Senate Considering $10B for Highway Removal

[Peter Griffin]

I love all these kooky pie-in-the sky futuristic idealist ideas about transportation. They make me laugh a little bit.

I can always sense the slight bits of jealousy when people complain about SUV's and people driving pickup trucks taking up too much space, reminds me of the horrible perception Hummers had back in the '08 crash because they just guzzled so much gas, as if other vehicles weren't just as gas guzzling.

[jaxlongtimer]

^ Nothing futuristic or pie-in-the-sky about what I suggested.  We could implement it with today's technology.  Autonomous and electric vehicles are on the verge of becoming the standard.  The only thing left will be the sizing of the vehicles and management of their travels.  The former will require cultural change and the latter comes down to sophisticated logistics software that, no doubt, people in the "intelligent transportation" world are already working on. 

A day is a-comin' when we can no longer find room for - or are willing to pay the price for - the current and inefficient way of transportation.  Just as gas price spikes have quickly removed large vehicles from the roads in past cycles, there will be costs in the future that will drive the desire to ultimately look at these "futuristic" solutions.  The only question is "How long?"

[Peter Griffin]

^ If you say so... It's clearly not viable at a profitable cost since Uber abandoned its AV testing, and JEA seems to be stepping away from it's AV commitments (thank goodness)

Maybe in the future, but what happens when the internet goes out? Or when you don't have enough AmazonPoints to order a PrimeCar? Or if you make a social media post that barrs you from accessing your subscription services? Ever tried to order an Uber from the airport at 2am? "NO CARS AVAILABLE". Spooky situation to be in, I've been there firsthand.

You might want your ideas to be implemented, but not everybody does. I certainly don't.

[Charles Hunter]

^ If you say so... It's clearly not viable at a profitable cost since Uber abandoned its AV testing, and JEA seems to be stepping away from it's AV commitments (thank goodness)

Maybe in the future, but what happens when the internet goes out? Or when you don't have enough AmazonPoints to order a PrimeCar? Or if you make a social media post that barrs you from accessing your subscription services? Ever tried to order an Uber from the airport at 2am? "NO CARS AVAILABLE". Spooky situation to be in, I've been there firsthand.

You might want your ideas to be implemented, but not everybody does. I certainly don't.

[Good-natured SNARK ALERT!!!]
There were plenty of Ubers available, they just didn't want to pick YOU up!

[marcuscnelson]

Yeah... I'm with Petah on this one. This sounds like what was going on in the JTA boardroom when they decided it'd be a great idea to replace the Skyway with autonomous vehicles.

If Apple and Amazon and Google and Tesla and Uber want to play around with that concept, and hopefully put something usable together (for every segment of society, not just affluent tech people)? Good for them, they have billions of dollars to gain. But I think most people here ("here" being this site and this city) wouldn't see public expenditure on that as a responsible use of taxpayer funds. Suggesting to dismantle part of the Interstate in Florida at all is a pretty big jump by itself, not to mention replacing that capacity with public transportation. Trying to make the public wrap their heads around some kind of gee-whiz autonomous vehicle network that is supposed to be comparable to the Jetsons? No public administrator worth their salt would blow the political capital on even saying it out loud.

^ Nothing futuristic or pie-in-the-sky about what I suggested.  We could implement it with today's technology.  Autonomous and electric vehicles are on the verge of becoming the standard.  The only thing left will be the sizing of the vehicles and management of their travels.  The former will require cultural change and the latter comes down to sophisticated logistics software that, no doubt, people in the "intelligent transportation" world are already working on. 

A day is a-comin' when we can no longer find room for - or are willing to pay the price for - the current and inefficient way of transportation.  Just as gas price spikes have quickly removed large vehicles from the roads in past cycles, there will be costs in the future that will drive the desire to ultimately look at these "futuristic" solutions.  The only question is "How long?"

(this appeared after I started typing the first part)

I think it's very important I remind you of the fact that JTA, who has spent years trumpeting the autonomous vehicle as the future of mass transit, is now quietly overhauling its existing monorail after realizing it will need to stick around for at least another decade.

Even if a fully functional autonomous vehicle were to just appear tomorrow, there are still millions of personal vehicles out there, that we're not going to just dump in the garbage. One of the major challenges of the rush to transition to EVs happening right now is that a new one is going to have you out about $40k, and you need to have a charging station either at your house or close enough to work to be practical. Working class people can't afford that. Suggesting that we're just going to replace all transit with an AV network, especially in marginalized communities full of people who the cars can't actually see?

