Metro Jacksonville

I was wondering, does anybody know if JTA has any plans on expanding the Skyway. I know that they are planning to open another station near the planned development in Riverside, Brooklyn Park I think, but what about expanding it to include Berkman/Shipyards, even to the stadium? Do they have plans or have they just given up on the skyway completely...

They gave up, as far as any expansion plans in the next 20 years or so.  BRT is the plan in place as of now.

Quote from: thelakelander on January 20, 2008, 11:39:44 AM
They gave up, as far as any expansion plans in the next 20 years or so.  BRT is the plan in place as of now.

oh god...

Steve Arrington, Skyway defender, is also a Skyway enemy. He is the one which gripes that it costs $100 million dollars a mile to expand. When we talked about the new system that has cost about 10-20 Million a mile, he scoffed and said "IMPOSSIBLE" they can't do that. Well sorry Steve, they already have! Check out the Monorail Society website for costs, or look at Hitachi. I'm sure Bombardier could do the same if prompted.

Right now, it's a big red face for JTA and the politicians, so we are screwed unless we can bring pressure on the right people to make a move.

Keep in mind the size of the Skyway, would NEVER allow it to be regional mass or rapid transit, but it sure will work as a core distribution system to all of the other modes.

Ocklawaha

Also the $100 million per mile he is assuming was the original cost of the system that included an enormously expensive river crossing, maintenance building, and all of the other "start-up" items necessary to get it working.  The only cost now would be trackage, stations, and maybe a few more cars because the core system is already built.

But if it is so expensive, then why is JTA going to build an extra station at Brooklyn Park? It doesnt make sense to me.

That is probably a lie told to a developer.

If you drive by on Riverside Avenue, or even go thru Brooklyn, you will see that the extension to Brooklyn will literally be only a few feet.  They already have stub tracks for storing Skyway cars that end very close to the fence.  It shouldn't take much to extend one of those beyond the fence, and build a simple station.  This would be one of Ocklawaha's ground-level stations.  Maybe it could be named for him?

Gosh, a few feet what's the cost of that $10 Million?

"Old Hippie Terminal"

I can just see it now!

Ocklawaha

Quote from: fhrathore on January 20, 2008, 11:37:10 AM
I was wondering, does anybody know if JTA has any plans on expanding the Skyway. I know that they are planning to open another station near the planned development in Riverside, Brooklyn Park I think, but what about expanding it to include Berkman/Shipyards, even to the stadium? Do they have plans or have they just given up on the skyway completely...

Finally I found the JTA Skyway topic.

My take is they better not give up on the Skyway!!! That would be dumb. I do agree with you there needs to be a Sports Complex Station. It would make tons of cash!! I don't understand why they won't just build the thing. All the events that go on in that area from sports to concerts to the fair....just plain dumb not having a Sports Complex Station. Too many points of interest.

Places the Skyway needs to be/go:

Sports Complex extended from Central Station
5 Point/Riverside extended from Convention Center Station
Springfield extended from Rosa Parks Station
La Villa/The Ritz extended from Rosa Parks Station

reasonable station IMO.



...................I'm tired I need to go to sleep. I should have been to bed 4 hours ago. I love the site. Thanks to whoever is responsible. I'll do my best to take part in discussions. ttyl

Also on the Skyway trains themselves there are comment cards. Have you filled one out???

Quote from: Coolyfett on January 24, 2008, 01:47:04 AM
Places the Skyway needs to be/go:

Sports Complex extended from Central Station
5 Point/Riverside extended from Convention Center Station
Springfield extended from Rosa Parks Station
La Villa/The Ritz extended from Rosa Parks Station

reasonable station IMO.



...................I'm tired I need to go to sleep. I should have been to bed 4 hours ago. I love the site. Thanks to whoever is responsible. I'll do my best to take part in discussions. ttyl

Totally agree about the Sports Complex line - in time.  I think at this point we need to concentrate on more of a citywide system, instead of focusing on just downtown.  It's great that people have 19 ways to move AROUND downtown, now let's get them TO downtown.

The Riverside line would be from Central, not Convention Center.  If you look at the skyway track now, there is a little spur that extends off of the line back to the maintenance center.  It is mentioned briefly in this article: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/content/view/478/116/

With that said, I could see the skyway going down Riverside Avenue, but I don't see it going past I-95 by Fidelity.  The RAP folks don't really feel like the modern Skyway fits into the historic fabric of the neighborhood.

Springfield - See above (substitute SPAR instead of RAP)

LaVilla - don't see that happening.  What would people ride it to - don't say the Ritz.  Not that I have anything against the Ritz, but having events there once a week is not going to get ridership on something that is extremely expensive to build.

Steve, I like the way Coolyfett thinks. Truth be told, Lake and I discussed this Ritz extension at one of the meetings. I agree with Coolyfett that from Rosa Parks I would take the Skyway two directions... In some distant phase 4 or 5 of the system (We already did phase 2). I wouldn't stop at the Ritz, but carry it on and OVER the commuter Rail near Myrtle, and beyond to Edward Waters College. I haven't driven this section in years, but I'm sure there are other interfaces with possible BRT routes out on Kings. Having the Skyway "break in" to the Northwest would set our heaviest transit ridership in a position to get on the trains. If the Skyway became free, Imagine riding from out near Grand Crossing/Paxon, to Commuter Rail at Kings, hence to Gateway or to the Airport by Commuter Rail. The Skyway could be/should be KEY to downtown core distribution and connection. It should be complimented by an extensive downtown LRT or Heritage Trolley system, and a network of shuttle buses.

Oh the second line, would continue north of Rosa Parks about 2 blocks, curve around FCCJ (ON THE CAMPUS) for a student station at the NW corner of the fence. Days that the school is closed, we simply lock the FCCJ access gates and open the gates to the City Street and Park area. Interface with buses bound for Shands or Streetcars on Pearl (advanced phase) of the streetcar system.

This also opens the door to FCCJ - Ed Waters joint studies, library and other traffic... Hell I'd like to see the someday Stadium line cross the new Matthews along with RAIL, and turn north to get into JU for the same purposes.

Ocklawaha

QuoteTotally agree about the Sports Complex line - in time.  I think at this point we need to concentrate on more of a citywide system, instead of focusing on just downtown.  It's great that people have 19 ways to move AROUND downtown, now let's get them TO downtown.

I agree with Steve on this one.  While I can see the merits of a Skyway system that actually went where people want to go, as opposed to parking lots, I'm still of the opinion that reality shows we don't have a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.  Its difficult to justify spending hundreds of millions on an elevated skyway system to cover a downtown that only has 2,000 residents, at the expense of other more populated and congested areas of town.  With that said, its cool to draw these lines on paper, but if money were available, I'd think that money would be better put to use on a more comprehensive system that connects the suburbs with each other, downtown and the airport.  Only after that more comprehensive system is funded and underway would it be time to seriously look into expanding the skyway.

Quote from: Steve on January 24, 2008, 10:03:21 AM

Quote from: Coolyfett on January 24, 2008, 01:47:04 AM
Places the Skyway needs to be/go:

Sports Complex extended from Central Station
5 Point/Riverside extended from Convention Center Station
Springfield extended from Rosa Parks Station
La Villa/The Ritz extended from Rosa Parks Station

reasonable station IMO.



...................I'm tired I need to go to sleep. I should have been to bed 4 hours ago. I love the site. Thanks to whoever is responsible. I'll do my best to take part in discussions. ttyl

Totally agree about the Sports Complex line - in time.  I think at this point we need to concentrate on more of a citywide system, instead of focusing on just downtown.  It's great that people have 19 ways to move AROUND downtown, now let's get them TO downtown.

The Riverside line would be from Central, not Convention Center.  If you look at the skyway track now, there is a little spur that extends off of the line back to the maintenance center.  It is mentioned briefly in this article: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/content/view/478/116/

With that said, I could see the skyway going down Riverside Avenue, but I don't see it going past I-95 by Fidelity.  The RAP folks don't really feel like the modern Skyway fits into the historic fabric of the neighborhood.

Springfield - See above (substitute SPAR instead of RAP)

LaVilla - don't see that happening.  What would people ride it to - don't say the Ritz.  Not that I have anything against the Ritz, but having events there once a week is not going to get ridership on something that is extremely expensive to build.

The La Villa was a reach Ill admit. But the same statements could be made for Jefferson and King Ave Station. What is there?? What are the points of interest at those 2 stations??

Springfield has nothing on Riverside, I mean really a Skyway station would be an upgrade. A lot of people that live in Springfield used to live in Riverside before the yuppies came and raised the price of living.

I will agree the Sports Complex Station is priority. Where do you feel the SCStation could be located?

QuoteThe La Villa was a reach Ill admit. But the same statements could be made for Jefferson and King Ave Station. What is there?? What are the points of interest at those 2 stations??

They both failed so we definately don't need to repeat that model.

QuoteSpringfield has nothing on Riverside, I mean really a Skyway station would be an upgrade. A lot of people that live in Springfield used to live in Riverside before the yuppies came and raised the price of living.

Both of these neighborhoods would go for a streetcar system before the skyway.  Because its elevated, it would become a visual blight to these historic districts.  On the other hand, they were both streetcar suburbs 100 years ago.

Quote from: Ocklawaha on January 24, 2008, 10:59:11 AM


Oh the second line, would continue north of Rosa Parks about 2 blocks, curve around FCCJ (ON THE CAMPUS) for a student station at the NW corner of the fence. Days that the school is closed, we simply lock the FCCJ access gates and open the gates to the City Street and Park area. Interface with buses bound for Shands or Streetcars on Pearl (advanced phase) of the streetcar system.


Ocklawaha

Why not just send line to Shands/Springfield area? Seems like the we would have two FCCJ Stations?

Quote from: thelakelander on January 24, 2008, 12:52:32 PM

QuoteThe La Villa was a reach Ill admit. But the same statements could be made for Jefferson and King Ave Station. What is there?? What are the points of interest at those 2 stations??

They both failed so we definately don't need to repeat that model.

QuoteSpringfield has nothing on Riverside, I mean really a Skyway station would be an upgrade. A lot of people that live in Springfield used to live in Riverside before the yuppies came and raised the price of living.

Both of these neighborhoods would go for a streetcar system before the skyway.  Because its elevated, it would become a visual blight to these historic districts.  On the other hand, they were both streetcar suburbs 100 years ago.

I was in Springfield today...I don't think that streetcar thing is good idea. You say the A Springfield Skyway Station would be a visual blight??? I saw many visual blights. Springfield still needs a lot of work.

Ock, where are you saying you would turn the north leg within the FCCJ Downtown Campus?  I think putting an elevated rail adjacent to - or imposing on the view from downtown of - Historic Bethel Church would be a bit of a hard sell.  Perhaps have one leg come out of Rosa Parks Station, turning west, then split it at Pearl or Jefferson - one going north to Shands the other west to EWC?

Quote from: Coolyfett on January 24, 2008, 07:52:50 PMI was in Springfield today...I don't think that streetcar thing is good idea. You say the A Springfield Skyway Station would be a visual blight??? I saw many visual blights. Springfield still needs a lot of work.

It would be visual blight in that sense that it is a historic neighborhood with a modern monorail running through it - I'd tend to agree.

Remember, Main St had a street car on it back in the day, it is historic to the neigoborhood.

As far as blight goes, I wish you could have seen it 10 years ago.  Holy crap, now there was blight.  To be honest, Main St is really the worst street there now.  When you have some time, take a drive down Laura, Silver, or Market.  Keep in mind that Springfield is what it is - a neighborhood in the middle of being revitalized.  Springfield didn't go south overnight, and will not turn into a great, no blight neighborhood overnight either.

With that said, prices there are nowhere near Avondale, Riverside, or San Marco for comperable properties

Steve you are so right, driving down Main St, Springfield does look pretty bad.  Once you get off that main road and explore the rest of the neighborhood it is amazing.  I remember growing up in Riverside, 10-15 years ago, there was lots of visual blight (current Publix, used to be a hospital, Park and King was nothing like it is now). It took time for that change and it will happen in Springfield as well.

Quote from: fsujax on January 25, 2008, 08:14:13 AM
Steve you are so right, driving down Main St, Springfield does look pretty bad.  Once you get off that main road and explore the rest of the neighborhood it is amazing.  I remember growing up in Riverside, 10-15 years ago, there was lots of visual blight (current Publix, used to be a hospital, Park and King was nothing like it is now). It took time for that change and it will happen in Springfield as well.

It makes sense - generally, the residential streets were aided by individuals.  Yes, SRG has built some great houses, but if it weren't for the individuals ready to by those houses, they wouldn't be built.

Main St on the other hand is largely commercial (or parking lots).  We've demolished some buildings and the rest generally are in bad shape, landlords are asking too much in rent, or both.  Main St will take some large-scale invenstment on the sites of vacant lots, or landlords working with tenants to actually offer reasonable lease rates.

To me, the problems with Main St in Springfield resembel very closely the problems with downtown as a whole.  It's too expensive for the average person to set up shop, and in many cases overpriced.

There are historic places in San Marco. If you think about all the southbank stations are all in San Marco. Would anyone be against the idea of the PS4 = Riverside Station concept?

(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y74/asonj23/Google%20Earth%20Snapshots/AnnieLyttleSkywayTerminal-2.jpg)

(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y74/asonj23/Google%20Earth%20Snapshots/AnnieLyttleSkywayTerminal-3.jpg)

(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y74/asonj23/Google%20Earth%20Snapshots/AnnieLyttleSkywayTerminal-4.jpg)

"Believe it or not it looks like this could be done with very little modification to the exterior structure". 

Looks cool!

I'm sold.

I was reading that Folio Weekly article. I never knew the Skyway cost 200 million. Man I don't know if JTA can even afford to add to it.

Bingo.  Give that poster a cigar!!

Quote

QuoteI was reading that Folio Weekly article. I never knew the Skyway cost 200 million. Man I don't know if JTA can even afford to add to it.

Bingo.  Give that poster a cigar!!

My comments moved to their own "CAN WE AFFORD THE SKYWAY?" thread.

Ocklawaha

Quote from: Ocklawaha on January 31, 2008, 12:52:22 AM

Quote

QuoteI was reading that Folio Weekly article. I never knew the Skyway cost 200 million. Man I don't know if JTA can even afford to add to it.

Bingo.  Give that poster a cigar!!

Oh they could, IF they had the guts to stand up and tell the truth. Y'all have seen and maybe ridden that Southside extension? Ask why when it was ALREADY converted to a single beam monorail system. (Something quite simple and as cheap as BRT or high end LRT) WHY? WHY did JTA go right ahead and build all the way to King Street Station with the ORIGINAL people mover platform (system one) which they had already scrapped. Then came along and laid the monorail beam on top just like the retrofitted Northside line? In other words, they built both systems all over again, when they already knew they were sold to Monorail... Want to see how hard it would be to build to San Marco? Stadium? PS-4? Just drive up to the Times-Union, turn into the front of the Skyway Facility, pass it and make a right on the little dead end alley/street alongside the building. Get out of your car and look at the track coming into the Facility... Does this look anything like what they built on the Southbank? NOPE... WHY? Because this is simple, single beam monorail construction, and had the whole thing been done this way, it would already be in Riverside, Stadium and San Marco!

In my opinion, this might even be a criminal act or waste of public funds that could go into court... Someone should pay for this stupidity or oversight. The whole City, it's image, and a possible help to our transit has been wrecked by the same agency that claimed it would save us. What they did is equal to the new Mainstreet project, including the double streetcar tracks (all brand new) then covering the whole thing with new curbs, flowers and roads... WHY? WHY the duplication...

Thanks to the Monorail Society for this little tidbit...

Ocklawaha

Damn Ock!! You proved me wrong. I was just arguing this point with a friend the other day. My buddy swore that certain parts of the rail were rebuilt. Why the hell would they waste what they already built Ock? Thats extra rail that could have went somewhere else as you stated. That was my disagreement with my friend. Whats the opposite of forwards??

Chuck...I don't smoke cigars  ::). You obviously have a dislike for the system. I personally wish the OUR train system was better but time will tell. All I can do is jump the turnstiles and ride (none of the coin machines work except @ the Rosa Parks Station) to where i am going. Other then the cost, why SHOULDN'T it be extended Chuck?

