And what is so great about autonomous vehicles? Elimination of jobs for the segment of workers who could drive a bus?
Well, Nat Ford did say we'd be turning bus drivers into drone operators, so there's that…
Jokes aside, here are some of the pros discussed in 2017 when AVs became the "preferred technology":
This vehicle technology option is expected to have a shorter service life so it does not require a long term commitment to the technology. Once past the initial infrastructure conversion, there would be a high level of flexibility to change vehicles at a later time. This option offers the highest level of flexibility and cost effectiveness of extensions. Autonomous vehicle technology is rapidly developing and there is significant private sector investment in it. By using a larger fleet of smaller vehicles that can be operated individually or in a train set, this option offers the highest level of operational flexibility. It also provides the option of operating at street level. While current application is limited, autonomous vehicle technology is expected to advance in a timeframe that would allow the U2C to have the most current, instead of obsolete, technology.
Autonomous Vehicle (AV) technology without a guidebeam or rail is the preferred technology option that enables the JTA to achieve the desired system attributes of the U2C. The operational flexibility provides high capacity and high frequency service. Extensions are more cost effective and can be at the street level or elevated. This flexibility is critical for the system to reach existing, emerging and planned residential, employment and retail centers. As the technology develops, the system would have the capacity to operate on-demand and even potentially offer point-to-point service where the infrastructure permits.
You might quickly notice that basically all of those benefits rely on promises of hypothetical capability. Hypothetical capability that in four years of expensive private sector R&D haven't really emerged yet.
The full project cost was $184 million. Not all of it was paid for by the FTA. So it's still peanuts in comparison to spending 1/2 billion on the U2C. With that said, we could do nothing with the Skyway and still not have to pay the FTA a dime back. So an alternative option is to take LOGT money and build a new transit project 100% independent of the Skyway, other than having a single station connect into the JRTC. As long as the new project doesn't duplicate the existing path of the Skyway, we'd have a fixed transit system that includes 2.5 miles of elevated Skyway connecting various areas of DT.
This option would be exactly what the Metrorail in Miami and QLine Streetcar in Detroit do for the Skyway siblings, the Metromover and Detroit Peoplemover......feed these downtown peoplemovers with riders coming from areas outside of downtown.
I suppose the problem that remains is that the current system does still need to have
something done with it. Seeing as there is ~$250 million left (assuming it isn't better used elsewhere), I'd spend ~$20-30 million overhauling the existing system to last until the FTA term runs out and then the $200 million on a local 25% share of proven technology for something like the QLine that actually goes places like EWC and other destinations where people are likely to find it a useful alternative, vs just being for downtowners. That or direct it to getting commuter rail and the terminal off the ground vs just "further in planning". Or split some of it off and use it for increasing bus frequencies, that's also possible.
I think there's some theoretical promise in a Lake Nona-style AV network elsewhere in town, so the automation team could keep working on that with the remaining money until the technology is actually ready. If everyone there didn't already have golf carts, something like the U2C could probably be useful in Nocatee.
