Skyway Merits Debated

[tufsu1]

I disagree...

It depends on the definitions for effectiveness and efficiency...plus what features are most important...for example, is it headways (how often the trains run), speed, cost, comfort, free parking, free transfers to buses, etc....and what about extensions to nearby neighborhoods.

As you can see from this site, many argue that extensions will make the system more effective (i.e., more ridership)....but even if the percentage subsidy went down, more riders means a larger deficit...which would probably not be deemed more efficient.

[stjr]

I disagree...

It depends on the definitions for effectiveness and efficiency...plus what features are most important...for example, is it headways (how often the trains run), speed, cost, comfort, free parking, free transfers to buses, etc....and what about extensions to nearby neighborhoods.

As you can see from this site, many argue that extensions will make the system more effective (i.e., more ridership)....but even if the percentage subsidy went down, more riders means a larger deficit...which would probably not be deemed more efficient.

^Tufsu, you are missing the point on "efficiency".  "Efficiency" is a function of "effectiveness" in that it measures the RATIO of "effectiveness" (i.e. goals met) against per dollar investment made.  Thus, in the case of "efficiency", it matters not how much something costs or what the deficit is but, rather, what you get for the dollars spent by those bearing the burden.

If you were to desire 100% effectiveness, and there were at least two ways to achieve such perfection, in all likelihood, one way would be more "efficient" than the other.   However, in most scenarios, it is about selecting an "effectiveness" level within an appropriate range of such levels.  The selected "effectiveness" level is usually determined based on that level within the range that presents the optimal "efficiency".

By example, let's assume that the $ky-high-way and streetcars advance the same goal, to move people about the urban core.  Assume there is a universe of 50,000 unique daily riders causing gridlock downtown.  100% "effectiveness" would be to capture all of them in a mass transit system.  However, it would be acceptable to capture from 5,000 to 50,000.  A 5,000 capture would significantly improve gridlock and 50,000 would eliminate it completely.  Realistically, for non-economic qualitative reasons, no more than 50% or 25,000 will give up their cars, regardless of personal "efficiencies".

Since revenue is frequently negligible in mass transit operations and, to keep things simple, we will assume we will move people for "free" so that the annual operating deficit of a transit system represents the total "community" (collectively, government and rider) costs.

Further, let's assume that the "community" costs for automobile travel is equal to $5,000 per year per unique daily rider.  Thus, as a "community", we will accept total losses incurred for any "efficiency" level we can achieve on the most efficient mass transit system up to $5,000 as this will save our "community" overall dollars.

In this example, assume we have at least two clear alternatives to addressing gridlock and that there are not enough riders who will use them simultaneously to sustain both of them at the desired "efficiencies" (i.e. keep costs under the $5,000 per auto rider threshold):
(1) Double the coverage of the $ky-high-way.
(2) Abandon the $ky-high-way and use streetcars in its place.

We can expand the $ky-high-way for $X million resulting in a new annual deficit of $21 million (including increased depreciation which reflects the additional investment) and increase service from the current 700 to 7,000 unique daily riders reducing the subsidy per rider per year from the current $20,000 to $3,000.  At this level, the $ky-high-way falls within our acceptable "effectiveness" range of between 5,000 and 50,000 unique daily riders.  [This would be almost 7x as "efficient" for our annual dollars as the current $ky-high-way configuration.]

But, what if we could invest the same $x with streetcars and serve 25,000 unique riders a day for an annual deficit of $25 million by doing streetcars throughout the urban core.  Now, we are loosing about 20% more than the expanded $ky-high-way, but serving 3.6x the riders.  Streetcars come at a cost of $1,000 per rider per year, far more "efficient" than the $3,000 per rider on the expanded $ky-high-way.

Assuming our end game is to move people around downtown on mass transit at or above an "effective" quantity that impacts downtown's mobility while being as "efficient" as possible, streetcars would prevail in this example. Yes, both the expanded $ky-high-way AND streetcars achieve an acceptable level of "effectiveness", but one is substantially more "efficient" than the other.

It is this approach of getting the most "bang for the buck" (i.e. greatest "efficiency" for our taxpayer dollars), that pushes me to say we should close the $ky-high-way and build streetcars.  Duplicating systems would be, in my thinking, the most "inefficient" option as we are paying twice for the same thing and cannibalizing riders from one system to the other lowering the "efficiencies" of both.

This is a simplified example and I have left out other qualitative factors that may be measures of effectiveness for now (although, I think most of them would further favor streetcars over the $ky-high-way).

[Johnny]

I'm just shocked that 1400 people ride it a day. I would have guessed that was a monthly even more like an annual number. I've never seen anyone on it when I used it, which was only like twice. It goes nowhere and serves no purpose....

That being said, I don't know what scrapping it entirely would accomplish. I like what lake mentioned, turn it into a street car system, which would carry on to a street level & minimize additional expenses. I wouldn't think that would be too costly or time consuming to accomplish either and we would actually have a system that worked.