I wouldn't mind a serious conversation about not requiring your own car to survive in this city, and making our infrastructure more useful, practical, and equitable. But insisting that the solution can be found in Silicon Valley is a fool's game.

[Transman]

I worked on some of the new highway designs in the Austin area.  FDOT plan, which of course could change is to stop at 10 lanes, 5 each way.  The FDOT realizes that you can't build your way out of traffic.  All you have to do is look at all of the lanes built in Atlanta to see that it doesn't work.  Managed lanes work but are too expensive and Jacksonville doesn't have the level of traffic to warrant them for the per-mile cost versus free lanes.  I think doing 10 lanes in each direction is insane and a huge waste of resources.

All of the toll roads built in the Tulsa Oklahoma area have bike trails next to them either behind the sound walls or at the edge of the R/W with trees and landscaping buffering them from the roadway.  Safely away from the traffic.  Google Earth is your friend check it out.  They have hundreds of miles of bike trails to take you anywhere you want to go.  You just can't keep building that is not a solution.  The next step is BRT then light rail.

[marcuscnelson]

It's possible you're working with different info than I am, but everything here and here suggests more than 10 lanes on substantial portions. While FDOT might realize you can't build out of traffic, do the politicians funding it? Do the developers and voters pressuring the politicians?

I do agree that continually expanding highways isn't a solution, the question is gathering the public will to implement actual solutions. JTA a decade and a half ago basically proposed building new elevated bus highways about the same cost as an outright metro system, until it was whittled down into the First Coast Flyer. Commuter rail has been on hold since the Great Recession. "Life is a highway" has been true for some time here, and it'll take a lot of will and organization to change hearts and minds, even with the help of programs like what this thread is about.

[jaxlongtimer]

LOL. All the naysayers here with their heads in the sand while the world passes us by.

It's reminds me about what people said about solar, wind power and electric cars (e.g. GM, Ford, Chrysler, etc.) a few decades ago.  There was a time when some very smart people also didn't see a future in cell phones (e.g. AT&T), PC's (e.g. IBM) and digital photography (e.g. Kodak).  Or, a few centuries ago, when the "know-it'alls" denied that the earth was round and revolved around the sun.

I would hardly use JTA as an example of anything cutting edge in transit (despite there pronouncements to the contrary).  And, Uber gave up, in part, because the Google guy they hired to lead their AV effort stole Google's technology, Google sued and won big, and Uber fired the guy - all adding up to them holding a somewhat empty bag that cost them dearly.  Ask Texans this week about their road networks, the 100 car pile up that killed 6 people, the thousands of accidents on ice and their "bullet proof" electric grid that has failed miserably.  Every system has vulnerabilities - none are fully fail-safe but much can be done to minimize the risks.  In the end, it's all about the trade offs.

Look, I am not saying this is for today or tomorrow. I am talking about an indetrminate point in the future.   

Per the image below, when you have this many people on bikes that you have "parking garages" dedicated to them, then there are more progressive populations that would find my proposal more doable than the folks here in Jacksonville.  The fact is Jacksonville is a follower, not a leader, so I don't expect, whatever the future holds, to see this City as an early adopter.

By the way, many on Wall Street value Google's Waymo at tens, maybe even hundreds, of billions of dollars.  And, now, Apple (recent market value: $2+ trillion) is joining Tesla (recent market value: $750 to $800+ billion) in pushing an electric and autonomous car.  These companies are not investing tens of billions in what they think are just pipe dreams.  They represent some of the most forward thinking companies in the world and have regularly proven they are ahead of the rest of us in preparing for the future.

I see it as inevitable that transit will be revolutionized into something different than what we have today.  It's only a question of what it will be.

If you think my currently feasible vision is off base, read the articles from CES in January about the push for flying cars led by no-less than Hyundai and soon to be all-electric vehicle GM and tell me how way-out my vision is.

'Flying cars' still aren't ready for takeoff, but automakers keep climbing aboard

Flying cars (and jetpacks) have fascinated the public and press for decades and are a surefire way to get crowds and coverage at an event. At this month's virtual CES, GM scored big buzz (and a significant stock-price bounce) from its numerous announcements, one of which was unveiling a flying-car concept that carries Cadillac styling cues.

Like most modern so-called "flying cars," GM's concept isn't really designed for roads or being driven at all, but is an autonomous, single-seat, electric vertical-takeoff-and-landing vehicle (eVTOL). Dubbed Vertile and just a rendering at this point, GM says it will be powered by a 90-kWh battery and is meant for short-distance travel, reaching a torpid top speed of 56 mph....

https://www.autoblog.com/2021/01/26/ces-automakers-flying-cars-evtol-aircraft/

Amsterdam: