The Skyway isn't something we can just put in a vacuum though, is it?
In the grand scheme of things, what makes it any different than BRT, local bus, intercity rail, etc., in terms of them needing to be coordinated into a regional system. Without a doubt, all modes should converge at the JRTC, which places them in downtown. From the JRTC, the Skyway will play its role as being a downtown circulator, like its siblings in Miami and Detroit or the Lymmo in Orlando. Like Metrorail, Tri-Rail, Brightline, Amtrak, etc. in South Florida and Sunrail, Lynx, Amtrak, Brightline, MCO airport peoplemover, etc. in Orlando, other forms of transit will need to invested in at some point in time to better serve the neighborhoods and suburbs in NE Florida best suited for them. I believe, we're making the mistake of trying to make the U2C/Skyway or whatever also be LRT, streetcar, BRT and other types of systems it was never intended to be.
Any conversation about broader regional transit that might go to or near downtown is going to start with asking about how the Skyway fits into it, because a transit system is supposed to work together, not be silos that happen to intersect sometimes.
This is where JTA has failed the community. This conversation doesn't need to start with the Skyway. It should start with a broader understanding of how different types of public transit systems are best suited to serve certain type of densities, infrastructure, etc. and how this plays into our region's landscape and existing infrastructure network. Parameters on what things can and can't do, need to set early on to keep things from becoming a circus. When it comes to the Skyway modernization effort, it started out okay but the hell or highwater push with AVs and the U2C have turned everything into a carnival.
And that in part seems to have kept us going in circles for some time. If ultimately we like Option 1 better and feel it's possible to conclude that effort with a clear and demonstrated intent to focus on a new regional system that's fine, but it doesn't seem out of the question to consider the perception issue.
We can't blow $500 million on perception. Facts need to be introduced for good guidance and sound decision making with public dollars. Right now, the opposite is happening. Some city officials are literally under the impression that this mess is going to reach neighborhoods as far out as Argyle in five years. Completely insane stuff.
Right, it makes zero sense for people to have to sit on a 35mph monorail along roads with 45+mph speed limits (and probably faster drivers) trundling towards the edges of town. That's a waste of everyone's time and money. But it is worth reevaluating whether it still makes sense for a place like Jacksonville to invest (or really reinvest) in a downtown circulator at all, as opposed to plenty of other cities that have instead chosen systems designed to go through downtown and to neighborhoods further beyond it.
This mixes and forces the Skyway into something it isn't. We should be exploring a ton of transit options and modes, but it doesn't necessarily mean that we have to force the Skyway to play a role it was never intended to be designed for.
There are only three cities (four if we count Morgantown, WV) that have urban people movers. We're the only one that can't figure out how to maintain, operate it and coordinate it with supportive land use policies and downtown development patterns. Yet, the others have already given us the path of how to proceed. We're just continuing to ignore it.
Detroit is a decent example. They didn't tear down the people mover or extend it to New Center to connect with Amtrak. Instead they used a complimentary modern streetcar line to serve that role. Miami didn't destroy the metromover. Instead, they've invested in several other technologies that play their particular role in the region and all of them converge with metromover at Government Center station in downtown. They also got pretty aggressive with form-based code and TOD 20 years ago. As a result, Metromover has become a well used part of their overall transit center.
I'm of the belief that we need to first reevaluate our own inconsistent decision making before having discussions of tearing down infrastructure assets and paying money back because we can't get our own act together.
In 2015 it might have made enough sense to say that we should Keep, Modernize, & Expand, but is that still true 8 years later? Would it still be true by the time we actually got around to putting new trains up there? If we go on to try and build a light rail or light metro or whatever else, how many times are we going to keep coming up against the question of how it's supposed to work with the concept of a downtown circulator as already laid out?
Detroit and Miami both give us the path to proceed and follow. Have we ever asked ourselves why they haven't blown up their systems for LRT, streetcar, heavy rail, AVs, etc.?
[/quote]
To use your household example, I would look at it like this: We don't have a freezer, but our rent-to-own mini fridge is breaking down. The mini fridge manufacturer is out of business, but the store's rent-to-own policy means you have to pay them the remaining value of the fridge (maybe). Our spouse wants to insist that we try this new "floating quantum cool-pod" that their coworker keeps talking about. But the options I've presented are that we either get a new mini-fridge and try to then buy a standalone freezer to stack on top of it, or we throw out the thing, deal with the policy and try to buy a normal refrigerator.
All of these point to replacing old rolling stock (the mini fridge) with new rolling stock (a normal refrigerator). They aren't proposals to replace the kitchen with a cold storage warehouse.