PORT EXPANSION and 3 Missing projects...

[Dog Walker]

CS, ALL forms of transportation are subsidized.  Unless you are in the woods you are even walking on a taxpayer funded sidewalk.  Hell, in the woods you are probably walking on a taxpayer funded hiking trail.

I used to laugh at the signs on the back of big trucks that said, "This truck paid $4,532.00 in road taxes last year."  I wanted to reply, "And did $11,000 worth of damage to the roads in the same year."

Even the development of railroads in this country was financed by giving the railroad companies big chunks of public land for the right-of-way and towns along the way.

[Ocklawaha]

True enough Dog Walker, someone once did an accounting of all of the highway taxes paid by the trucking and bus industry and discovered it wouldn't add up to enough to patch the pot holes in the NY and PA Turnpikes.

The railroads were built on land grants, up to 20 section's (1-sq mile) on alternating sides of the track were given so the railroads could pay for construction, develop business, create towns and settlement, and from that, benefit from freight and passengers.

What is NOT known is that:
Nobody wanted the land that was given to 20 companies (out of hundreds)
This forced the railroads to mortgage the land, but the government did not grant mineral rights...yet.
The Government bought the mortgage bonds at 6% interest (6% in 1870 dollars).
As Part of the "DEAL" railroads had to carry US Government freight at a discount that continued into the 1950's when it was estimated that they had paid for the land in freight charges alone, 5 times.

The total of public land grants given to the railroads by states and the federal government was about 180 million acres. At the time, the value of this land was about one dollar per acre, which was the average price realized by the government for sales in the land grant states during that period. Hence the total value of the land granted to these companies was approximately $180 million. Later, much of the land was sold by the railroad companies at an average price of $2.81 per acre. (Proximity to the rails increased the value of the land.) These sales offset a portion of the construction costs, which have been estimated at approximately $168 million.

Although these figures are immense and would appear to suggest that the American railroad system was built largely on the basis of government aid, this is actually not the case. In fact, only 18,738 miles of railroad line were built as a direct result of these land grants and loans. This figure represents only eight percent of the total railroad mileage built in the United States between 1860 and 1920. The government program was important because the building of these lines opened up the trans-Mississippi West (and FLORIDA) and stimulated settlement, but most of the railroads were built by private enterpriseâ€"in some cases with state and local support.

Reckon we could get the highway boys to pay for raising the Dame Point/Broward Bridge? Sorry I asked.


OCKLAWAHA

[CS Foltz]

Your right Ock..........don't hold your breath, cause it won't happen! Nice to contemplate though! DW ...I believe you, taxes don't begin to cover the road repairs and the like!

[tufsu1]

Well I don't think that a "Tax Increase" is warrented at this time Mr Charles. If you look at what the fares actually bring compared to what Advertising, on the bus's, brings in...........I would bet more money comes in from that than the fares actually produce!

so what revenue source do you suggest replace the farebox revenue that is collected....and where would you find the additional revenues needed for the expanded service that would be needed?

Oh, and btw, weren't you one of the guys opposed to JTA's bus shelter advertising concept?

[CS Foltz]

Well first off...........your making an assumption that "Bus" use would skyrocket! I did not suggest a tax increase .....what I suggested was a MORATORIUM for a preset frame of time! The time frame could be one day, which I don't think is enough, to one week..........JTA can make the call, but to suggest a TAX Increase .....those are your words not mine! JTA/JEA Budgets both, were passed without comment or review and I still say that is wrong! Past time for an Independent Auditor to review both Agencies........do not use a City Department or the so-called Inspector Generals Office but an outside Auditor/Accounting Firm! Would you like to bet there will be heads rolling in the aftermath? Bus useage may or maynot increase but it would be nice to find out  if the fare was zero, would useage increase.........drivers could use simple hand counter. Concept has merit so lets find out! Then we can see what to do or how to go about doing it when we have some information to work with! By the way I am opposed to "Bus Shelter Advertising".............while we are on that subject do you know just how much money is generated by bus advertising? Operating cost's are obvious with what has been filed...........but advertising revenue appears no where.....neither does shelter revenue!

[tufsu1]

CS....you're once again dodging the question.

Let's assume that fares were eliminated for only one day...and ridership didn't go up that day....you still have to replace that lost revenue....so, again, where do you suggest it come from?

oh, and btw, JTA wouldn't be able to show any shelter revenue in their budget/books...because there isn't any yet!

[CS Foltz]

Cut upper management one days pay! With what they make .........they probably would not even notice it. Seriously though why replace it.............take the standard deduction  for depreciation and charge it against the money that would be made for the day. Why replace lost revenue at all? If people don't ride.....there is no money that is made! As to the "Advertising" are you telling me all of the ad's currently on bus's, at this very point in time, are all for free?

[tufsu1]

why replace it....because you've been harping about government breaking even!

[Ocklawaha]

TUFSU1, any idea of the average load factor on JTA buses? My suggestion is to use the Fare Free days (maybe 4 times a year) as promotions, then (if it's popular) market test .25 or .50 flat fares to see where the equalization point is: current fare - to - riders. A 71 passenger Gillig BRT, bus that currently averages 10 persons, would make an equal revenue with 40 persons at .25 or 20 persons at .50. Keeping the fares in .25 cent coin +/- for convenience.

In a city like ours with generally lower income military, warehouse, call center, retail, domestic jobs accounting for a large share of transit riders, we should allow the system to conform to their needs. I'm not beyond suggesting a fare free route or two added to the current system as time allows.

If it ever does come to a tax district fund there is still a huge development benefit. Everyone benefits - Everyone pays

If public transit were free, more people would use it. Fewer auto-miles would be driven. Carbon dioxide emissions would drop. Everyone would benefit. It would be fair, then, that the cost would be paid by everyone. A drop of carbon emissions equals a chance for carbon credit sales to polluting cities and industry. Bogota's bus system cashes in for $100 - 300 Million annually, not a bad "subsidy," wouldn't you say?

Let's address the argument that autosprawl is good for the economy. The profits generated by millions of single family homes and millions of single occupancy vehicles are not real profits. The waste of resources and other societal costs are "externalized" from the calculation of these profits, passed on to the taxpayer, future generations, and other countries.  

OCKLAWAHA

[tufsu1]

Ock...I have no problems with free transit....its just important to identify a revenue source to offset the lost fares....if its taxes, fine (that's what some universities do).

[CS Foltz]

I am somewhat confused tufsu1...........you point out

Ock...I have no problems with free transit....its just important to identify a revenue source to offset the lost fares....if its taxes, fine (that's what some universities do).

lost revenue...............if it's not used to its fullest, your trying to produce something from nothing! Now if the public is already paying JTA for its services, their Budget did run through the Council right?,then we are paying to ride what we already have paid for........that is just about the same as double taxation! You keep pointing out "Lost revenue" well I have not seen anything that even comes close to a break even proposition from JTA! Advertising revenue may have a bearing but you have not provided any figures from what JTA receives now, for the bus advertising! Ignore the shelters for now.........I ask point blank what revenue is generated by what is on bus's now and how does that compare to what revenue is generated by riders?

[tufsu1]

come on CS...its really not that hard.

The average transit system in the U.S. gets about 1/3 of its revenue from farebox collections....if riding the bus was free, there would be no collections...so where would the needed revenue come from?

btw, even if the other 2/3 of revenue came from taxes, no one would be charged more than 100% if the farebox revenue was replaced with higher taxes...so there still wouldn't be "double taxation"

[JaxNative68]

the city maybe ehffing up with Hanjin and their desire to make Jacksonville the biggest automated port on the east coast.

[CS Foltz]

So let me get this straight.........your saying that JTA collects one third of its revenue right now from its farebox collections correct? Then I would think your saying that the remaining two thirds of their revenue comes from the Advertising plastered on their bus's? They have a blanket check given to them right now.....they requested x amount of dollars, which we the taxpayers pay, and they are supposed to operate within their budget right? So what are you trying to point out? We already subsidize them.........they request, Council rubber stamps and they get their money! I see no reason to replace any moratorium money since we have already paid them to do the job! My point was a MORATORIUM to give a real life test of what is available and the goal was to show just how many people would be willing to ride the bus? Since it is paid for, already subsidized that is, one day or one week it matters not! With proper advertising, one day may do the job, but it would have to have plenty of lead time and marketing! To me, this is not consulting or projected numbers or another survey slanted one way or the other but a marketing test in real time, real life

[tufsu1]

I never said anything about ad revenues equalling 2/3...nor did I say JTA gets 1/3 of revenue from farebox (just on average around the country)...just like every other transit system, much of JTA's operatiing expenses are covered by allocations (yes taxes) from Federal, state, and local governments.

So what you have now made very clear is that you do not understand transit systems and are opposed to using taxes for just about anything!