The PS4/Riverside Station sounds like a good idea. IMO its saves the building, extends the Skyway to Riverside and adds overall mileage to the system. 2.5 miles?? What a joke!

"Chuck" - I guess you mean me?
IF cost were not an object - yes yes yes, extend it to PS4, Shands (along Jefferson St. to avoid Historic Bethel Church), the Sports Complex, and San Marco Square.

Quote from: Charles Hunter on January 31, 2008, 06:05:07 AM
"Chuck" - I guess you mean me?
IF cost were not an object - yes yes yes, extend it to PS4, Shands (along Jefferson St. to avoid Historic Bethel Church), the Sports Complex, and San Marco Square.

Historic Bethel is on Pearl Street??

I'm suggesting that if the existing line along Hogan were to be extended to Shands, it would need to turn west on State Street, immediately after leaving the Rosa Parks station, then go north along Jefferson or Broad.  The original plan (Ock, check me here, the synapses don't always remember correctly) was to continue north thru the FCCJ campus, then follow the creek up to the hospital complex.  This would put the elevated track really close to the historic Bethel building.  Blocking the view from downtown.  This is a no-no with historic structures.  And it would be ugly as heck.

Charles, you are correct about the original route, due North. Myself, I would also go with streetcar, and THAT is what would really serve the neighborhood of San Marco, Riverside-Avondale, and Springfield. The Skyway and the Streetcar as well as TRUE electric shuttle buses, would tie the system together.

The Skyway, wouldn't get past the North Fence of FCCJ. But I WOULD take it that far, maybe a bit to the left or right but just to the Northside of the campus. Keep the students off the highway, AND arrange the gates so on school days the school side would be open as well as the streetside of the station, on closed dates, the school side would close up. If they used TRUE SINGLE BEAM MONORAIL, they should get away with the whole thing for about what another dumb foot bridge system would cost.

Ocklawaha

Quote from: Ocklawaha on February 05, 2008, 10:59:25 PM
Charles, you are correct about the original route, due North. Myself, I would also go with streetcar, and THAT is what would really serve the neighborhood of San Marco, Riverside-Avondale, and Springfield. The Skyway and the Streetcar as well as TRUE electric shuttle buses, would tie the system together.

The Skyway, wouldn't get past the North Fence of FCCJ. But I WOULD take it that far, maybe a bit to the left or right but just to the Northside of the campus. Keep the students off the highway, AND arrange the gates so on school days the school side would be open as well as the streetside of the station, on closed dates, the school side would close up. If they used TRUE SINGLE BEAM MONORAIL, they should get away with the whole thing for about what another dumb foot bridge system would cost.

Ocklawaha

Hey Ock do you have an ORIGINAL PLAN layout you can post here??

Here's the original Skyway route map.
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/images/skyway/original-route-map.jpg)

Here is what was built
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/images/skyway/original-actual-map.jpg)

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/content/view/232/114/

Actually, the 1970's era plan makes much more sense, save for the pie in the sky river crossing.

My questions.....

The East line??? Why was that part not finished? Seems to me that line would generate the most money!!!But thats the one they choose not to build??? BACKWARDS!!! There is way more going on in the Sport Complex then the Convention Center Eerrrrr Union Terminal!!! JTA would make the money back. All the parking at the stadium, the ballpark, the arena & Metropark/Kids. All the Southside & Arlington workers could use this parking easily. The East line Stations would also generate the most money on nights and weekends during events. And this is the one they choose not to build?? BACKWARDS!!!! FL-GA weekend!!! Jag games!!! Concerts/events!!! why would JTA leave all that annual money on the table??? Lake help me out!!! Whats the secret?

We have built the Skyway 2 and 1/2 times over already. First as a rubber tire DPM on a elevated road with guide rails, then we scrapped that and laid a single beam monorail on top of the DPM road.... That was Number 2, then we went across the river and even though we were already into the monorail era with the thing, we went right ahead and built the original DPM road then laid the Monorail on top of that part too! The entire Southbank should be a set of single beam monorails, which they are certainly not. Someone in the big concrete business made a ton of money on that deal... Somebody who was maybe connected with JTA? Someone who could be in City Hall today? You check the dates, we've got the goods on him.

Point 2 is even after changing to Monorail, we went with a tiny distributer system. Little cars, no walk through, no train, no 4 or 6 car trains. All of the above were available. In fact there are at least two advanced systems that cost about 1/2 as much as we paid just for the trains. Now all you would-be transit guys brand this on the inside of your hands... THE FORMULA... 30,000 PPDPH "30,000 passengers per direction per hour". Remember JTA planned on 56,000 a day, then put on the monorail with a top capacity of about 3,000 per hour. Even if it went to the superbowl it would take 20 hours to get 60,000 people in the stands! Hardly the transit system JTA sold the City. It could be saved. We could bring in the new companies and have a look at a cheap and quick way to greatly increase load and route. I have numbers that say somewhere around 20-30 million a mile is realistic for a system that could fill the stadium in 2 - 2 1/2 hours. Add bus shuttles, autos, walk ups, streetcar's and we'd be in business.

Right now at City Hall or JTA the Skyway is a job killer. If the boss has concrete money in his pocket, no wonder why...

Ocklawaha

Regarless of the cost, the Skyway really is a nice system.  Unfortunately the city raped and sodomized us on the it.

Wow, well put Gatorback. It was JTA that did it... And let's not forget who was on the board of directors...

Gee, I thought something felt funny about that! Ouch!

But Pssssst.... I think it was Gomora that had the Monorail! It things like that that give those Sodomites a bad name.

Ocklawaha

East Line coming?!?!?

"Last month when workers dug up Bay Street for the infrastructure for the Automated Skyway System, they uncovered the old trolley tracks which used to run down Bay. The new ultra modern transportation will be right on top of the 1890's transportation system."

I got this from a book call "Crackers & Carpetbaggers"  Chapter: Bay Street History, pg 13. The book's  copyright date is 2005. Written by John W. Cowart. Is anyone familiar with this book?? Is there really plans to run the Skyway down Bay Street? The old tracks are just paved over and never removed??

Well, the Bay St leg of the skyway (originally known as the Automated Skyway Express) was done in the 1980, so that's very possible.  There were plans to extend it down to the stadium, bit that project was pulled.

As far as the trolley tracks, in most cases they are paved over.  When Hendricks avenue was redone a couple of years ago, they pulled up trolley tracks.

I know this is a getting a bit off topic, but speaking of rail lines, when the state widened Riverside Ave a few years ago, they pulled up a bunch of railroad ties that were paved over.  It took a while to do it too.  They were hefty and looked to be built to last.  I'm not sure if they were trolly ties or regular freight railroad ties.

As far as the skyway goes, it always seemed over-engineered to me.  I don't know anything about engineering, but it seems to me a system like that could be build using much less material, perhaps an exposed steel frame.  Exposed steel structures can be made to look appealing.  If they had chosen to use rubber wheeled trains instead of a monorail, couldn't they have brought it down to the street level in spots, with barriers to keep the regular street vehicles out of the way?

when the original people mover was completed in teh 1980, it used technology from a company called Matra:
(http://www.tramways.com/subways/miami.metromover1/mm14max.jpg)

The image above is Miami's, but it's the same stuff.  Notice the rubber tires.  Our tracks had some guardrails that Miami's doesn't but it's essentially the same thing.

When they decided to expand it, apparently negotiations with Matra fell through, and Bombardier was brought in to build what we have today:

(http://www.urbanrail.net/am/jack/KingsAve2.jpg)

This is a monorail technology.  Well, when the tracks were expanded, it appears that they just took the Matra design, and added a concrete beam in the middle, when they could have just gone with something like the Disney Monorail:

(http://mpimages.net/dlr/compressed/Disneyland/Monorail/MonorailPurple400-AVP.jpg)

Why did JTA do this.  I have no idea.

