Time to cut bait on JTA's driverless Skyway replacement

[Live_Oak]

Would love to see a cost and capacity analysis of the EXACT same proposed urban circulator system, only instead of using slow driverless AVs, it used a fleet of traditional shuttles/vans with salaried drivers and 5 minute headways.

Even if you had to pay like $2 million a year in driver salary, the overall cost and capacity would still have to be magnitudes cheaper.

Remember, this system will require attendants for the foreseeable future. And these require more staff per passenger than a regular bus. So you still have to pay that cost, but instead you'd go slower and pay for more salaries.

At this point, JTA needs to have a JEA-like fallout. Charges need to be seriously considered.

1). The TECHNOLOGY DOES NOT EXIST in 2018, and still in 2023. They claim it “does” (LOL).
2). The program has literally done zero. There is not a single deliverable from this project. Zero. The pilot program has had how much taxpayer $ flooded to it?
3). Is it “legal” to allow a public authority to employ individuals who are not qualified? (Not a single person in leadership at JTA with a real tech background let alone EV’s).
4). All those studies to connected firms to Ford.
5). Absolutely zero progression on TOD’s which was one of the original “goals” JTA had for the U2C.
6). Unable to procure a f’ing VEHICLE to utilize in more than 5 years (no, I dont care that companies went under in a VC space lololol not an excuse either)

Again, this is our transit authority.. lmfao. Take the BRT out of the equation, what has been actually done the last decade?

Y'know I recall jaxlongtimer saying a lot of this a while ago. Interesting to see perhaps a growing consensus.

Where are they going to get these attendants?

JTA can’t hire enough bus drivers right now to run the system. Why do you think the BRTs have been stuck at 30 minute frequencies?

[iMarvin]

If they really want an autonomous system then go with driverless trains. Spending so much on a system that has so many unanswered questions, with quite literally zero successful implementations anywhere in the world, makes no sense.

[CityLife]

I think a lot of people that would normally express strong opinions about projects/issues in Jax have to hold back a bit due to conflicts or connections, so I really appreciate KenFSU absolutely letting it rip from time to time.

This has probably been discussed on here before, so forgive me, but has there been any talk about JTA running a pilot program along the route to you know, see how much demand there is to ride something like this? Obviously employing clown cars the whole way would be more convenient and efficient than having to make a connection. Not to mention in a dream world it will lead to TOD and increased future demand, but is there any appetite for people to currently ride this route?

West Palm Beach is currently doing a pilot program (Ride WPB) in Downtown that offers free rides from a variety of vehicle types and connects to Brightline and Tri-Rail and hits a lot of key areas. Plenty of other cities do things like this before making major capital expenditures. Not exactly an out there concept...

https://ridewpb.com/

With the amount of money being thrown around in Jax, why not do a pilot and see how well the routes work? We all know the answer to that question.

[Charles Hunter]

I think a lot of people that would normally express strong opinions about projects/issues in Jax have to hold back a bit due to conflicts or connections, so I really appreciate KenFSU absolutely letting it rip from time to time.

This has probably been discussed on here before, so forgive me, but has there been any talk about JTA running a pilot program along the route to you know, see how much demand there is to ride something like this? Obviously employing clown cars the whole way would be more convenient and efficient than having to make a connection. Not to mention in a dream world it will lead to TOD and increased future demand, but is there any appetite for people to currently ride this route?

West Palm Beach is currently doing a pilot program (Ride WPB) in Downtown that offers free rides from a variety of vehicle types and connects to Brightline and Tri-Rail and hits a lot of key areas. Plenty of other cities do things like this before making major capital expenditures. Not exactly an out there concept...

https://ridewpb.com/

With the amount of money being thrown around in Jax, why not do a pilot and see how well the routes work? We all know the answer to that question.

The JTA-AV response would be,
"Until the Four Seasons and the Stadium of the Future and Lot J 3.1 are up and running, you don't have a good test of what the huge demand will be."


At one time, JTA did run test routes before building a capital-intensive system. Back in the 1970s the had 3 Downtown Shuttle bus routes to demonstrate demand for a downtown circulator before building the People Mover (prior name of Skyway).

Oh, and iMarvin, we already have "driverless trains" - the existing Skyway.

[marcuscnelson]

I think a lot of people that would normally express strong opinions about projects/issues in Jax have to hold back a bit due to conflicts or connections, so I really appreciate KenFSU absolutely letting it rip from time to time.

This has probably been discussed on here before, so forgive me, but has there been any talk about JTA running a pilot program along the route to you know, see how much demand there is to ride something like this? Obviously employing clown cars the whole way would be more convenient and efficient than having to make a connection. Not to mention in a dream world it will lead to TOD and increased future demand, but is there any appetite for people to currently ride this route?

