses? Could possibly balance the budget right there ;D !
QuoteBudget woes force 31 layoffs at Jacksonville Transportation Authority
Key Points:
The Jacksonville Transportation Authority laid off 31 administrative employees due to budget corrections.
Senior leadership, including the CEO, took a 15% salary cut to help balance the budget.
The budget issues stem primarily from an $11 million shortfall in projected sales tax revenue.
Transit services for riders, including buses and the St. Johns River Ferry, will not be reduced.
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2026/03/26/jacksonville-transportation-authority-lays-off-31-employees/89340713007/?tbref=hp
In addition, 88 JTA senior employees are being furloughed.
Sad to say it, but between poor metrics, poor budgeting, poor PR, and the gigantic waste that is the u2c, it wouldn't surprise me to see a leadership shake up at JTA.
I think it's past time for one. 13 years is already a very long time for one top executive at a relatively large transit agency, and despite some successes (the network redesign, building out the First Coast Flyer, taking over the ferry, completing the JRTC, some TOD efforts) it's clear that they badly misidentified the macro trends of the transit industry, especially by insisting on a 9-figure gamble on self-driving that is already failing to attract riders, spur transit-oriented development, or demonstrate relevant competition with the private sector's solutions, all while letting their primary business of bus service slide in quality.
With a new board already in place, now would be a great time for a fresh face that's ready to get back to basics on mass transit, look for long-term efficiencies, and build the kinds of partnerships that can make JTA more regionally relevant and potentially more self-reliant.
Nick Howland is hounding JAA over their budget and strategic plans. He would be better off joining Diamond and Peluso in hounding JTA over the same matters. JAA appears to be our best run agency at present. I would add JPA but I feel they overpromised on the economic and traffic benefits of dredging (which I also believe put both an ecological and storm disaster in play).
JTA, JEA, JHA... so many scandals and/or controversies year in and year out. Feel bad for the rank and file employees. And, the taxpayers...
I was at the final meeting for the Skyway proposals. I made sure to read up on the little depth they had for the proposals and the pitch video, which essentially got me to skip past the fluff.
I explained my exasperation as a transplant of 5 years to use the Skyway for special events, when it should be running extended service at those times.
(Separate peeve was how my family and I took the bus to Jax Beach for the July 4 fireworks. We were stranded there because JTA skipped the stop because of the fireworks, but never posted any service notice.)
I asked if there was an easement on the Bay Street waterfront properties that could be used for NAVI and/or the Skyway. I don't think they understood what I was asking, which was to operate either or both transit options beside Bay Street and not on or over it. That response makes me think there is not.
Since moving here I have really tried to take advantage of the public assets, and there always seems to be some shortsighted limitation getting in the way. The expansion to Brooklyn, the Sports Complex, and (although a logistical challenge) the San Marco downtown area of course are no-brainers. I don't know if the Skyway can handle an elevation change to get under the I-95 roadway and possibly have a grade-level station at Riverside Park, thus connecting 5 Points to the network. Basically, getting feet into foot-traffic neighborhoods with less cars.
I was happy that the representative that took time to discuss it with me was not attempting to push one idea over another, and was receptive to my feedback. She did say that the online comment system will be live for another 10 days (that was 2 days ago), so you have a deadline if you haven't gotten your comments in yet.
https://publicinput.com/phase2skyway (https://publicinput.com/phase2skyway)
I hope they fixed the online survey. It was pretty screwy when I took it. It did not let me rank the alternatives in an order according to my priorities, even though thats what the question asked the participants to do. I will be waiting to see what the survey results say. I suspect the answers to that particular question will be flawed.
Out of curiosity, in addition to San Marco, can the King Street be extended to go down Phillips with a stop at the ice rink around Emerson and back over the Hart for a true circular loop? Is this feasible?
Sometimes it feels like "this" side of the old Jacksonville city limits gets overlooked - Spring Park and St Nicholas. Along Phillips is a slow process but getting redeveloped. I compare it to Mayport was and now.
In addition, all talks for creating a urban pathway Emerald Trail goes to other neighborhoods but none extended there - while there is much history and a mini shopping center that could thrive given the opportunity.
Last night someone lost their life on a bicycle - very tragic. Seems like not much focus is being put into improving that area for a more walkable pedestrian/bicycle friendly neighborhood that links up with other parts of the Emerald Trail is all I'm saying. Even driving on Arlington Rd, you see improvements.
^ In theory, with enough money you can do anything. In practice, that's about an 8-mile loop and the Skyway's mode choice (automated people mover) is probably too slow to make that ideal, on top of the cost of either making
major modifications to the Hart Bridge, replacing it altogether, or adding a separate bridge to accommodate trains.
I think it makes sense to extend the Skyway about a mile to the south (to about River Oaks Rd), after which a different mode becomes preferable for longer-distance travel. That's already a pretty old idea to my understanding.
That area has been getting a lot of investment lately via the various I-95 widenings, I think the question is of the desire to shift that kind of investment into developing the trail and transit infrastructure. Hendricks Ave, Philips Highway, and along the FEC (perhaps under an added Skyway guideway a'la the Underline in Miami are all potential ideas, but they need the density to make up for them. The state has also gotten much more intransigent about lane reductions to accommodate things like protected bike lanes or dedicated transit lanes, and you're always going to have people who show up to public meetings claiming they're not needed. All challenges to be addressed.