It should have been built like this:

(http://www.mouseplanet.com/kkrock/figure1-1.jpg)

But instead they built this:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/Jacksonville_Skyway_stub.jpg/800px-Jacksonville_Skyway_stub.jpg)

Quote from: scaleybark on March 06, 2008, 10:14:17 AM
I know this is a getting a bit off topic, but speaking of rail lines, when the state widened Riverside Ave a few years ago, they pulled up a bunch of railroad ties that were paved over.  It took a while to do it too.  They were hefty and looked to be built to last.  I'm not sure if they were trolly ties or regular freight railroad ties.

They were trolley ties from the Riverside line.

QuoteAs far as the skyway goes, it always seemed over-engineered to me.  I don't know anything about engineering, but it seems to me a system like that could be build using much less material, perhaps an exposed steel frame.  Exposed steel structures can be made to look appealing.  If they had chosen to use rubber wheeled trains instead of a monorail, couldn't they have brought it down to the street level in spots, with barriers to keep the regular street vehicles out of the way?

Its definately over-engineered.  The skyway's capital costs per mile are on par with the capital costs of building underground subway systems.  This recently built peoplemover system in Indianapolis illustrates how much we wasted on the skyway.

(http://www.on-track-on-line.com/photos/drpm06.jpg)

(http://www.on-track-on-line.com/photos/drpm05.jpg)

(http://www.on-track-on-line.com/photos/drpm11.jpg)


This privately financed system was completed in 2003 for $42 million.  At 1.5 miles in length, that comes out to around $28 million per mile or roughly the same price tag as building JTA's dedicated busway plan.  The 2.5 mile skyway cost local taxpayers $184 million or $73.6 million per mile.

Quote from: scaleybark on March 06, 2008, 10:14:17 AM
I know this is a getting a bit off topic, but speaking of rail lines, when the state widened Riverside Ave a few years ago, they pulled up a bunch of railroad ties that were paved over.  It took a while to do it too.  They were hefty and looked to be built to last.  I'm not sure if they were trolly ties or regular freight railroad ties.

As far as the skyway goes, it always seemed over-engineered to me.  I don't know anything about engineering, but it seems to me a system like that could be build using much less material, perhaps an exposed steel frame.  Exposed steel structures can be made to look appealing.  If they had chosen to use rubber wheeled trains instead of a monorail, couldn't they have brought it down to the street level in spots, with barriers to keep the regular street vehicles out of the way?

As dumb as I may sound man I never knew they just paved over the tracks!!! I thought all that stuff was dug up and removed before new streets were laid. 9 times out of 10 whatever you saw on Riverside Ave was trolley tracks. Seems to me like most of the route is the old trolley route. I'm hoping the Skyway is ran to the Metro Park, Arena & etc. I was shocked to read that in 2005 book.

Quote from: Steve on March 06, 2008, 10:38:34 AM
This is a monorail technology.  Well, when the tracks were expanded, it appears that they just took the Matra design, and added a concrete beam in the middle, when they could have just gone with something like the Disney Monorail:
Why did JTA do this.  I have no idea.

So the concrete beam is basically "the Track". Would it be safe to have just the beam and not the supporting part underneath Steve?

Quote from: Coolyfett on March 06, 2008, 10:06:06 PMSo the concrete beam is basically "the Track". Would it be safe to have just the beam and not the supporting part underneath Steve?

I don't see any reason why not - every other monorail I've seen is just a beam:

Seattle Monorail
(http://www.monorails.org/webpix%202/scm04.jpg)

Disney Monorail
(http://www.wdwinfo.com/Transportation/photos/monorail.jpg)

Okay, yes, most of the worlds monorails operate on single beam, concrete track. Some are metal beam track systems, some ride above and others hang below the rail. Either way the principal is the same. ONE BEAM and get the darn thing up and above the traffic and people.

Monorails are NOT NEW, having been around since about 1830... While railways themselves date to about 600 BCE. Modern Railway trams date (as far as we know) from about 1600. The fact is we haven't found any rails on top of ties that date any older then that but have written accounts going back long before Christ. When they decided to build rails as opposed to groved cut stone guideways is anyones guess. Even more fun, go to church Sunday, and tell your pastor that you've heard that the Apostle Paul was probably a railroad passenger! Watch his face give you the "you have issues..." stare. Fact is Paul went to Rome and crossed the Greece at Corinth, home of the first sea to sea railroad! If he booked passage on a ship of the time, and records say he did, then his passage included rail fare! BELIEVE IT OR NOT!

Back to Monorails, they are great at slower speeds. My own experience with several older systems says 45 or 50 is about the best that long term use can expect. Passenger loadings are also rather small on most systems. This is not DEMAND, it is CAPACITY, a system with less then crush hour capacitys of 30,000 Passengers per hour per direction is fairly useless for a large metro area or theme park. Ours has 3,000 PPHPD.  But again, keep in mind it's just another type of train on another type of track, change the equipment running on the track and we could WAY up those numbers.

Safety, Monorails are very safe, they don't crash into cars, trucks, trains, or anything else we are told. However they do have exposed electric rails which in our case are reachable by someone stepping out onto the beam, with no restraining devices or doors. This is dangerous stuff, with the ability to quick fry anyone to a crackly crunch in about a mili-second. Monorail folks also never mention where the lines are not high enough, they are sometimes knocked out by large trucks that didn't clear the beams. Similar to the idiot driver that tried to move the new Fuller Warren Bridge on Riverside a few months ago in his big rig. The OKC monorail was completely taken down by such an accident. Safety requires a way to remove passengers from the trains in the event of a failure. This doesn't mean we have to build sidewalks and can be done several ways. A simple metal cat walk between the tracks will do, so will trains that allow passage from car to car with doors on the ends. A simple gas mechanical rescue vehicle can run out and pull off anything stalled. Lastly, to my knowledge, there have been two major incidents in recent history with monorail safety. Both from the fact that most systems use many rubber tires on the beams. Both involved tire shreding and in one case the falling drive tire struck and nearly killed someone under the vehicle. But building like we built for these rare cases is like flying a jumbo jet with a net under it in case an engine falls off... DUMB!

I am not and never have been a big fan of rubber tired monorails or people movers. I fought it back in the 1980's and labeled it a horizontal elevator that would become the "Turkey project of Jacksonville". I wish I had been wrong. Now that we have the huge investment, it does make sense to complete the downtown distributer network and change the trains to higher capacity units.

I suggest the following:

Extend East to the Stadium District via BAY STREET - hence North on RANDOLPH to Arlington Expy. Where a large multi-modal garage/bus/train/streetcar station could be built.

Extend North to First Street, FCCJ or just South and East of Bethel Church. This would allow Springfielders to enjoy the park or downtown, and FCCJ students to avoid STATE and UNION.

Extend West to curve South and fish-hook around the Prime Osbourne Center, hence dropping down to ground level and comming in at a platform across from rail and bus.

Extend Southwest down Riverside Avenue to Blue Cross, if nothing happens to PS-4 then turn west and head down Rosell to Annie Lytle and create a multi-transit 5 points terminal out of the old school.

Extend Southeast OVER I-95 to the new Hilton, hence over the FEC railroad and down the west side of the railroad to Atlantic Avenue in San Marco. Over the RR wipes out a 100 year old probblem in San Marco of being cut off from the City by trains. The Atlantic Station would have BUS/SKYWAY/COMMUTER RAIL.

STUDY MATERIAL ONLY...

Look at replacing the BRT on I-95 North with Skyway from Rosa Parks to 95, hence North to Shands and behind Shands, a transit center on the old "S" line where Skyway/BUS/TRAIN/STREETCAR all meet.

Look at possible extensions from Randolph and Arlington Expressway over the new Matthews Bridge, along with LRT. YES HIGHWAY-SKYWAY-RAIL on one bridge. Hence move the Skyway up University to JU

Look at possible extensions from South of the new San Marco Hilton, Eastward to Memorial Hospital or University and Beach Blvd, again a SKYWAY-BUS interchange

Any thoughts? BTW, some systems are coming in for as little as $10-20 million a mile, with stuff that would meet all of the above demands...

Ocklawaha

But how does the cost compare to a cable car, like the ones that ski lifts use.

Any idea on what happened to the cable car plan that was to extend from Kings Avenue Station to Jax Municipal Stadium and then down Bay, to reconnect with the skyway?

