JTA Skyway Losses, Benefit Costs Mount Per '09 Financials

[stjr]

With JTA finally (after over one year from its closing date) posting its 2009 financials (conveniently omitting comparisons to its immediate prior year as is conventional) to its web site, we now can observe the following about the Skyway:

Skyway Passenger Revenues (in thousands):
2006- 324
2007- 336
2008- 357
2009- 307

Skyway Total Revenues (in thousands):
2006- 526
2007- 530
2008- 529
2009- 431

Skyway Operating Losses Before Depreciation (in millions):
2006- 5.3
2007- 4.1
2008- 5.8
2009- 5.4

Skyway Depreciation (in millions):
2006- 7.5
2007- 7.6
2008- 7.9
2009- 7.9

Skyway Total Operationg Losses with Depreciation (in millions):
2006- 12.8
2007- 11.7
2008- 13.7
2009- 13.5

Skyway Net Fund Balance (in millions):
2006- 122
2007- 115
2008- 108
2009- 102

This is some additional FYI info for those interested:

JTA Proprietary Funds (buses, Skyway, community transit) contributions by City of Jacksonville (in millions):
2006- 45.9
2007- 48.8
2008- 54.7
2009- 55.5

Above appears to be primarily operating subsidies for the bus system.

JTA General Fund contributions by City of Jacksonville (in millions):
2006- 1.3
2007- 10.2
2008- 1.6
2009- 0

JTA Capital Fund contributions by City of Jacksonville (in millions):
2006- 0
2007- 136.9
2008- 3.7
2009- 41.5

JTA Operating Expense "Fringe Benefits" as a percentage of payroll:
2006- 55.3% ($14.105 million benefits/$25.502 million labor)
2007- 52.5% ($14.639 mil/$27.884 mil)
2008- 54.7% ($16.493 mil/$30.152 mil)
2009- 56.9% ($15.117 mil/$26.591 mil)


The latest third quarter APTA numbers for the Skyway show that for 9 months this year, it's carried 361.4 thousand riders versus 322 thousand for the same period in 2009.  Prorated for a full year, this would indicate the Skyway may carry about 480 thousand passengers in 2010 and may have carried 428 thousand in 2009.

Thus, while trips are calendar year and financials are fiscal year end September 30th, we can perform the following estimates:

The Skyway's pre-depreciation losses per estimated trip for 2009 appear to be $12.62 per trip ($5.4 million/428,000).  If someone made a roundtrip, it would amount to $25.24 per trip.  Using as an estimate, 1.5 miles per trip, this comes to about $8.41 per mile.

Using total operating losses, 2009 Skyway trips appear to have cost $31.54 per trip ($13.5 million/428,000) or $63.08 per roundtrip. This results in an estimated $21.03 per mile cost ($31.54/1.5 miles per trip estimate).

By comparison, for 2009, it appears the bus system lost $52.8 million pre-depreciation and would be projected to carry 10,440,000 riders.  This equates to $5.06 per trip which surely averages well over the 1.5 miles I estimated for a Skyway trip. If we use 5 miles for an average bus trip, a bus's pre-depreciation cost would be $1.01 per mile versus the estimated similar $8.41 Skyway cost.

In this 2009 example, post-depreciation, a bus ride appears to run about $5.76 per trip ($60.2 million post-depreciation losses/10,440,000 trips) or $1.15 per mile ($5.76/5 miles per trip estimate).

It notable, too, that the Skway's depreciation for 2009 of $7.9 million was greater than that of the entire bus system, which amounted to $7.4 million.  This is additionally interesting since the Skway's assets are likely depreciated over longer lives than buses and buses are likely replaced more frequently.

The ratio of benefit costs to payroll is also way over my benchmark of 25 to 30%.  JTA appears to have the same problem as the City with overly indulgent benefits, most likely pensions.

These facts speak for themselves.

[Ocklawaha]

Yes, mass transit "loses money," so do library's, city parks, police departments, fire departments, and street paving projects, but you wouldn't want to live in a place without them. Of course most people would see the use of mass transit as a growth engine, considering the value of developments on the tax rolls as a counter-balance to any perceived losses.

So what is your point STJR? Another round of the same refusal to agree even to the most obvious points? We all know, or should know you hate the Skyway and want it torn down yesterday.

The fact that we'd have to repay the entire cost to the Federal Government doesn't mean anything to the your argument because you fail to understand that this is the rule.

The fact that is was never finished in any semblance of it's announced intended terminals, doesn't mean a thing because as far as your concerned if they walked away from the construction site for 30 minutes, they're done.
Trying to make the Skyway into a success as it now stands is like running a marathon with only one shoe. 

This is a completely redundant exercise.


OCKLAWAHA

[stjr]

Yes, mass transit "loses money," so do library's, city parks, police departments, fire departments, and street paving projects, but you wouldn't want to live in a place without them. Of course most people would see the use of mass transit as a growth engine, considering the value of developments on the tax rolls as a counter-balance to any perceived losses.

So what is your point STJR? Another round of the same refusal to agree even to the most obvious points? We all know, or should know you hate the Skyway and want it torn down yesterday.