West Palm Beach is currently doing a pilot program (Ride WPB) in Downtown that offers free rides from a variety of vehicle types and connects to Brightline and Tri-Rail and hits a lot of key areas. Plenty of other cities do things like this before making major capital expenditures. Not exactly an out there concept...

https://ridewpb.com/

With the amount of money being thrown around in Jax, why not do a pilot and see how well the routes work? We all know the answer to that question.

I've said this before, but it's been obvious for a while (hell, even this new op-ed does it) that this project hasn't been about providing a transit service for the neighborhood or region since 2016. The U2C isn't a transit program, it's an innovation program, and JTA themselves will tell you that. The problem has been that leadership both at JTA and the city don't give a damn about transit (because they're mostly well-to-do bankers and lawyers and nonprofit leaders who all drive anyway), so they're sellable on the concept espoused in the op-ed that an innovation project will somehow attract global attention and economic development.

[thelakelander]

I think a lot of people that would normally express strong opinions about projects/issues in Jax have to hold back a bit due to conflicts or connections, so I really appreciate KenFSU absolutely letting it rip from time to time.

This has probably been discussed on here before, so forgive me, but has there been any talk about JTA running a pilot program along the route to you know, see how much demand there is to ride something like this? Obviously employing clown cars the whole way would be more convenient and efficient than having to make a connection. Not to mention in a dream world it will lead to TOD and increased future demand, but is there any appetite for people to currently ride this route?

West Palm Beach is currently doing a pilot program (Ride WPB) in Downtown that offers free rides from a variety of vehicle types and connects to Brightline and Tri-Rail and hits a lot of key areas. Plenty of other cities do things like this before making major capital expenditures. Not exactly an out there concept...

https://ridewpb.com/

With the amount of money being thrown around in Jax, why not do a pilot and see how well the routes work? We all know the answer to that question.

I recommended this to Brad Thoburn and Richard Clark very early in their dive into AVs several years ago. I recommended they run a pilot down Park Street between the Skyway in LaVilla and Five Points. It could have operated like an extension of the Skyway, while connecting Brooklyn and Five Points to downtown. I expected that this would likely never happen because Jax would find out real quick what the problems are and that this is no mass transit solution. However, doing that also means that the gravy train of burning tax dollars on this stuff, ends up with a quick death.

[Jax_Developer]

Ironically, the state of Florida funded a pretty significant study to prove the benefits of driverless train technology available in 2021. When you consider the reduced cost of that solution (aka less labor), combined with the capacity... absolute no brainer IMO. The Skyway platform just needs to be brought to street level and expanded from the existing footprint to the Stadium, Springfield, Riverside and San Marco East Plaza. Let's just call it 10 miles. At $50M a mile, we magically get to $500M.

Yeah, I think I'd rather have that than an extremely inconvenient (& worse) uber.

[marcuscnelson]

The technical issue from the beginning with that has always been that you can’t have a grade crossing of an automated guideway technology with something that isn’t. For traditional steel rail-based systems that’s a technical issue, but for the current Skyway technology that’s a physical issue, because the beam physically cannot be crossed at grade level. As Lake has said before, the San Marco extension is probably feasible if one can get the beam under I-95 and then over or next to the FEC where it can then travel at grade to a station, but anything else would run into problems.

Given what we’ve seen and learned the last 7 years and the funding we know is available or could be made available it seems there are two broad courses of action that could be taken at this point if we choose to abort the U2C program in its current form:

• Modernize the existing Skyway with a standard technology and reexamine the preferred expansion alternatives. The ideal option would be figuring out as fast as possible how to convert the system to Miami’s standards to enable a larger joint order for vehicles and systems.  Once that’s underway, decide independently whether to expand it as an elevated system for big things like the stadium district or perhaps as more of a Lymmo-style shuttle for things like the hospitals. Places in Asia have managed to run these as effectively full metro systems before so maybe the goal should move in that direction long-term. This fits the original mandate of “Keep, Modernize, Expand.”
• Commit to running the Skyway until it physically cannot go on for operational or safety reasons, but in the meantime develop the plans to tear it down, payback any remaining federal obligations if required (but lobby via our legislative delegation for that to be reconsidered in light of the DPM program overall), and plan a new mass transit system without the burden of the Skyway legacy (but perhaps reuses its alignment if ideal).