[chipwich]

stjr

congratulations, i am finally coming around to your side.  $14 mil a year on this system could be used towards something better that could serve more people.  However like Johnny said, it wouldn't do any good to just scrap the system.  It's already up and mostly depreciated.  You could build on Lake's idea to transform the track or even just shut it down until it can be expanded into something useful.


I still like the idea of have a metro system serving the core.  We will one day have the population and a need to expand the current skyway.  If we can bank $14 mil a year towards a better system in the future, then by all means do so.  I have a pretty good feeling that our skyway, given the right planning, direction and expansion could serve the core greatly by connecting businesses and residents to the surrounding areas and make our central core thrive like it never has before.

[CS Foltz]

 Nice synopsis stjr.................written like an "Engineer" would dictate specifications! I concur with your viewpoint and would have to say that tufsu1 is not engineered trained  if he is trying to split hairs with definitions akin to Ocum's Razor! Efficiency and Effectiveness does go hand in hand.....proper engineering is paramount to any Mass Transit System..............I would offer the $kyway which is lacking in several area's not to mention total cost of $14 Million a year to operate. System is flawed, inefficient and not cost effective for what it cost the taypayers to operate. It could be much better...........but we could save $14 Million a year by pulling the plug and could use that money elsewhere for better value..............like Trolley or Light Rail and then see downtown come up to speed!

[mtraininjax]

14 million could go a VERY long way at fixing the riverwalks on both sides. The boards used on the Southbank need replacement, the cracked tiles at the Navy monument need replacing, the lights along the boardwalk are not all lit at night. 14 mil could go a long way to fixing problems downtown.

See, there is money downtown, we have just been wasting it on things nobody uses.

[thelakelander]

Where is the $14 million/year number coming from?

[vicupstate]

Didn't someone post that much of that $14mm is depreciation and 'accounting' type costs?  If so, the actual money saved from discontinuing it would be significantly less.  

I wish it had never been built, but if it is demolished the Feds might want some of their money back. Or alternatively, they might be less likely to fund future projects. I think it is time to reevaluate the system in all respects, but I would hestitate to jump to any conclusion yet without a thorough analysis.  

[CS Foltz]

lake if you go back through this thread..............stjr broke down the operations cost per year using the JTA's own figures and it looks to me like they are using the old double ledger method of book keeping!

[tufsu1]

Ok stjr....how about this "pretend" scenario....

Projections show that streetcars would move 5,000 people per day...the capital cost of setting up the system is $60 million and operations would be $4 million per year.

The Skyway (with a $30 million extension) would carry 7,000 people per day....operations would be about $8 million per year.

Which would you choose?

Oh, and btw, we all know the existing Skyway doesn't cost $14 million per year...it is $7 million in operations and another $7 million in depreciation.

[CS Foltz]

tufsu1 .....you mean to tell me that JTA's own figures are not accurate? I would suggest you go to the lead on this thread!

[tufsu1]

tufsu1 .....you mean to tell me that JTA's own figures are not accurate? I would suggest you go to the lead on this thread!

and I suggest you read the whole thread..or at least the detail on the first post!

[CS Foltz]

I did and even allowing a depreciation of $7 Million Dollars a year numbers still did not add up!

[tufsu1]

ok CS...let's make this simple for you....from Post #1 in the thread:

Operating expenses:
Labor 25,979,242 2,338,767 1,833,749 30,151,758
Fringe bene_ts 14,623,839 1,151,179 717,793 16,492,811
Materials and supplies 12,866,746 1,187,224 2,158,018 16,211,988
Services 15,998,001 802,013 7,423,521 24,223,535
Casualty and insurance 1,354,058 366,397 44,137 1,764,592
Taxes and licenses 136,870 - 2,095 138,965
Other 1,450,687 529,113 287,935 2,267,735
Depreciation expense 7,201,141 7,889,910 1,391,901 16,482,952

Total operating expenses 79,610,584 14,264,603 13,859,149 107,734,336

but I guess you're right....depreciation was actually 55% of the "deficit"...not the simple 50/50 split I said.

[CS Foltz]

Gee thanks tufsu1...........donno what I would do without your guidance! You know and I know that depreciation is just a book keeping trick.......if that $7 Million Dollars in depreciation were real depreciation that system would have paid for itself long before now....right? Whether it is $14 Million..........$7 Million or $1 Dollar my point is we are subsidizing something that is not paying for itself and will not! So I have to ask......at what point do we have such a dimishing in return we pull the plug and save ourselves whatever amount it costs to run a system that is too small, not servicing an area big enough to earn it's keep, plus the labor/fringe benefits which based on the figures you just posted cost us $3.4 Million......adding that to the depreciation amount of $7.8 Million (which is just book keeping) and the numbers are not in favor to keep the thing operating! We have more than enough wasted money and resources as it is, not withstanding now we will have BRT within downtown!