QuoteFriday, March 16, 2007

Ride in the sky

Jacksonville Business Journal - by Christian Conte Staff Writer

Public transportation in Downtown Jacksonville could be up in the air -- literally.

Local developer Mike Balanky hopes to establish a committee of public officials and local business owners next month to consider the feasibility of and possible funding mechanisms for an aerial cable car system that could link the Southbank to the Northbank from the Kings Avenue parking garage to the Jacksonville Municipal Stadium.

"There's a possibility that we wouldn't proceed at all," said Balanky, president of Chase Properties Inc., who first proposed the idea a year ago. "But we think there's a really good chance that we will."

Several companies provide aerial cable car services, but Balanky has had preliminary discussions with Doppelmayr CTEC Inc., the American branch of an Austrian company that specializes in ropeway transportation systems.

Randy Woolwine, the vice president of sales at Doppelmayr's U.S. headquarters in Salt Lake City, said gondola systems can serve as a good supplement or alternative to an existing or stressed urban transportation system, but they are not ideal for every city.

"A gondola system is not the answer to all transportation problems, but it is the answer to some."

A gondola system can carry up to 2,400 passengers per hour, equivalent to 60, 40-passenger buses, Woolwine said. In urban settings, gondolas are best for transporting very large groups a short distance, such as from a parking garage on the outskirts of a downtown to the heart of the city or from a parking garage to a stadium.

However, they may not be useful in an area of a city that does not have full buses and a demand for more, Woolwine said.

Electric-powered gondolas pollute less than gasoline-powered vehicles, eliminate the need for roadway expansions and are a safer mode of travel than the alternative. Still, Woolwine said, they do have limitations. Gondolas should not be used in heavy winds and require regular maintenance that involve shutting down the system for several days during the first five years and more often for longer periods as the system ages.

A mile-long system with no stops in between would cost $8 million to $10 million, Woolwine said. Each additional stop along the way would add $2 million to the cost. That figure does not include the construction of terminals or infrastructure changes such as parking structures and the access needed to accommodate the system.

http://jacksonville.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/stories/2007/03/19/story2.html?b=1174276800^1431855 (http://jacksonville.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/stories/2007/03/19/story2.html?b=1174276800%5E1431855)

Ock, your plans sound ideal to me.  Also, mix that up with some historic trolly lines in the old streetcar suburbs and tie it all together with aforementioned commuter rail system and a line to the beaches.  Lock it all together with some strict development guidlines along our current urban development boundaires and Jacksonville will likely explode from the inside out with people and skyscrapers. 

That's the easy part, now we just have to figure out how to fund it.  If we can come up with realistic funding solutions that don't require raising taxes in a time when people are losing jobs and getting their houses foreclosed, then we'll be on our way.

Quote from: Steve on March 06, 2008, 11:00:04 PM

Quote from: Coolyfett on March 06, 2008, 10:06:06 PMSo the concrete beam is basically "the Track". Would it be safe to have just the beam and not the supporting part underneath Steve?

I don't see any reason why not - every other monorail I've seen is just a beam:

Seattle Monorail
(http://www.monorails.org/webpix%202/scm04.jpg)

Disney Monorail
(http://www.wdwinfo.com/Transportation/photos/monorail.jpg)

Yea....but in the pics your posting those monorails have I guess more mass below the trains that hug the beam. The Skyway trains have those lil wheels. What prevents those trains from falling over?

I think Ock answered my question about those tires and the trains falling off the beams. The east track is a must!! Too many points of interest. And after reading a few post, I totally forgot about the City Hall Annex, The Berkmen 1 & 2, The Club/bar strip, The Florida Theater & The Police Headquarters. The Skyway going east would do more then just serve Metro Park & The Sports Complex. I still feel the east expansion would make JTA the most money. I know many people hate the Skyway system & I kinda understand. IMO there are only 2 strong stations. Hemming Plaza Station and San Marco Station. The other 6 need a lil help. With Ock's additions the system would be way better.

Quote from: Jason on March 07, 2008, 10:11:49 AM
Ock, your plans sound ideal to me.  Also, mix that up with some historic trolley lines in the old streetcar suburbs and tie it all together with aforementioned commuter rail system and a line to the beaches.  Lock it all together with some strict development guidelines along our current urban development boundaires and Jacksonville will likely explode from the inside out with people and skyscrapers. 

Trolleys? Why? So cars & bikes can run into them? Trolleys don't move faster than Monorails. A passenger would have to get off a skyway train to hop on a trolley? Why not just run the skyway to the final destination Jason? (hey that rhymes!!  ;D)

Quote from: Ocklawaha on March 07, 2008, 12:40:41 AM


I suggest the following:

Extend North to First Street, FCCJ or just South and East of Bethel Church. This would allow Springfielders to enjoy the park or downtown, and FCCJ students to avoid STATE and UNION.

Extend West to curve South and fish-hook around the Prime Osbourne Center, hence dropping down to ground level and coming in at a platform across from rail and bus.

These are the 2 I'm not understanding

1. How about just going all the way to 8th Street near Shands? That would give the hospital and Springfield access. Does FCCJ need 2 stations?

2. The Terminal Station is close enough to the Convention Center Ock. Wouldn't it be cheaper to build one of those tunnel things like what what Baptist Hospital uses to connect to the Children's Hospital over the Fuller Warren. I think Shands has one as well. What are those walkways called? Im not sure the actual term, but one could be built to put a Skyway rider right inside the Convention Center.......hit me back Ock

Coolyfett: Hello, and thanks for the input.

The reasons we cannot advance the Skyway beyond FCCJ is the problem with BUCK ROGERS -V- HISTORIC DISTRICT. Monorails and Springfield unless we did a study of I-95 corridor really suck. They also do not do well at higher speed so once it left a future station, say about the Ritz Theater, and turned up 95 North, it wouldn't have another stop until Shands. Nobody lives on I-95... Same problem with the goofy BRT plan.

I'd go to the North side of FCCJ downtown as crossing State and Union Street is a hazard to anyone. College Students are our future, at least we could protect them. Perhaps take it to the lot East of Bethel Church and 1st street, but please only to get to bus or Trolley connections.

The Union Station or Terminal idea is to raze the current Bay Street station (they plan a parking garage there) and swing south and hook around the back side of the Convention Center. This would give us bus and track side, ground level Skyway interchanges. Bottom line, the Prime Osbourne, even expanded is VERY limited on time... I've seen bigger high school gyms. Once we build a REAL convention center, this place will be a natural terminal for all major transportation modes without the need to fill 1/2 of LaVilla with expensive new buildings. Let's save that money and build a REAL convention center downtown, then convert the terminal into a TRANSPORTATION TEMPLE circa 1919 as God intended it. I feel the Skyway should be a ground level, across the platform player in any such plan.

(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa111/Ocklawaha/Maps/SkywayCompletedMap-1.jpg)
Skyway in BLUE, Streetcar (STARTER LINE) in thin green, BRT Bus in Red.

Now about the Trolleys...Here are a few positive facts for those who just don't get it:

History: We once had the States largest System, most advanced, best equiped. Our Main, Palmetto, Pearl and some other lines were known around the world as the most beautiful streetcar lines in the world. It's a bit of glory we could recapture.

Cost: In spite of JTA's Pie in the sky estimates, Historic Light Rail has been built for around 2-8 million dollars a mile in every city. That's about 20 million a mile LESS then JTA's super bus sytem.

TOD: Trolley rail has brought in BILLIONS of dollars in development wherever it has been tried. Even tiny lines like Tacoma, Tampa and tiny El Reno, Oklahoma have experienced huge booms on the Trolley lines.

JTA MYTHS: Streetcars are a form of "COMMUTER RAIL", even if JTA says it's not... It's a no brainer, RAIL THAT CARRIES COMMUTERS..." Duh. Because it IS a railroad first, it doesn't have to be in the street. It can be in a median, side of the road, elevated, subway, railroad track, abandoned railroad line, etc... anywhere we can put rails. The advantage is, they can roll down Water Street past the landing, Omni, and Hyatt like any city bus. Then within a few blocks be on their own track, horn blowing, and crossing gates going down as they fly toward the next station.