[Jax_Developer]

The technical issue from the beginning with that has always been that you can’t have a grade crossing of an automated guideway technology with something that isn’t. For traditional steel rail-based systems that’s a technical issue, but for the current Skyway technology that’s a physical issue, because the beam physically cannot be crossed at grade level. As Lake has said before, the San Marco extension is probably feasible if one can get the beam under I-95 and then over or next to the FEC where it can then travel at grade to a station, but anything else would run into problems.

Given what we’ve seen and learned the last 7 years and the funding we know is available or could be made available it seems there are two broad courses of action that could be taken at this point if we choose to abort the U2C program in its current form:

• Modernize the existing Skyway with a standard technology and reexamine the preferred expansion alternatives. The ideal option would be figuring out as fast as possible how to convert the system to Miami’s standards to enable a larger joint order for vehicles and systems.  Once that’s underway, decide independently whether to expand it as an elevated system for big things like the stadium district or perhaps as more of a Lymmo-style shuttle for things like the hospitals. Places in Asia have managed to run these as effectively full metro systems before so maybe the goal should move in that direction long-term. This fits the original mandate of “Keep, Modernize, Expand.”
• Commit to running the Skyway until it physically cannot go on for operational or safety reasons, but in the meantime develop the plans to tear it down, payback any remaining federal obligations if required (but lobby via our legislative delegation for that to be reconsidered in light of the DPM program overall), and plan a new mass transit system without the burden of the Skyway legacy (but perhaps reuses its alignment if ideal).

But at $50M per mile, can't the current guideway be reused somehow? Is it really that undersized? I feel like tearing it down doesn't make sense, rather investing in making it usable. There are parts of town where an extension could hug existing freeways. The riverside corridor is the most unlikely given they aren't doing Brooklyn but even Brooklyn would be an improvement. 

[iMarvin]

Oh, and iMarvin, we already have "driverless trains" - the existing Skyway.

I meant a more standard technology. Something that would be able to be expanded outside of the urban core (or at the very least, outside of Riverside, San Marco, and Springfield). The current Skyway technology is too slow and small to ever be anything more than a glorified people mover. That's fine, I guess, but there's a better way to spend $500 million. Couple that with a potential federal + state match and there's enough money to build something very substantial.

[marcuscnelson]

But at $50M per mile, can't the current guideway be reused somehow? Is it really that undersized? I feel like tearing it down doesn't make sense, rather investing in making it usable. There are parts of town where an extension could hug existing freeways. The riverside corridor is the most unlikely given they aren't doing Brooklyn but even Brooklyn would be an improvement. 

Probably not if you're trying to build a practical rail transit system for a region of our size. The central issues would be both the weight the existing infrastructure can tolerate and the capacity in terms of station length for trains in the long run. One of the largest uses of this neighborhood of APM technology is Taipei's Wenhu line, and that only runs about 15 and a half miles on the edge of the region compared to the major trunk lines (Wenhu is the brown line on this map):



All the major lines aside from brown use faster, heavier, steel-wheel rolling stock. For Jacksonville, if we're willing to make the investment both financially and from a zoning standpoint it would probably make more sense for how far apart things are (and yes, our lower density) to meet in about the middle with something akin to Vancouver's Skytrain (which uses the same technology as the Detroit People Mover, ironically) or Honolulu's Skyline, which also uses the same technology as the Circular (yellow) line in Taipei. We probably don't need anything like what New York or Washington or Atlanta have, but the Skyway's current technology and alignment limit it to around 35 miles per hour, and that's not going to competitive for trips to the further reaches of town.

[jaxlongtimer]

The technical issue from the beginning with that has always been that you can’t have a grade crossing of an automated guideway technology with something that isn’t. For traditional steel rail-based systems that’s a technical issue, but for the current Skyway technology that’s a physical issue, because the beam physically cannot be crossed at grade level. As Lake has said before, the San Marco extension is probably feasible if one can get the beam under I-95 and then over or next to the FEC where it can then travel at grade to a station, but anything else would run into problems.

Given what we’ve seen and learned the last 7 years and the funding we know is available or could be made available it seems there are two broad courses of action that could be taken at this point if we choose to abort the U2C program in its current form:

• Modernize the existing Skyway with a standard technology and reexamine the preferred expansion alternatives. The ideal option would be figuring out as fast as possible how to convert the system to Miami’s standards to enable a larger joint order for vehicles and systems.  Once that’s underway, decide independently whether to expand it as an elevated system for big things like the stadium district or perhaps as more of a Lymmo-style shuttle for things like the hospitals. Places in Asia have managed to run these as effectively full metro systems before so maybe the goal should move in that direction long-term. This fits the original mandate of “Keep, Modernize, Expand.”
• Commit to running the Skyway until it physically cannot go on for operational or safety reasons, but in the meantime develop the plans to tear it down, payback any remaining federal obligations if required (but lobby via our legislative delegation for that to be reconsidered in light of the DPM program overall), and plan a new mass transit system without the burden of the Skyway legacy (but perhaps reuses its alignment if ideal).

