JTA meetings on the future of the Skyway

Tacachale · 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).

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.

Charles Hunter · February 14, 2026, 08:19:13 PM

Well, I can see they are really going out in the community. [/sarcasm]

thelakelander · February 14, 2026, 09:15:55 PM

^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.

jaxlongtimer · 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?

thelakelander · February 14, 2026, 10:26:16 PM

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.

Tacachale · February 15, 2026, 12:11:58 AM

jcjohnpaint · February 15, 2026, 11:13:16 AM

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?

Charles Hunter · February 15, 2026, 01:36:55 PM

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?

Alex Sifakis · 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.

Charles Hunter · February 15, 2026, 03:34:07 PM

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.

Ken_FSU · February 15, 2026, 04:15:54 PM

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.

Tacachale · February 15, 2026, 05:41:35 PM

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.

Charles Hunter · February 15, 2026, 05:53:45 PM

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.

Charles Hunter · February 15, 2026, 05:57:16 PM

Has anyone (Andy?) researched the availability of new monorail cars? It would be helpful to go into the JTA meetings with facts.

jaxlongtimer · 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?