(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa111/Ocklawaha/Interurbans/CLERACESPLANE-1.jpg)
JTA says Trolleys are SLOW and MUST compete with Automobile traffic. I offer this actual photo of an
event that happened TWICE in this same location. In  the 1930's the Cincinnati and Lake Erie Railway (a trolley interurban line) was challenged to a race (TWICE) by early aircraft... First a bi-wing plane, then a ford tri-motor. Both times the Trolley left the plane in it's dust at something around 100 mph. BTW, they also accellerate much faster then buses or cars. The early airlines wanted to snuff out the faster and cleaner electric Railways. Neither in the street, competing with traffic or slow, a joke circulated around  the industry.

A farmer saw a plane crash and found the badly bruised pilot laying in a hay stack...

Excited about it the farmer asked quickly, "Hey were you the fella racing that Trolley Car?"

The pilot moaned and nodded a feable, "yes."

"Well what happened to ya?" the farmer inquired.

The pilot confessed, "That darn trolley ran out from under me so fast, I thought my airplane had stopped, so I got out to see what was the matter..."

SLOW: Streetcars have been held to 30 mph by choice in most systems because they are kept to downtown historic district streets and/or share a road with cars. You really wouldn't want them to go faster there. SO OF COURSE JTA has listed streetcars as slower then buses. UNTRUE! The motors in the streetcar are not unlike the toy slot cars many of us had as kids. A bit of tweeking and they are the same motors that the French Railroad just broke 300 MPH with. In other words, we can have our cake and eat it too.

TOURISM: Jacksonvile was once called the Queen of the Winter Resorts. There are 5 MILLION + rail fans in the World, most with above average income. We did a marketing study that showed 500,000 a year would visit our city just to ride our historic stretcars... that's more the 6 Super Bowls a year!

Finally, Real streetcars + Riverside + Avondale + Fairfax + Ortega + Springfield + LaVilla + Fairfield + San Marco + San Jose... Oh my God, they go together like Orange Juice and Sunrise.

MIX: Transit mix, now unlike a department store with choices will always out perform transit dictatorships. Hey! How about we ride that Jacksonville Monorail thing to the game and go back to the post game at the Landing on that cool old trolley? By the way, did you see they replaced those stupid shuttle bus "faux trolleys" with REAL VINTAGE BUSES TOO? Oh, our friends already left on the water taxi... Well except for the two new guys, they took the commuter rail North to Springfield, where they plan to ride about the "S" to Union Station and catch up with us at the landing.... WHAT? NOBODY CHOSE THE BRT? Not a chance JTA, Not a chance!

Ocklawaha

Quote from: Ocklawaha on March 09, 2008, 12:06:54 AM


The reasons we cannot advance the Skyway beyond FCCJ is the problem with BUCK ROGERS -V- HISTORIC DISTRICT. Monorails and Springfield unless we did a study of I-95 corridor really suck. They also do not do well at higher speed so once it left a future station, say about the Ritz Theater, and turned up 95 North, it wouldn't have another stop until Shands. Nobody lives on I-95... Same problem with the goofy BRT plan.

I'd go to the North side of FCCJ downtown as crossing State and Union Street is a hazard to anyone. College Students are our future, at least we could protect them. Perhaps take it to the lot East of Bethel Church and 1st street, but please only to get to bus or Trolley connections.

The Union Station or Terminal idea is to raze the current Bay Street station (they plan a parking garage there) and swing south and hook around the back side of the Convention Center. This would give us bus and track side, ground level Skyway interchanges. Bottom line, the Prime Osbourne, even expanded is VERY limited on time... I've seen bigger high school gyms. Once we build a REAL convention center, this place will be a natural terminal for all major transportation modes without the need to fill 1/2 of LaVilla with expensive new buildings. Let's save that money and build a REAL convention center downtown, then convert the terminal into a TRANSPORTATION TEMPLE circa 1919 as God intended it. I feel the Skyway should be a ground level, across the platform player in any such plan.
Ocklawaha

I sorta understand the buck rogers v. historic thing. It just sux to have to get off one vehicle to get on a different vehicle thats going the same direction.... NORTH. Guessing the Skyway going east is more important. The students only have to cross State Street Ock. Rosa Parks Station is between State and Union, but a Station beyond 1st Street would be great. All for preserving the historic areas, just hope Springfield and Riverside's riders could have skyway access without getting on a different vehicle.

I agree the Union Terminal/Convention Center should be a transportation hub.  Always thought that was a great idea. But Ock I still don't see the point in building another station on the southside of the Union Terminal/Convention Center. I'm thinking your talking about the place where you all discovered those tunnels right? The area between Brooklyn and the actually building?

That area seems like it will be getting a complete face lift by 2010. According to Steve's Bay Street Station post.

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,1799.msg14851/topicseen.html#new

If this does happen the Skyway system would definitely have to be expanded. I doubt the city will leave it as is forever

for you railroad guys, the history of rail has just started on the History Channel.

we don't watch cable it ruins the precious mind.  if you flip to PBS you can see Amber. woo

Quote"A gondola system is not the answer to all transportation problems, but it is the answer to some."

A gondola system can carry up to 2,400 passengers per hour, equivalent to 60, 40-passenger buses, Woolwine said. In urban settings, gondolas are best for transporting very large groups a short distance, such as from a parking garage on the outskirts of a downtown to the heart of the city or from a parking garage to a stadium.

However, they may not be useful in an area of a city that does not have full buses and a demand for more, Woolwine said.

Electric-powered gondolas pollute less than gasoline-powered vehicles, eliminate the need for roadway expansions and are a safer mode of travel than the alternative. Still, Woolwine said, they do have limitations. Gondolas should not be used in heavy winds and require regular maintenance that involve shutting down the system for several days during the first five years and more often for longer periods as the system ages.

(http://static.flickr.com/2375/2085996720_3429f537db.jpg)
Medellin METRO-CABLE, leaving train station, over wild river, small flood plain and right up into the Andes.

We built one of these systems in Medellin, and currently are starting another and have plans for a couple more. The vehicles are quite comfortable, fully enclosed, AC/Heat. The Anchor Terminal is in the valley (City) along the river in the METRO ELECTRIC RAILWAY station. From there it goes "straight" up! As the valley narrows the burbs for many of the poor or working class are stacked up the sides of the Andes. Sidewalks are simple steps... miles and miles of steps. Picture San Francisco with hills in the two mile high range....Eeeouch.

I have to say as MASS TRANSIT, it isn't much with only 3,500 or so an hour (oh my, equal to our current Skyway trains) It doesn't get close to the 30,000 Passengers Per Hour Per Direction, "MAGIC NUMBER". In Medellin, Colombia (where I lived) the system serves many thousands of poor, with access to the little homes and apartments in nose bleed country. What about Jacksonville?

(http://static.flickr.com/33/49213609_8e5ea754be.jpg)

(http://static.flickr.com/127/381388842_846f094b0d.jpg)
Rotunda or Turntable boarding area within the TICKETED area of the train station, no extra fare needed to climb the Andes.

I COULD see dedicated use for it in certain spots. Coming out of the Southbank in one of the new residential towers might be an idea, but you wouldn't want to mix the public transport aspects with restricted residential access.Coming off the Skyway station at Kings Avenue, Train platform level, I coulld see a match. Simply step off the Skyway cars and onto the rotunda or turntable and meet a parade of gondolas for downtown or stadium. I'd say The Jacksonville Landing, Hyatt/Convention Center, all would make good matches.

Cableways CAN serve more then point to point operations, intermediate stops are all doable. The biggest drawback is the speed is barely more then a walk. Heading out in a Que of 5-6 gondolas bunched up, then shifting to a faster rope as they pass certain tower points. So speed can vary somewhat. The biggest plus is the same thing! It's a slow, high and great way to see the City, the river/(s), Port, Skyline etc... It could even offer an alternative return along the Riverwalk. They don't compete well with trains, trolleys, buses, submarines, guided missles etc... But the unique footprint, views and abilities so give them a real shot at becoming as much an attraction as a reliever.

