Is U2C serious? Help me make it make sense....

[Ocklawaha]

Yeah, but a streetcar wouldn’t come with a cool rack for your golf clubs!

[jaxlongtimer]

In unrelated news, one thing I've been curious about for a little while now is that on JTA's website with U2C Documentation, they include a letter from the FTA regarding the remaining FTA obligation in Skyway vehicles, including a $1.6 million payback requirement to relieve federal interest in the trains. However, we've never seen the version of this letter about the Skyway's infrastructure, the cost of which I recall being a major part of the argument for why the U2C was the only feasible option to continue the infrastructure through the end of its useful life, which therefore meant we had to spend $246 million (or more, now) converting it into the road for autonomous vehicles. There were at one point claims by JTA that demolishing the Skyway could require anything between 40 to 50 million to be repaid to the FTA to the entire original federal contribution to the construction of the Skyway. But for the life of me, I don't believe we've ever seen anything from the FTA to back that up. I wonder why that is.

This.

I, and other, have repeatedly made the point that the supposed repayment to the Feds for killing the Skyway is (1) a red herring and totally overplayed, (2) could likely be forgiven if we asked nicely, especially since the Skyway was always an "experimental"/prototype/demonstration project or (3) would be cheaper to pay than to continue operating and investing in the damn thing.

JTA conveniently uses this excuse to justify soaking up ever increasing dollars from gullible City officials so they can pay JTA executives and consultants handsomely for managing a "major" project.  I suggest asking anyone on the City Council if they have personally reviewed the payback scheme JTA alludes to.  Perhaps the hapless Council should pay big bucks to a consultant to handle that for them like the stadium deal  .

I was curious enough to finally put in a public records request about this. It took JTA about a week and a half, but they have produced two letters from the FTA dated October 16, 2015 and April 20, 2021. Unfortunately, they might actually be (mostly) right here. Here are the letters.

Now my read of this is that the full federal payback would amount to about $100 million (although I'm not sure if that would have to then account for inflation since the 90s), so whether that is still cheaper is questionable, but it does appear that there is at least some indication that the FTA told JTA they would require repayment.

Marcus, great and potentially explosive info that confirms my suspicions all along about JTA playing the public and City officials with this red herring.  No wonder JTA wasn't more forthcoming sharing them.

These letters disclose serious issues that should be investigated by the Jaxson or Nate Monroe! 

In the earlier 2015 letter (interestingly, only dated with the time stamp, not in the letterhead by the writer) the FTA states:

...FTA is entitled to its share of the remaining Federal interest based on straight line depreciation or fair market value of the withdrawn Project equipment and supplies."

Using the letter's date of inception in 1985, and taking straight line depreciation over 50 years, the remaining value in 2023 would be no more than $24 million (12 years remaining at $2 million/year).  If we use fair market value (FMV), given the system's equipment is no longer supported, the FMV is likely close to worthless.  So, JTA is way overstating the exit costs based on this letter (as I have always suspected, and that is without any negotiations or political intervention to bring it down further, if needed).

The second letter in 2021 reads almost identically to the 2015 letter with a strange change in wording on this same point. 

“the recipient agrees that it may be required to return the entire amount of the federal assistance
expended on that property to FTA.”

It now says JTA "MAY" (not "shall" or "must") have to return the "ENTIRE" amount of the Federal assistance.  This possibility makes absolutely no sense and one would think JTA would challenge this based on that PLUS having the earlier letter that was much more favorable.  And why did JTA even ask for the second letter when the first should have sufficed? 

This makes me think JTA is in possible cahoots with FTA in wanting to keep investing in the Skyway for its own reasons.  JTA enjoys touting that it has to pay a huge sum back to the Feds to justify not abandoning the Skyway.  I call out this as BS and these letters back me up!

Let me know if I am missing anything but based on these letters I don't see otherwise.

Hope someone can jump on this right away as, if I am correct in my reading of these letters, and absent any other documents to the contrary, this could be fatal news for the AV project!

If substantiated, the loss by JTA in credibility alone should be fatal, in and of itself, for ever investing another penny in the Skyway and heads should roll.

[thelakelander]

The Skyway is falling apart. I don't mind them maintaining the system and replacing the decrepit rolling stock. That's a totally different animal then the U2C nonsense. However, that's not really happening right now.