But at $50M per mile, can't the current guideway be reused somehow? Is it really that undersized? I feel like tearing it down doesn't make sense, rather investing in making it usable. There are parts of town where an extension could hug existing freeways. The riverside corridor is the most unlikely given they aren't doing Brooklyn but even Brooklyn would be an improvement.

There is only one realistic solution which is the second option Marcus identifies... abandon the Skyway for good.  Anything to keep it going is good money after bad.  No private sector decision maker would keep this thing alive.  Mark my words, one day the Skyway will be gone.  It is just a matter of how long it takes for someone with common sense and authority to finally kill it.  In the meantime, officials are just blowing taxpayer dollars... and the AV's is Exhibit A of this tendency.

It isn't just the dollars wasted... it is what you get in return.  A slow moving, low volume, street killing, expensive to build and operate and ugly to look at project....  when new money could get us something so much more cost effective.  Compute the cost per passenger mile and level of service and you cannot justify the Skyway vs. almost any alternative.

[iMarvin]

The technical issue from the beginning with that has always been that you can’t have a grade crossing of an automated guideway technology with something that isn’t. For traditional steel rail-based systems that’s a technical issue, but for the current Skyway technology that’s a physical issue, because the beam physically cannot be crossed at grade level. As Lake has said before, the San Marco extension is probably feasible if one can get the beam under I-95 and then over or next to the FEC where it can then travel at grade to a station, but anything else would run into problems.

Given what we’ve seen and learned the last 7 years and the funding we know is available or could be made available it seems there are two broad courses of action that could be taken at this point if we choose to abort the U2C program in its current form:

• Modernize the existing Skyway with a standard technology and reexamine the preferred expansion alternatives. The ideal option would be figuring out as fast as possible how to convert the system to Miami’s standards to enable a larger joint order for vehicles and systems.  Once that’s underway, decide independently whether to expand it as an elevated system for big things like the stadium district or perhaps as more of a Lymmo-style shuttle for things like the hospitals. Places in Asia have managed to run these as effectively full metro systems before so maybe the goal should move in that direction long-term. This fits the original mandate of “Keep, Modernize, Expand.”
• Commit to running the Skyway until it physically cannot go on for operational or safety reasons, but in the meantime develop the plans to tear it down, payback any remaining federal obligations if required (but lobby via our legislative delegation for that to be reconsidered in light of the DPM program overall), and plan a new mass transit system without the burden of the Skyway legacy (but perhaps reuses its alignment if ideal).

But at $50M per mile, can't the current guideway be reused somehow? Is it really that undersized? I feel like tearing it down doesn't make sense, rather investing in making it usable. There are parts of town where an extension could hug existing freeways. The riverside corridor is the most unlikely given they aren't doing Brooklyn but even Brooklyn would be an improvement.

There is only one realistic solution which is the second option Marcus identifies... abandon the Skyway for good.  Anything to keep it going is good money after bad.  No private sector decision maker would keep this thing alive.  Mark my words, one day the Skyway will be gone.  It is just a matter of how long it takes for someone with common sense and authority to finally kill it.  In the meantime, officials are just blowing taxpayer dollars... and the AV's is Exhibit A of this tendency.

It isn't just the dollars wasted... it is what you get in return.  A slow moving, low volume, street killing, expensive to build and operate and ugly to look at project....  when new money could get us something so much more cost effective.  Compute the cost per passenger mile and level of service and you cannot justify the Skyway vs. almost any alternative.

I've said it on here before... doing a rebrand of the Skyway with automated light metro (similar to the systems Marcus listed in another post) would be incredible. It would completely change the city.

I don't know why we continue to pursue projects that have no real benefit... JTA needs to be stopped immediately.

[Jax_Developer]

The technical issue from the beginning with that has always been that you can’t have a grade crossing of an automated guideway technology with something that isn’t. For traditional steel rail-based systems that’s a technical issue, but for the current Skyway technology that’s a physical issue, because the beam physically cannot be crossed at grade level. As Lake has said before, the San Marco extension is probably feasible if one can get the beam under I-95 and then over or next to the FEC where it can then travel at grade to a station, but anything else would run into problems.