Ock, you predictably "took the bait".  IF you re-read my post, I said the facts speak for themselves.  I didn't offer one editorial comment.  Thanks, you did it for me.  It appears you reacted because you find the numbers as unpleasant as I do and feel the need to address them.  We just chose differing paths.  You defend the project, I want to move on.

For newbies here, once again, the issue isn't about losing money, but HOW MUCH?  No one has unlimited resources for their pet projects.  The other issue is, are their BETTER ALTERNATIVES that do the job?  By better, I mean more people served, more supportive of economic development, more attractive, and, most importantly, more COST EFFECTIVE.  You can ignore these issues, but then again, you are not responsible for balancing the available resources with the many demands made to spread them around. It speaks volumes that the ones who are responsible refuse to stick their necks out.  It's called political and fiscal reality.

The fact that we'd have to repay the entire cost to the Federal Government doesn't mean anything to the your argument because you fail to understand that this is the rule.

Still waiting for a written document supporting this to be posted here.  Also, no one has addressed, if it's true, that the Fed's have ever actually collected a single dime enforcing this provision, and, given this was always deemed a "demonstration" project, that, politically, the Feds wouldn't just admit it was a failure, thank us for subsidizing it for over 20 years with millions of local taxpayer dollars to prove the point, and pardon us from the provision as they ethically should.

The fact that is was never finished in any semblance of it's announced intended terminals, doesn't mean a thing because as far as your concerned if they walked away from the construction site for 30 minutes, they're done.
Trying to make the Skyway into a success as it now stands is like running a marathon with only one shoe. 

Ock, I am not the one that called the project completed.  JTA did.  I have posted the article countless times.  Regardless, for what IS BUILT, the "expert" traffic projections were off 90%, not once, but twice, given the second phase, and remain off by that amount AFTER 20 YEARS of operations. 

Many people look to the "sky" when daydreaming, and maybe that's why it's called the "Skyway". It might be more apropos to change it's name to the "DREAMway". 

[ChriswUfGator]

Stjr, I think everybody knows the skyway sucks. The point I wonder is; Are you willing to consider that the best solution for fixing it may be expanding it, not by eliminating it? If it were expanded to Riverside, the stadium, Springfield, the Southside, you know...places where people actually are, then it would be a great asset and would actually get used. Of course it has ridership issues now, it doesn't go anywhere useful. They never finished the system.

[dougskiles]

I like the Skyway.  I ride it to downtown from San Marco frequently because the $1 round trip fare is less than the cost of parking.  It also takes about the same amount of time and is more enjoyable than fighting traffic.  The issue I have is that it doesn't go far enough south.  If we could get it to cross the tracks then it would get significantly more use from the people (like me) who are always getting stopped by the train.

Ocklawaha - or anyone else who knows - how much does it cost per mile to extend an elevated system like the Skyway?  Also, any idea of the cost of an additional station?

[ChriswUfGator]

However much it would cost, we would make it back by having a real useable (not bus-based) transit system.

[stjr]

Stjr, I think everybody knows the skyway sucks. The point I wonder is; Are you willing to consider that the best solution for fixing it may be expanding it, not by eliminating it? If it were expanded to Riverside, the stadium, Springfield, the Southside, you know...places where people actually are, then it would be a great asset and would actually get used. Of course it has ridership issues now, it doesn't go anywhere useful. They never finished the system.

Chris, your point highlights one of the shortcomings of the Skyway.  I think Ock has already acknowledged it can't go feasibly much beyond Brooklyn, Kings Road at Atlantic, or the Stadium.  The point that I am making that is lost in the rhetoric of others is that there may very well be superior alternatives versus putting more money in expanding the Skyway [only to find out that, once again, it is 90% short of projections and is inferior in costs, geographic reach, service levels, aesthetics, and user appeal than alternatives for the money].

I get Ock's arguments about sunk investment but that still doesn't mean it's not worth shutting down the Skyway.  How many multi-billion auto plants have been shuttered?  Relatively new hotels?  factories?  Decision leaders are often forced to recognize that the costs of operating an existing asset exceeds the cost of abandoning it, especially when they are faced with alternatives that give a far superior return.

Let an impartial someone explore and present intelligently accurate and precise data about the Skyway versus other options and convince me or Ock to switch positions.  That's what I want to see.  Not, let's expand the Skyway because its already there.   That kind of obtuse thinking is how we got to where we are now.

Ock will tell you we need several options operating at once to make it all work but I see political and fiscal reality saying that is highly unlikely or even desirable.  I think we have to pick a single option at present regarding, for example, street cars vs. Skyway and move on.  I think the street cars would be a far superior solution given only one choice and am willing to sacrifice the 90% failure (based on projections for what is CURRENTLY built) Skyway to get them.

[Singejoufflue]

Anyone know how much it would be to expand or demolish (with cleanup)?

[ChriswUfGator]

But it is equally obtuse to say, lets tear it down because its not as expansive as it should be.

This is actually something of a breakthrough. If stjr is willing to consider that an expansion to areas that are actually populated would probably solve the ridership problems, which they would, then he isn't far off from Ock's main issue with the tear it down argument, which is that you can't really judge the system against its expectations, when it was never completed and doesn't go anywhere people actually live. So judging the incomplete system doesn't mean much.