[marcuscnelson]

New article in Mass Transit Magazine about the need for autonomous vehicles to be used for more practical services that fit its niche and not rushed to implementation for the sake of innovation. Includes a quote from Daisy Wall at May Mobility, who also spoke at JTA's Autonomous Vehicle Day event.

https://www.masstransitmag.com/alt-mobility/autonomous-vehicles/news/53068288/us-use-case-should-outweigh-innovation-with-av-shuttles

Re: the letters, it seems the first letter lines up with the Skyway Modernization Program studies, where the final option emerged as "Keep, Modernize, Expand" while the second is from just before the gas tax increase vote. I've said before that while obviously JTA chased a bad idea, the FTA has a remarkable degree of culpability in endorsing and funding bad ideas, between the original people mover program, BRT over rail, and now autonomous vehicles.

I think it's not quite too late to change course and do something more practical but it'd require heroic leadership from the city that I'm not convinced is going to come in time.

[thelakelander]

^It's not too late because we've done nothing but blow hot air and light public money on fire.  All of these technologies, including autonomous vehicles, have their niche and place in the transit space. However, only in Jax are we attempting to take a first-last mile solution and force it into being something it isn't......mass transit.

[fsu813]

New article in Mass Transit Magazine about the need for autonomous vehicles to be used for more practical services that fit its niche and not rushed to implementation for the sake of innovation. Includes a quote from Daisy Wall at May Mobility, who also spoke at JTA's Autonomous Vehicle Day event.

https://www.masstransitmag.com/alt-mobility/autonomous-vehicles/news/53068288/us-use-case-should-outweigh-innovation-with-av-shuttles

Re: the letters, it seems the first letter lines up with the Skyway Modernization Program studies, where the final option emerged as "Keep, Modernize, Expand" while the second is from just before the gas tax increase vote. I've said before that while obviously JTA chased a bad idea, the FTA has a remarkable degree of culpability in endorsing and funding bad ideas, between the original people mover program, BRT over rail, and now autonomous vehicles.

I think it's not quite too late to change course and do something more practical but it'd require heroic leadership from the city that I'm not convinced is going to come in time.

"Transit agencies should run transit — not use limited resources to test technology with unproven utility"

You don't say?

[jaxlongtimer]

Re: the letters, it seems the first letter lines up with the Skyway Modernization Program studies, where the final option emerged as "Keep, Modernize, Expand" while the second is from just before the gas tax increase vote. I've said before that while obviously JTA chased a bad idea, the FTA has a remarkable degree of culpability in endorsing and funding bad ideas, between the original people mover program, BRT over rail, and now autonomous vehicles.

The Jaxson is sitting on a possible great story here that could bring lots of "appreciation" if followed up.  If the Jaxson or WJCT News department don't have the resources to follow up, please refer this discussion to Nate Monroe to investigate further.

There is no better opportunity to "derail" the AV's than demonstrating the "game playing"/manipulation over the fate of the Skyway with the Feds.  These letters make the case and need more daylight.

Marcus, counting on you to send to Monroe if nothing else.  I can't do for various reasons.

[marcuscnelson]

Got another email today for the "Autonomous Mobility Disruptors" webinar.

The Skyway is falling apart. I don't mind them maintaining the system and replacing the decrepit rolling stock. That's a totally different animal then the U2C nonsense. However, that's not really happening right now.

Even if it cost, say, $100 million to fix up the Skyway, replace the vehicles, make the small extension to Brooklyn and provide for high density zoning around stations, plus another $20 million on top of the BSIC to make Bay Street usable with normal buses (again, even if you stick a Perrone Robotics kit onto them) that'd still leave things far less than the current ~$300+ million for JTA's proposed conversion and Bay Street expansion. As you said, that doesn't appear set to happen, which is an embarrassing lack of leadership on the part of numerous officials. But we know that.

^It's not too late because we've done nothing but blow hot air and light public money on fire.  All of these technologies, including autonomous vehicles, have their niche and place in the transit space. However, only in Jax are we attempting to take a first-last mile solution and force it into being something it isn't......mass transit.

I agree, but I'm saying that in a practical sense once work is underway on Bay Street and the conversion is undergoing design work, if there's no demonstrated interest by the city in demanding a more practical transit system from JTA that probably won't change. It should, but I wouldn't expect urgency on the city's part to change course.

"Transit agencies should run transit — not use limited resources to test technology with unproven utility"

You don't say?

Been saying that for a while, but we've seen quite publicly what JTA and Nat Ford feel their roles are.

