Tough times over at JTA. Perhaps it's time to get out of the road construction business?
QuoteAfter years of building the Dames Point bridge, the Beach Boulevard Intracoastal bridge and many other projects, the Jacksonville Transportation Authority appears to be quietly going out of the construction business.
When JTA finishes widening Heckscher Boulevard in a few months, it will have no other ongoing road projects and no money to pay for any new ones.
The construction industry is concerned that a loss of JTA projects will cause a loss of jobs. Members of Jacksonville City Council appear split on whether it's a cause for concern. And JTA isn't talking about it.
Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2011-07-30/story/jta-running-out-money-road-construction#ixzz1Thhfp0xu
Good.
don't count on it....right now they are pushing to do some major projects like Southside Blvd.
Where would the money come from? Also, one would hope that they coordinate whatever they want to do with Southside, with the mobility plan. Southside happens to be one of the mobility plan's priority projects. However, that project is supposed to turn Southside into a "Context Sensitive Street" (including adding a parallel multi-use path its entire length).
Quote
Councilman Bill Bishop said this is a good time to rethink how road construction is done. It might be better for everyone if the city took over and let JTA focus on running the buses, he said.
"I'm not upset at all that the JTA is running out of money," Bishop said. "I think a lot of people will tell you that the JTA is not an agency that responds well to the public."
The city could be more responsive to the needs of the community, he said, because council members could directly advocate for projects and be required to answer to voters, something the JTA board does not do.
I don't agree with Bill Bishop on everything but I think he makes a pretty great point in this article. What would be the negatives of having the city worry about building its own roads and having JTA focus on mass transit?
I can't think of any negatives that would result from JTA getting out of the road building business. For starters, we don't need and certainly can't afford any more widening/overpass projects. I suspect, however that the lobbyists who are responsibility for the makeup of the current board (and benefit the most from the fat construction projects) will be screaming loudly.
I noticed a few in the article who mention job creation and preservation in the construction industry. However, its questionable if this method of subsidizing the private sector is worthwhile in the long run for taxpayers. Plus, if this responsibility is taken away from JTA, it doesn't mean that another road will never be built or maintained again. It just means that JTA won't be taking the lead role in it.
Interesting how the money spent on roads is considered good because it boosts the construction industry, but money spent on transit is considered a waste of public money that we don't have...
^ Bingo!!! My thoughts exactly.
What does JTA want to do with Southside Blvd?
Widen it to six lanes.
They really don't understand transportation planning, do they?
I came across this letter from a reader in CE News, and it I believe it captures the problem very well:
Quote
Transportation and energy policies
Why do so many engineers think that challenging conventional wisdom and fighting for changes in energy, environmental, or transportation policies to solve real problems is forbidden political speech? This point of view is repeatedly expressed by engineers who express skepticism about climate change and mass transportation. Unfortunately, this perspective is naïve, at best. It reflects a failure to understand the role of government policy in defining the bounds of both the political and market economy (Adam Smith, 1776) as well as good engineering practice.
Far too many engineers think their civic responsibility ends when they do what their clients pay them to do. With respect to energy, transportation, and environmental issues, and subsequent economic (a.k.a. political) impacts, far too many engineers fail to think beyond the comfortable certainties of their direct experience and their spreadsheets. Many of my engineering friends place far too much emphasis on well-understood, but short-term, cost-benefit analysis when evaluating and commenting on government policy decisions that have significant, but uncertain, macroeconomic impacts.
Case in point are letters critical of editorials on high-speed rail and energy-climate policy. One writer claims that driving is cheaper and more convenient than riding a train and will always be so; another cites poor fiscal performance of Amtrak and opines that investment in rail will increase our $14 trillion national debt. Neither short-term analysis recognizes the fact that much of this debt is the direct result of government policy that subsidizes continued total dependency on “cheap†oil produced in the Middle East. Exhibit A is the unfunded $1 trillion current cost to the U.S. taxpayer of our military efforts to sustain the flow of “cheap†oil to global markets. Exhibit B is the $1 trillion to $2 trillion taxpayer liability over the next 10 years created by the consequences of the Iraq Occupation and our massive military presence in the Persian Gulf. Neither writer recognizes the fact that this oil subsidy is not reflected in the price of “cheap†motor fuels. Nor were these wars properly funded with tax increases.
It is a fact that an oligopoly controls the supply of the “cheap,†highly subsidized liquid petroleum-based motor fuels that makes it difficult for rail to compete with automobiles. Yet mere mention of incentives for “clean energy†raises shrieks of socialism from otherwise rational businessmen and engineers; “get government out of the way†or “let the market decide,†they say. Remember Adam Smith? Perhaps it is a failure of business and engineering education; do business and engineering economics courses cover basic principles of macroeconomics, let alone mention advanced concepts such as internalizing the external costs of pollution?