(http://static.flickr.com/2156/2057963681_99a957e430.jpg)

(http://static.flickr.com/26/49213858_3b46c0502e.jpg)
All within 100 feet of each-other in the Medellin Station... We call this Intermodal...
BTW JTA? No BRT at this stop, but plenty of buses, and cabs on the street level
long distance trains just over the wall behind the metro train, as the line comes back
we'll see some platform and other changes here for connectivity.


Lower elevation along Hogans Creek?

Riverwalk, two way

Rosa Parks to Shands through the parks?

Mayport Cruise Terminal - Hanna - Beachwalk Airline?

Zoo to freeway parking area, JTA park n ride...

Airport RAIL STATION to JIA Terminal

JTB Commuter Rail Station to Town Center - Mayo - Beaches - Office Parks.

We could do this, and leave ourselves with our very own "GOLDEN GATE" type landmark that would pull in more of those visitor dollars. Just for fun, it would also be solving some of our traffic troubles... Wonder if Stricklands at Mayport would have a stop.  

Ocklawaha

I swear to GOD sometimes Google is good for nothing!!

I have a question. When was the Skyway started as far as building?? Like the ground breaking year? Some places say 1980 some say 1984. I think it actually started running (please correct me if I'm wrong  :-\) in 1987 with the Westline. But I'm asking the actual year it was started on?

My next beef!!

What the fuck is up with the change machines?? I complain to the JTA guys all the time. They need to switch over to card reader man!!! First you got the change machine that is powered on but won't take your money! Then you have the machines that take your 50 cent and the turnstiles wont move!!! Who walks around with quarters?? I don't. Then you have the machines that you can't even get to because they are locked behind a gate @ 5:30 pm!!! Nobody wants to steal your frigging showbiz pizza change machine JTA..I mean I'll jump the turnstiles and I have many times, not because of me trying to cheat but because the shit don't work sometimes!! And I know if I'm doing it, others have to be doing it as well so.....How much money does JTA lose by not being on point with the way to pay the Skyway fare?

Out of curiosity I went to JTA's latest annual report (9/30/2008) and found that it reports the $ky-high-way had a NET OPERATING LOSS of $13,735,138, not the $7 million previously reported in the press and elsewhere.  Operating Revenues were a paltry $357,123 from passengers and a total of $529,465 against massive operating expenses of $14,264,603.

Can someone explain why the big discrepancy?  If not, the reasons for dumping the $ky-high-way just doubled!!!

Also, as I suspected, JTA benefits are running a very rich 55% of the cost of labor.  My experience is this would typically be around 20 to 30% in the private sector.

No wonder JTA can't afford bus shelters.

By the way, we local taxpayers are giving JTA $54,650,113 in operations (not the road building sales taxes, etc, which are another almost $80 million) subsidies via our taxes to the City of Jacksonville.

I bolded the relevant numbers below but for the more curious and a lot more revelations about JTA's finances go to:  http://www.jtafla.com/pdf/Annual%20Report%20for%20the%20web.pdf

QuoteStatement of Revenue, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Assets
Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2008

Columns, in order: Bus ASE CTC Totals

Operating revenues:
Passenger $ 8,418,407 $ 357,123 $ 480,498 $ 9,256,028
Agency - - 7,251,730 7,251,730
Charter 243,343 - - 243,343
Auxilliary transportation 267,363 - - 267,363
Non-transportation 352,531 172,342 916 525,789

Total operating revenue 9,281,644 529,465 7,733,144 17,544,253

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

Operating loss (70,328,940) (13,735,138) (6,126,005) (90,190,083)

Nonoperating revenues
Public funding:
United States government 5,349,297 1,555,604 805,664 7,710,565
State of Florida 4,250,155 - - 4,250,155
City of Jacksonville 53,439,498 163,052 1,047,563 54,650,113
Other subsidies 137,670 - - 137,670
Investment earnings 139,993 334,986 14,098 489,077

Total nonoperating revenues 63,316,613 2,053,642 1,867,325 67,237,580

Loss before capital contributions
and transfers (7,012,327) (11,681,496) (4,258,680) (22,952,503)
Capital contributions 8,700,146 2,310,482 1,946,348 12,956,976
Transfers in 11,100,000 3,829,119 2,834,734 17,763,853
Transfers out (6,663,853) - - (6,663,853)

Change in net assets 6,123,966 (5,541,895) 522,402 1,104,473

Net assets, beginning of year, as restated 73,451,617 113,684,269 865,039 188,000,925
Net assets, end of year $ 79,575,583 $ 108,142,374 $ 1,387,441 $ 189,105,398

stjr...........if your correct, we need to pull the plug now on that edifice Last that I had seen put the operating expenses for the $kyway at $7 Million per year so I guess I have to ask WTF!

It would be far cheaper to use buses to move people between the Skyway stops than using the current Skyway system.

Actually each Skyway car would make a very nice artifical reef offshore.

Here's my quote in another thread:

QuoteIf its going to left to rot, then lets go ahead and start planning to either take it down or convert the infrastructure into an elevated streetcar system (DT only because skyway infrastructure is there. The streetcar can run at-grade everywhere else).  Either way, the status quo on how we completely ignore the skyway needs to change.

come on everyone knows if we just extend it a little further it will be a magnificent success!!

Quote from: mtraininjax on October 15, 2009, 09:12:31 AM
It would be far cheaper to use buses to move people between the Skyway stops than using the current Skyway system.

I once read a statistic that it would be cheaper to use chauffeured limosines to move people between the Skyway stops than using the current Skyway system.

Quote from: civil42806 on October 15, 2009, 09:19:17 AM
come on everyone knows if we just extend it a little further it will be a magnificent success!!

Success as in, connecting actual destinations and thus increasing ridership (and practically any increase whatsoever would be a substantial improvement) because it actually goes somewhere useful?  Absolutely. 

And let me further posit these musings on the subject:

Firstly, The Skyway system, be it ever so humble and incomplete, is something unique to Jacksonville.  Other cities have something similar, but not that many.  Therefore, if nothing else, it's a gimmick that should be embraced and lauded rather than disowned and demonized.

As such, love it or hate it, it's a distinct part of Jacksonville lore, culture, discussion, and history.  To tear it down would be removing yet another part of what's ostensibly a piece of uniquely Jacksonville history.  To call for its demolition and destruction is, at least in my opinion, analogous to championing the destruction of historic building stock. 

Is the Skyway as old and historic as those few building still standing?  Absolutely not.  But everything becomes 'historical' some day.  Destruction now versus later is still elimination of something very 'Jacksonville.'

Quote from: Doctor_K on October 15, 2009, 01:59:56 PM
Firstly, The Skyway system, be it ever so humble and incomplete, is something unique to Jacksonville.  Other cities have something similar, but not that many.  Therefore, if nothing else, it's a gimmick that should be embraced and lauded rather than disowned and demonized.

As such, love it or hate it, it's a distinct part of Jacksonville lore, culture, discussion, and history.  To tear it down would be removing yet another part of what's ostensibly a piece of uniquely Jacksonville history.  To call for its demolition and destruction is, at least in my opinion, analogous to championing the destruction of historic building stock. 

Is the Skyway as old and historic as those few building still standing?  Absolutely not.  But everything becomes 'historical' some day.  Destruction now versus later is still elimination of something very 'Jacksonville.'

$14 million a year could pay to restore a lot of real significant and truly historic structures.  Calling the $ky-high-way, which really is nothing more than a bunch of bland concrete sections fastened together, historic?  That's an insult to all the historic structures (and street cars) we have watched silently destroyed over these many decades.  What it may be, at best, is an "historic" monument to lousy decision making and a waste of millions in our taxpayer dollars.  It does serve to remind us, hopefully, to never let a folly like this happen again.  You are right about it being a "gimmick".  To me, that's a proposition that is misrepresented to be something it really isn't.

I give you credit with coming up with the most far out reason yet to save the thing.  I guess desperation is the mother of creativity.

Do the math:

$14 million/850 riders/day (that's 1,700 trips, 2 per rider) = $16,470/year subsidy PER RIDER.

You could buy each rider a car EVERY year for that money!

It is still a big number but about 8 million of that is depreciation just written off not money laid out for operating.

Wasn't the "automated" part supposed to save money because there are no drivers required?  How in the world do they spend $14 million per year on that little system?

They don't.