Marcus, counting on you to send to Monroe if nothing else.  I can't do for various reasons.

For your sake, I've forwarded the letters to Nate. Whether he wants to do anything with them is his prerogative.

[jaxlongtimer]

Marcus, counting on you to send to Monroe if nothing else.  I can't do for various reasons.

For your sake, I've forwarded the letters to Nate. Whether he wants to do anything with them is his prerogative.

Thanks, Marcus.  Hopefully, Nate sees them for what they are and/or reads my exchange with you about the letters.  Surely, should be fodder for a great series of articles focused on the Skyway and AV's, possibly the next great "authority" scandal.

[Jax_Developer]

Probably the wrong thread but can someone clarify this to me?

(https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2023/aug/08/duval-school-board-hesitant-on-bids-for-hq-relocation-from-downtown-riverfront/)

It says:

"JTA and private developer Preston Hollow is offering to build JTA a new facility near the Jacksonville Regional Transportation Center in LaVilla."

I vaguely remember when this was put up for a public offering.. To confirm, this is stating JTA, our transit authority, is one of the applicants with Preston Hollow? What am I missing here? Seems wildly inappropriate to have a transit authority bidding to do joint development?? I feel like everything but actual transit is happening rn with JTA.

[marcuscnelson]

Probably best served in this thread.

But yes, JTA is partnering with Preston Hollow to propose developing a new DCPS building next to the JRTC. Preston Hollow would then buy the old DCPS site and incorporate it into the RiversEdge development.

I think it's fine for JTA to be part of getting their real estate developed, especially if it could then help fund the transit operations, but I don't think developing new office space is a good use of those resources. There's kind of too much office space as it stands right now. More residential, perhaps with a smaller office or retail element if demand called for it would make more sense here.

Especially if Florida Blue is suggesting they don't want to hold the property anyway, if there's a move at all it sounds like they could just lease their space and then sell the old office to Preston Hollow.

[thelakelander]

It may be time to reconsider the decision to relocate from the existing property they own? Other then some not wanting them to be on riverfront land, how does moving help or hurt DCPS itself?

On the surface, it seems like staying where they are at may be the cheapest option (when compared to the two deals on the table). Heck, they have a huge piece of property with a large surface lot. Have they considered constructing a new building on the south side of the property and then partnering or selling off the riverfront side of the property for infill development? I hope they aren't moving for the sake of moving.

Maybe they should keep their land and partner with Preston Hollow on a redevelopment where DCPS becomes an anchor for the redevelopment?

[jaxlongtimer]

It may be time to reconsider the decision to relocate from the existing property they own? Other then some not wanting them to be on riverfront land, how does moving help or hurt DCPS itself?

On the surface, it seems like staying where they are at may be the cheapest option (when compared to the two deals on the table). Heck, they have a huge piece of property with a large surface lot. Have they considered constructing a new building on the south side of the property and then partnering or selling off the riverfront side of the property for infill development? I hope they aren't moving for the sake of moving.

Maybe they should keep their land and partner with Preston Hollow on a redevelopment where DCPS becomes an anchor for the redevelopment?

Lake, this is the correct answer.  I recently engaged with a DCPS employee connected to this process that said staying at the current site, even with some renovations, was far cheaper than moving anywhere else.  The only reason to move is for the political optics of saying they moved off the river.  If the current HQ's was a few hundred feet back from the river, I doubt anyone would be talking about moving.  Like the AV's, this is another project that needs to die.

[jaxlongtimer]

If only San Franciscans and their version of JTA had JTA to show them the way in safely implementing autonomous vehicles.  And, for only $400 million, not billions, in just a few short years, not decades.  On behalf of Ron DeSantis, just another example of how Floridians are once again so much smarter than those dummies in California  .

Cruise and Waymo are inching closer to gaining unfettered access to San Francisco’s roadways, but residents fear that the driverless cars — which have caused hundreds of traffic incidents since their initial launch — still aren’t ready to be fully unleashed. An Aug. 7 meeting held by the California Public Utilities Commission to “address safety issues” regarding autonomous vehicles attracted over 200 listeners, and scores of Bay Area residents lambasted the cars in public comments, describing them as menacing, “creepy” and an existential threat to drivers and pedestrians.

In June 2022, the California Public Utilities Commission authorized Cruise to deploy 30 autonomous vehicles for paying passengers’ use in designated regions in the city. Waymo cars hit Bay Area streets (without charging fares) just five months later. Despite the two multibillion-dollar companies’ ongoing efforts to expand their ride-hailing services, some city officials have strongly protested, with the executive director of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, the executive director of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority and the director of the city’s planning department arguing this spring that Cruise’s AVs have caused so many traffic violations that similar errors “would preclude any teenager from getting a California Driver’s License.”

That statement followed a letter from the same officials in January that noted that there had been a surge of 911 calls about Cruise cars’ “erratic” driving in the previous seven months. Incident reports show that AVs, which one San Francisco resident previously described to SFGATE as “incompetent ‘Futurama’-type robots,” have interfered with firefighters on the job multiple times. According to the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, they’ve also obstructed Muni routes and unexpectedly stopped in the middle of the street, endangering human drivers. As a result, activists have resorted to placing orange traffic cones on the vehicles' hoods in a last-ditch effort to disable them.

The Monday CPUC meeting featured a presentation that showed there have been nearly 600 reported traffic incidents involving AVs – and that officials suspect that many more have flown under the radar. In the same document, officials wrote that neither Cruise or Waymo have disclosed the number of times their vehicles have unexpectedly stopped and intruded on the city’s first responders, which has only deepened their distrust.

https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/san-franciscans-beg-california-stop-cruise-waymo-18286073.php 

[simms3]

If only San Franciscans and their version of JTA had JTA to show them the way in safely implementing autonomous vehicles.  And, for only $400 million, not billions, in just a few short years, not decades.  On behalf of Ron DeSantis, just another example of how Floridians are once again so much smarter than those dummies in California  .

Cruise and Waymo are inching closer to gaining unfettered access to San Francisco’s roadways, but residents fear that the driverless cars — which have caused hundreds of traffic incidents since their initial launch — still aren’t ready to be fully unleashed. An Aug. 7 meeting held by the California Public Utilities Commission to “address safety issues” regarding autonomous vehicles attracted over 200 listeners, and scores of Bay Area residents lambasted the cars in public comments, describing them as menacing, “creepy” and an existential threat to drivers and pedestrians.

In June 2022, the California Public Utilities Commission authorized Cruise to deploy 30 autonomous vehicles for paying passengers’ use in designated regions in the city. Waymo cars hit Bay Area streets (without charging fares) just five months later. Despite the two multibillion-dollar companies’ ongoing efforts to expand their ride-hailing services, some city officials have strongly protested, with the executive director of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, the executive director of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority and the director of the city’s planning department arguing this spring that Cruise’s AVs have caused so many traffic violations that similar errors “would preclude any teenager from getting a California Driver’s License.”

That statement followed a letter from the same officials in January that noted that there had been a surge of 911 calls about Cruise cars’ “erratic” driving in the previous seven months. Incident reports show that AVs, which one San Francisco resident previously described to SFGATE as “incompetent ‘Futurama’-type robots,” have interfered with firefighters on the job multiple times. According to the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, they’ve also obstructed Muni routes and unexpectedly stopped in the middle of the street, endangering human drivers. As a result, activists have resorted to placing orange traffic cones on the vehicles' hoods in a last-ditch effort to disable them.

The Monday CPUC meeting featured a presentation that showed there have been nearly 600 reported traffic incidents involving AVs – and that officials suspect that many more have flown under the radar. In the same document, officials wrote that neither Cruise or Waymo have disclosed the number of times their vehicles have unexpectedly stopped and intruded on the city’s first responders, which has only deepened their distrust.

https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/san-franciscans-beg-california-stop-cruise-waymo-18286073.php 

HAHA.  I'll still take Ron any day over Newsom, who I literally fled from.  But...the point still stands, why in the hek do we think we can implement something on the cheap (relatively), with far less time to develop it, and before anybody else, and think it will actually be a success.

I'll also play the political card, given our area, and say that a lot of people here, perhaps even working on this project, voiced early skepticism at the COVID mRNA vaccines, due to the extremely fast and untested rollout of that program (and lo and behold they were right).  I happened to agree with them on this matter.

I just wish they would take the same philosophical approach with this program - let CA be the dummies.  Let other cities toy around with something like this first.

I can attest that Waymo, Cruise, Uber AV and others were driving the streets of SF for quite a while before I even left towards the end of 2019, so another 4 years later and they're still at this stage.  I highly doubt the workforce here is going to out-develop and out-smart the Bay Area workforce likewise focused on autonomous vehicle development for city streets.