It is an inconvenient truth that American motorists are totally dependent on liquid petroleum-based motor fuels controlled by heavily subsidized oligopolies and that consumers do not pay the external costs of economic damages caused by this addiction.
It is irresponsible for engineers to make statements based on the assumption that Americans can afford to continue our total reliance on automobiles powered by petroleum-based motor fuels. Consider the facts:
political instability in oil-producing regions,
well-documented shortfall in recoverable North American oil reserves, and
traffic congestion on all urban roadways.
Too many engineers apply the same short-term thought process to the clean energy and climate debate. Exhibit C: Some of my engineer friends cite statistical analysis of atmospheric temperature data to explain that emissions of greenhouse gases from the combustion of fossil fuels are having no impact on Earth’s climate. At the same time, these engineers ignore 600,000 years of compelling physical evidence derived from ice and sediment cores that document three critical facts:
increased levels of carbon in the upper atmosphere have been caused by fossil fuel combustion,
the average temperature of the global oceans has increased significantly over the past 50 years, and
the acidity of the global oceans has increased significantly over the past 50 years.
These increases have been caused by transfer of heat and carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to the oceans by well-understood processes. The impact is real and measureable.
Skeptics choose to ignore comprehensive studies that attempt to interpret all collected data through the application of fundamental laws of physics and thermodynamics in favor of anomalous data sets such as short-term temperature data from a single source. This data is then used to create uncertainty, which is then cited as “evidence†that observed phenomenon are “naturally†occurring events. While challenging uncertainties created by one data set is a necessary part of the scientific process â€" not to mention an interesting academic debate â€" engineers should not overlook the preponderance of the evidence.
Energy and climate policy should not be a short-term debate about cost and benefit, profit and loss for one energy source, one technology, or one industry; this debate should be about serving the greater good â€" the health, safety, and welfare of the public.
The “political†response of engineers to these issues will have a major impact on the lives of those who follow us. Short-term thinking is inappropriate; uncertainties in data sets are cause for caution, but uncertainties are not a basis of total rejection of fact and the laws of physics. Engineers respond to uncertainty by incorporating safety factors into their designs; they do not seek absolute certainty before accepting the challenge of building a bridge.
I am distressed that so many engineers fail to apply safety factors to their analysis of human actions that perturb climate â€" that many engineers fail to understand the fact that the probability of anthropogenic-induced climate chaos is real; climate chaos is not an abstract political debate about ideology or economics. The climate debate is about understanding and respecting the physics, thermodynamics, chemistry, and biology of the Earth’s oceans and atmosphere. It is about anticipating Earth’s response to the climate forcing actions of 6 billion intelligent people who are working hard to enjoy the same quality of life as Americans.
The impacts of climate chaos on human civilization or the relative merits of high-speed rail versus automobiles are not political issues. These are technical issues that demand that engineers consider all the facts and interpret those facts in accordance with the laws of science and the conservative principles of best engineering practice, not short-term profit and loss based on assumptions, religious beliefs, personal preference, or political ideology.
David E. Bruderly, P.E.
http://www.cenews.com/magazine-article-cenews.com-7-2011-letters-8393.html (http://www.cenews.com/magazine-article-cenews.com-7-2011-letters-8393.html)
Quote from: thelakelander on July 31, 2011, 02:53:52 PM
Where would the money come from? Also, one would hope that they coordinate whatever they want to do with Southside, with the mobility plan. Southside happens to be one of the mobility plan's priority projects. However, that project is supposed to turn Southside into a "Context Sensitive Street" (including adding a parallel multi-use path its entire length).
they are about to embark on a PD&E study (partially at the urging of Bill Bishop)...the study includes a visioning effort to better connect the transportation and land uses (call it context sensitive design) and an evaluation of potential BRT service...along with widening of at least some portions to six lanes.
the best news ive heard all day lol
Quote from: thelakelander on July 31, 2011, 02:57:15 PM
Quote
Councilman Bill Bishop said this is a good time to rethink how road construction is done. It might be better for everyone if the city took over and let JTA focus on running the buses, he said.
"I'm not upset at all that the JTA is running out of money," Bishop said. "I think a lot of people will tell you that the JTA is not an agency that responds well to the public."
The city could be more responsive to the needs of the community, he said, because council members could directly advocate for projects and be required to answer to voters, something the JTA board does not do.
I don't agree with Bill Bishop on everything but I think he makes a pretty great point in this article. What would be the negatives of having the city worry about building its own roads and having JTA focus on mass transit?
My thoughts exactly. How many cities have their transportation authorities control road construction? Just curious. Also would JTA be in charge of construction of transit facilities if we moved to light rail, BRT, or rail based transit?