Separately, I noticed in The Jaxson article this week (https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/rethinking-the-skyway-whats-next-for-dt-transit/) the mention that:
QuoteNotably, an automated people mover manufacturer has expressed interest in refurbishing the full 10-car fleet and potentially adding a third car per train. This upgrade alone could increase capacity from 56 to 84 passengers per train, a roughly 50% gain.
Do we know who this is? Are they actually capable of this for a reasonable price?
Quote from: thelakelander on March 27, 2026, 09:23:40 PMI hope they fixed the online survey. It was pretty screwy when I took it. It did not let me rank the alternatives in an order according to my priorities, even though thats what the question asked the participants to do. I will be waiting to see what the survey results say. I suspect the answers to that particular question will be flawed.
It worked fine for me this week
Quote from: marcuscnelson on March 28, 2026, 01:57:45 PM^ In theory, with enough money you can do anything. In practice, that's about an 8-mile loop and the Skyway's mode choice (automated people mover) is probably too slow to make that ideal, on top of the cost of either making major modifications to the Hart Bridge, replacing it altogether, or adding a separate bridge to accommodate trains.
I think it makes sense to extend the Skyway about a mile to the south (to about River Oaks Rd), after which a different mode becomes preferable for longer-distance travel. That's already a pretty old idea to my understanding.
That area has been getting a lot of investment lately via the various I-95 widenings, I think the question is of the desire to shift that kind of investment into developing the trail and transit infrastructure. Hendricks Ave, Philips Highway, and along the FEC (perhaps under an added Skyway guideway a'la the Underline in Miami are all potential ideas, but they need the density to make up for them. The state has also gotten much more intransigent about lane reductions to accommodate things like protected bike lanes or dedicated transit lanes, and you're always going to have people who show up to public meetings claiming they're not needed. All challenges to be addressed.
Separately, I noticed in The Jaxson article this week (https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/rethinking-the-skyway-whats-next-for-dt-transit/) the mention that:
QuoteNotably, an automated people mover manufacturer has expressed interest in refurbishing the full 10-car fleet and potentially adding a third car per train. This upgrade alone could increase capacity from 56 to 84 passengers per train, a roughly 50% gain.
Do we know who this is? Are they actually capable of this for a reasonable price?
Schwager Davis Inc. (SDI). Somewhere around $50 million, extending the system's life by another 10-15 years.
Interesting, so between overhauling the trains to have a full 10-train fleet again, replacing the train control system, repairing the guideway (given likely deferred maintenance), probably updating the O&M facility, and getting a station open in Brooklyn, how much might that be? I believe this initial PD&E is already $6 million or so, so that already leaves about $234 million (plus the $7 million fleet budget that is in theory for Holon shuttles).
(https://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/plog-content/images/transit/skyway-operations-center/p1150862.JPG)
Also, I see from the image above and previous efforts (https://sustainability.jtafla.com/media/w0rezike/technical-memorandum-iii-skyway-technology-options-evaluation-final-april-2017.pdf) that there's been talk about extending the trains by one car before. However, the station platforms are at least 100 feet long, potentially closer to 120 feet. Is there any technical or engineering reason the trains could not be made longer still for added capacity, such as the below? Is that a maintenance facility issue?
(https://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/umiii1.jpg)
If enough can be saved in how the overhaul is done, perhaps those funds can then shift towards things like operating on late nights and weekends, or looking to expand the system further (to Ford on Bay or Atlantic Blvd, perhaps). Or reviving the original Brooklyn Station plan:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Transit/Brooklyn-Skyway-Extension/i-9jfHWjx/0/M74D2jMkgBDgfKqd4Dc4GqqJHvrbN9FgWNJNsHgwZ/X2/Skyway_2014_TIGER_Map_Series_Page_4-X2.jpg)
Quote from: marcuscnelson on March 29, 2026, 03:33:26 PMInteresting, so between overhauling the trains to have a full 10-train fleet again, replacing the train control system, repairing the guideway (given likely deferred maintenance), probably updating the O&M facility, and getting a station open in Brooklyn, how much might that be? I believe this initial PD&E is already $6 million or so, so that already leaves about $234 million (plus the $7 million fleet budget that is in theory for Holon shuttles).
My understanding is that number would cover everything. Be on the safe side and round it off to $100 million. Its a no brainer, if COJ/JTA are willing to accept that keeping it a peoplemover is the best solution.
QuoteIf enough can be saved in how the overhaul is done, perhaps those funds can then shift towards things like operating on late nights and weekends, or looking to expand the system further (to Ford on Bay or Atlantic Blvd, perhaps).
If we can be honest with ourselves, we have viable solutions that can be implemented and more options to move forward with than we tend to believe. The largest question for me is will JTA and COJ's leaders embrace this line of thinking, even if it is something that makes more sense than the product we've been trying to make work over the last decade.
QuoteOr reviving the original Brooklyn Station plan:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Transit/Brooklyn-Skyway-Extension/i-9jfHWjx/0/M74D2jMkgBDgfKqd4Dc4GqqJHvrbN9FgWNJNsHgwZ/X2/Skyway_2014_TIGER_Map_Series_Page_4-X2.jpg)
This plan would need to be modified. The road now extends under the bridge for trucks to reach Whole Foods.