Seems like perhaps we finally have the start of a consensus we can build from on this issue?

I feel, just personal opinion, that if it were expanded to serve Riverside, Springfield, and San Marco, and continued on to the stadium, we would have something truly useable in this system. I think many people (including myself) would use it regularly if that were the case. We aren't that far off from a consensus on this issue. Stjr thinks (hardly without reason!) that the skyway is a boondoggle/waste of money, and I don't think a whole lot of people would necessarily argue that. But the true solution here is probably expansion not demolition, which has been the sticking point. If we are all willing to consider that moving forward, then I think this could be an effective and positive discourse.

[stjr]

Chris, don't celebrate yet. 

Stephen is good at spinning words into new meanings.

I think Ock's main issue with the tear it down argument is that you can't really judge the system against its expectations, when it was never completed, and doesn't go anywhere people actually live, so judging the incomplete system doesn't prove anything.

Let me note again, after 20 years, it is 90% short of the "expectations" by the "experts" for what is built now, sans any more expansions.  Phase 2 of the existing system was justified this same way:  "Just finish phase 2 and phase 1 and 2 will meet their projections."  Has never happened.  Not by 90%!  Why should anyone think a Phase 3, 4, or 5 will meet any future "expert" projections?

[ChriswUfGator]

Chris, don't celebrate yet. 

Stephen is good at spinning words into new meanings.

I think Ock's main issue with the tear it down argument is that you can't really judge the system against its expectations, when it was never completed, and doesn't go anywhere people actually live, so judging the incomplete system doesn't prove anything.

Let me note again, after 20 years, it is 90% short of the "expectations" by the "experts" for what is built now, sans any more expansions.  Phase 2 of the existing system was justified this same way:  "Just finish phase 2 and phase 1 and 2 will meet their projections."  Has never happened.  Not by 90%!  Why should anyone think a Phase 3, 4, or 5 will meet any future "expert" projections?

I personally get you, and agree with your assessment. You are clearly correct that there is a problem with this thing, not merely because it isn't self-supporting (public transit usually isn't, that's not why we do it) but because it's unique ridership isn't significant enough to justify the losses, even considering the outside impact it may be having that isn't "on the books."

But don't you think we have the makings of something great, if this were extended to Riverside, San Marco, Springfield, and the stadium (at a minimum)? I think that would prove very popular. And given the situation with the federal repayment, we may come out ahead expanding it to fix it than simply tearing it down.

[Ocklawaha]

.
Trying to make the Skyway into a success as it now stands is like running a marathon with only one shoe.  

This is a completely redundant exercise.[/b]

OCKLAWAHA

+2

[dougskiles]

Back to my original question - what are the approximate costs per mile of elevated track?

I don't see why we can't have a transit system that has different modes - the Skyway has a pretty good network on the southbank.  It just needs to go a little farther into the San Marco neighborhood - and cross the railroad tracks.

As far as Riverside and Sports Complex go, my first reaction is that the streetcar would be a better mode.  Riverside and Bay Street are more pedestrian in nature and would lend themselves to such a system.  As long as you have a streetcar stop at the Skyway's Central Station - then what difference does it make?  It is no different than a subway system that requires you to go up/down levels to get to the next line.  But with our system, we get to breath clean air!

[Ocklawaha]

Ocklawaha - or anyone else who knows - how much does it cost per mile to extend an elevated system like the Skyway?  Also, any idea of the cost of an additional station?

Doug, it's about the same as a top notch Light Rail System, sans fancy civic accouterments, IE tropical gardens, water falls, fountains etc... OR figure around $20-30 Million a Mile. I have talked to more then one company and at least one corporate group that think that figure could be slashed down to $12-15 Million, or about double the cost of in street streetcar. Not bad when one considers the capacity could be easily raised to 30,000 PPMPD (Passengers Per Mile Per Direction) WITHOUT building any more infrastructure. An expanded system actually finished per the Skyway studies and plans, would cost nothing additional if we reached for higher capacity. We actually own the manufacturers rights to the center cars, but it might be better for all involved to go for a completely new train.


OCKLAWAHA

[spuwho]

Chris, don't celebrate yet. 

Stephen is good at spinning words into new meanings.

I think Ock's main issue with the tear it down argument is that you can't really judge the system against its expectations, when it was never completed, and doesn't go anywhere people actually live, so judging the incomplete system doesn't prove anything.

Let me note again, after 20 years, it is 90% short of the "expectations" by the "experts" for what is built now, sans any more expansions.  Phase 2 of the existing system was justified this same way:  "Just finish phase 2 and phase 1 and 2 will meet their projections."  Has never happened.  Not by 90%!  Why should anyone think a Phase 3, 4, or 5 will meet any future "expert" projections?

stjr, thanks for hashing out the JTA numbers, but rather than argue over it's local relevance, how about some benchmarking? How does it compare to say, the BART Extension? or the new Sound Transit? How does JTA compare? Where did you come up with 25-30% as a benchmark overhead number?

Assessing the Skyway value equation is difficult in this forum unless you can provide some context.