Quote from: jcjohnpaint on August 01, 2011, 10:13:56 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 31, 2011, 02:57:15 PM
Quote
Councilman Bill Bishop said this is a good time to rethink how road construction is done. It might be better for everyone if the city took over and let JTA focus on running the buses, he said.
"I'm not upset at all that the JTA is running out of money," Bishop said. "I think a lot of people will tell you that the JTA is not an agency that responds well to the public."
The city could be more responsive to the needs of the community, he said, because council members could directly advocate for projects and be required to answer to voters, something the JTA board does not do.
I don't agree with Bill Bishop on everything but I think he makes a pretty great point in this article. What would be the negatives of having the city worry about building its own roads and having JTA focus on mass transit?
My thoughts exactly. How many cities have their transportation authorities control road construction? Just curious. Also would JTA be in charge of construction of transit facilities if we moved to light rail, BRT, or rail based transit?
JTA is not a city agency. It's an independant agency of the state.
JTA needs to be put down like a fat pig with a tomato stuffed in its mouth, roasted.
(http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1848/PreviewComp/SuperStock_1848-117746.jpg)
-Josh
Here's what I wonder. If we turned our transportation over to JTA back in the day, is there a way we can take it from them? Does the state have to be invovled? Or are we doomed with JTA forever?
Quote from: duvaldude08 on August 01, 2011, 12:45:49 PM
Does the state have to be invovled?
JTA is a state-created agency....so yes, there would need to be state legislation to dissolve it
Quote from: wsansewjs on August 01, 2011, 12:22:13 PM
JTA needs to be put down like a fat pig with a tomato stuffed in its mouth, roasted.
(http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1848/PreviewComp/SuperStock_1848-117746.jpg)
-Josh
Sorry Josh, it's an apple - not a tomato....
(http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/284718_1450987931832_1747279280_679420_4289096_n.jpg)
Stop! You are reminding me of the last Buena Nocha celebration I went to. Haven't had such good roast pork since. I need Cuban neighbors again!
A friend is talking about bringing her boyfriend here from Cuba and setting him up with a roast pig trailer for doing special events. Sign me up!
Does the State really have a say in the city choosing to not renew the gas tax? Also what are the cons for letting COJ Public Works handle local road projects instead of JTA? What are the pros for renewing and staying the same?
Here is the beginning of the hoop jumping exercise:
Committee Name: JTA-Jacksonville Transportation Authority
Legislative Authority: Chpt 349, F.S.
Total Members: 7
Committee Duties: Mayor makes 3 appointments; governor makes 3 appointments; 1 member is designated by charter. Acquire, hold, construct, improve, maintain, operate, own, and lease in the capacity of lessor the Jacksonville Expressway System (hereinafter referred to as "system"), heretofore partially constructed or acquired by the Florida State Improvement Commission in the Jacksonville, Duval County, metropolitan area and as hereafter completed or improved or extended as authorized, and all appurtenant facilities, including all approaches, streets, roads, bicycle paths, bridges, and avenues of access for the Jacksonville Expressway System, and to construct or acquire extensions, additions, and improvements to the system and to complete the construction and acquisition of the system. May acquire, hold, construct, improve, operate, maintain, and lease a mass transit system employing motor cars or buses; street railway systems beneath the surface, on the surface, or above the surface; or any other means determined useful to the rapid transfer of large numbers of people among the locations of residence, commerce, industry, and education in the City of Jacksonville. May plan, coordinate, and recommend methods and facilities for the parking of vehicles, the movement of pedestrians, and vehicular traffic (including bicycles), public and private, in the City of Jacksonville, to accomplish a coordinated transportation system for the greater Jacksonville area. May construct and operate passenger terminals for the parking of automobiles and movement by public conveyance of persons and construct and operate all other facilities necessary to a complete and coordinated transportation system in the Jacksonville area.
Meeting Date: (Meeting times and locations are subject to change.)
Click for More Information:
Committee Members:
Name Category
Burr, Edward E. Governor 2
Cavendish, Michael Governor 3
Diebenow, Steven Mayor 1
Harper, Donna L. Governor 1
Mosley, Alan FL DOT District Secretary
Parker, Ava L. Mayor 3
Warren, Cleve E. Mayor 2
Contact Staff:
Name Position Phone Email
Blaylock, Michael J. Executive Director (904) 630-3165 mblaylock@jtafla.com
Since it is a City-levied tax, I don't think the State has any say in whether the City extends, or increases the local option gas tax. There is another nickel per gallon the City could levy.
Changing the JTA, for example to get them out of road building, would require the Legislature to act, since JTA was established by the Legislature - back in the 1950s as the Expressway Authority. The first step might be to get City Council to sponsor a resolution asking the local delegation to make whatever changes.