Given what we’ve seen and learned the last 7 years and the funding we know is available or could be made available it seems there are two broad courses of action that could be taken at this point if we choose to abort the U2C program in its current form:

• Modernize the existing Skyway with a standard technology and reexamine the preferred expansion alternatives. The ideal option would be figuring out as fast as possible how to convert the system to Miami’s standards to enable a larger joint order for vehicles and systems.  Once that’s underway, decide independently whether to expand it as an elevated system for big things like the stadium district or perhaps as more of a Lymmo-style shuttle for things like the hospitals. Places in Asia have managed to run these as effectively full metro systems before so maybe the goal should move in that direction long-term. This fits the original mandate of “Keep, Modernize, Expand.”
• Commit to running the Skyway until it physically cannot go on for operational or safety reasons, but in the meantime develop the plans to tear it down, payback any remaining federal obligations if required (but lobby via our legislative delegation for that to be reconsidered in light of the DPM program overall), and plan a new mass transit system without the burden of the Skyway legacy (but perhaps reuses its alignment if ideal).

But at $50M per mile, can't the current guideway be reused somehow? Is it really that undersized? I feel like tearing it down doesn't make sense, rather investing in making it usable. There are parts of town where an extension could hug existing freeways. The riverside corridor is the most unlikely given they aren't doing Brooklyn but even Brooklyn would be an improvement.

There is only one realistic solution which is the second option Marcus identifies... abandon the Skyway for good.  Anything to keep it going is good money after bad.  No private sector decision maker would keep this thing alive.  Mark my words, one day the Skyway will be gone.  It is just a matter of how long it takes for someone with common sense and authority to finally kill it.  In the meantime, officials are just blowing taxpayer dollars... and the AV's is Exhibit A of this tendency.

It isn't just the dollars wasted... it is what you get in return.  A slow moving, low volume, street killing, expensive to build and operate and ugly to look at project....  when new money could get us something so much more cost effective.  Compute the cost per passenger mile and level of service and you cannot justify the Skyway vs. almost any alternative.

I've said it on here before... doing a rebrand of the Skyway with automated light metro (similar to the systems Marcus listed in another post) would be incredible. It would completely change the city.

I don't know why we continue to pursue projects that have no real benefit... JTA needs to be stopped immediately.

Can this solution be explained as to why it doesn’t work? From the neighborhoods I mentioned, the system would be like 5 miles from extreme ends of one another. To me, that doesn’t seem like it requires a heavy transit solution. As far as the practicality of it, Im saying Id rather do this and upzone/TOD’s than do JTA uber.

[thelakelander]

The technical issue from the beginning with that has always been that you can’t have a grade crossing of an automated guideway technology with something that isn’t. For traditional steel rail-based systems that’s a technical issue, but for the current Skyway technology that’s a physical issue, because the beam physically cannot be crossed at grade level. As Lake has said before, the San Marco extension is probably feasible if one can get the beam under I-95 and then over or next to the FEC where it can then travel at grade to a station, but anything else would run into problems.

Given what we’ve seen and learned the last 7 years and the funding we know is available or could be made available it seems there are two broad courses of action that could be taken at this point if we choose to abort the U2C program in its current form:

• Modernize the existing Skyway with a standard technology and reexamine the preferred expansion alternatives. The ideal option would be figuring out as fast as possible how to convert the system to Miami’s standards to enable a larger joint order for vehicles and systems.  Once that’s underway, decide independently whether to expand it as an elevated system for big things like the stadium district or perhaps as more of a Lymmo-style shuttle for things like the hospitals. Places in Asia have managed to run these as effectively full metro systems before so maybe the goal should move in that direction long-term. This fits the original mandate of “Keep, Modernize, Expand.”
• Commit to running the Skyway until it physically cannot go on for operational or safety reasons, but in the meantime develop the plans to tear it down, payback any remaining federal obligations if required (but lobby via our legislative delegation for that to be reconsidered in light of the DPM program overall), and plan a new mass transit system without the burden of the Skyway legacy (but perhaps reuses its alignment if ideal).

There's a third option that most people ignore because of continued attempts to make the Skyway and its infrastructure something it was never intended to be. The system is a downtown circulator. It doesn't serve the same role as everything else (LRT, streetcar, heavy rail, etc.) people compare it with, and it was never intended to do it. Unfortunately, what JTA wants to do is costing taxpayers just as much as those other systems, without the benefits that come with them.

The third option is to upgrade and maintain the Skyway as is (the first option you mentioned) and focus on a different system altogether that plays the role that system is supposed to play. That system can link with the Skyway at the JRTC and those who want to get to DT stops will have to transfer to the Skyway, in the same way that its Miami Metromover sibling plays with Metrorail.

With this scenario, we don't owe the FTA a dime and we can spend our local money on getting a more extensive, complimentary transit project off the ground. Some don't like the idea of transferring between different modes but that's a reality with every major city's public transit network.