JTA meetings on the future of the Skyway

[Tacachale]

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).

[Jax_Developer]

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.

[Des]

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.

[jaxoNOLE]

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.

[Jankelope]

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)

[thelakelander]

From someone with years of real professional transportation planning experience across the country, here's my two cents:

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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

[thelakelander]

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.

[Charles Hunter]

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!

[thelakelander]

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.

[jaxlongtimer]

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.

[Alex Sifakis]

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.

[jaxlongtimer]

^ 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.

[Charles Hunter]

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.

[jaxlongtimer]

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?

[thelakelander]

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.