Quote from: JeffreyS on October 15, 2009, 02:28:58 PM
It is still a big number but about 8 million of that is depreciation just written off not money laid out for operating.

I knew someone would bring this up.  Depreciation represents real cash lost due to the wear and tear and general obsolescence over the life of the asset.  So, rather than expense the cash in the initial year (i.e year of acquisition) all at once, a piece of the cost is expensed ratably each year over the estimated life of the asset.

Think of spending $20,000 for a car when its new.  You drive it 5 years and can sell it for $10,000.  Thus, it COSTS you $10,000, or $2,000/year to drive it for five years.  This is what depreciation represents.

This is Generally Accepted Accounting Practices (GAAP) and required in every independently audited financial presentation because it represents the real cost of operating and maintaining an asset.  That's why it's in JTA's own statements. Any other representation would be considered a fraud.  

Quote from: stjr on October 15, 2009, 02:18:54 PM
Do the math:

$14 million/850 riders/day (that's 1,700 trips, 2 per rider) = $16,470/year subsidy PER RIDER.

You could buy each rider a car EVERY year for that money!

Seen another way, using Tufsu's accounting of $12,000 installed per bus shelter, in ONE YEAR, you could buy 1,000 bus shelters  AND, at $1,200 maintenance expense each, pay to maintain 1,667 of them.  Care to poll the voters on their preference for the money?  Where are the inquiring minds of the City Council?

I am not an accountant, but aren't capital assets depreciated over 27 years?

"To tear it down would be removing yet another part of what's ostensibly a piece of uniquely Jacksonville history."

I just love that thinking. Should we demo the Library on Ocean, even though its ugly and the owners will never put anything in it, at least in my lifetime.

Well I would not call the $kyway something historical...........if so then we are all in trouble! Pull the plug on something that cost's the public 14 Million Dollars a year to operate.......in the blink of an eye!! JTA could then afford to put up bus shelters where needed and even maintain them maybe! Fire all of the bus drivers and let the Management people drive them........think of the money we could save right?

Quote from: mtraininjax on October 15, 2009, 04:24:44 PM
I am not an accountant, but aren't capital assets depreciated over 27 years?

Depreciation lives depend on the type of asset, possibly unique or special circumstances, and whether you are are calculating for financial statements, taxes, or regulatory filings.  Also, governmental accounting, along with other specialized entities, can have separate rules.  It can get complex.

As an aside, depreciation expense in these statements represents the total of all the underlying assets for which each may (probably) has its own story.  For example, the track could be given a 30 year life, the cars a 15 year life, the control systems a 5 year life, etc.  If the subject asset has zero salvage and is replaced prior to the end of its depreciation life, in that year, there would be a write-off of the undepreciated balance.  If the asset outlives its depreciated life, there would be zero depreciation during the excess life and a recognition of gain on disposition if there were any proceeds in excess of its depreciated value.

Keep in mind, that if, for example, a car is replaced or a capital addition is made, depreciation starts anew on the newly acquired car or value of the addition.  My guess is the $ky-high-way has lots of ongoing capital improvements given its size and complexity so there will always be depreciable assets no matter how long its around.  Wear and tear is never ending.  Again, that's why depreciation is a real expense.

Thanks for the info. I knew I did not have to get out my Keyso and Weygandt Intermediate Accounting book.

$ky-high-way ridership continues FREEFALL!  Now down to 1,400 rides daily as of second quarter, 2009!  That's about a 21% drop from last quarter, 15% drop over last year.

New cost per rider calculation: $14 million/700 riders (1,400 rides/ 2 trips per rider) = $20,000 subsidy per rider per year!

Folks, how bad does this need to get before we kill it completely? This borders on the absurd in these times with so many community needs that are far more important.

Is the City Council listening?  How hard did the Council Finance committee have to work to find $14 million in savings like this ??!!!??

QuoteFL Jacksonville Jacksonville Transp Auth AG 1.4 34.0 36.0 33.1 217.5 44.0 42.3 43.4 256.1 -20.51% -15.07%

From: http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/Ridership/2009_q2_ridership_APTA.pdf

Quote from: Doctor_K on October 15, 2009, 01:59:56 PM
And let me further posit these musings on the subject:

Firstly, The Skyway system, be it ever so humble and incomplete, is something unique to Jacksonville.  Other cities have something similar, but not that many.  Therefore, if nothing else, it's a gimmick that should be embraced and lauded rather than disowned and demonized.

As such, love it or hate it, it's a distinct part of Jacksonville lore, culture, discussion, and history.  To tear it down would be removing yet another part of what's ostensibly a piece of uniquely Jacksonville history.  To call for its demolition and destruction is, at least in my opinion, analogous to championing the destruction of historic building stock. 

Is the Skyway as old and historic as those few building still standing?  Absolutely not.  But everything becomes 'historical' some day.  Destruction now versus later is still elimination of something very 'Jacksonville.'

The Skyway is not "Very Jacksonville".  It is basically the same system as you'll find at the Newark, NJ Airport, and several other airports around the country. 

I took it to lunch last week.  Left Kings Avenue at 11:50 or so, waited 10-15 minutes for a train, then rode to Hemming Park with a train switch at Central Station.  Little wait to start, but not awful.  Coming back, waited another 7-10 minutes at Hemming Park, rode to Central Station, then got off as my train was headed to Convention Center.  Next three trains (each at 7 minute intervals) wen't to Convention Center too.  I finally caught the Kings Avenue train after waiting nearly 30 minutes on the Central platform.  It would've been twice as fast to walk across the Main Street Bridge.  Lunch was a 1:40 minute experience, including nearly 50 minutes returning from Hemming to Kings Avenue.  Typical in my experience (I'm an occasional rider), but not acceptable.

Anyone who supports subsidizing this system can't be a person who rides it!

Well for $14 Million a year I would think the scheduling should be consistant at the very least. For what that people moving system is costing the public is this the best that they can do? It is nice that insurance is covering the burnt station but the whole concept is in need of retuning and tweaking. If that can not be done then it might be time to pull its plug!

Quote from: stjr on October 16, 2009, 12:14:44 AM
$ky-high-way ridership continues FREEFALL!  Now down to 1,400 rides daily as of second quarter, 2009!  That's about a 21% drop from last quarter, 15% drop over last year.

New cost per rider calculation: $14 million/700 riders (1,400 rides/ 2 trips per rider) = $20,000 subsidy per rider per year!

This isn't anything new.  JTA and the city have left this thing to die.  With Saturdays being eliminated ridership is going to fall even more.  Regardless of how you may feel about it, this is unfortunate.  Completely ignoring the system, because its "taboo" to address, cost us more money and benefits no one. 

Quote from: thelakelander on October 16, 2009, 07:46:14 AM
This isn't anything new.  JTA and the city have left this thing to die.  With Saturdays being eliminated ridership is going to fall even more.  Regardless of how you may feel about it, this is unfortunate.  Completely ignoring the system, because its "taboo" to address, cost us more money and benefits no one. 

Lake, what's new is the costs keep escalating and the ridership keeps going down.  They eliminated Saturdays because no one rode it on those days.  Now, they need to pull the plug on the rest of the week.  The public has spoken:  They have no need for this mode of transit and would rather ride a bus, car, bike, or walk - anything but take the $ky-high-way.  Original projections for JUST THIS PORTION were some 20 or so times current levels when the Downtown area had only a fraction of the residents it does now so NO EXCUSES.

As I have said before, the $ky-high-way is inherently unnecessary and inconvenient, even if it is expanded, and is thus a flawed concept.  It is cumbersome to use, slow, expensive, travels relatively short distances (again, even if expanded) and not worthy of the service levels people desire.  Add that it is ugly and a blight on the City and there really is no reason to keep pouring BADLY NEEDED dollars down this rat hole. If JTA was a real business, even allowing for the usual mass transit subsidies, it would have killed this off a long time ago, but especially now when it doesn't even have a few shekels for bus shelters.

I am going to say it again:  Use our LIMITED political and financial capital to further other modes of mass transit.  The $ky-high-way is a curse to all other proposals to move forward and needs to be removed.

The answer is COMMON SENSE.  Don't let emotions obscure the obvious.

My boat depreciated a few thousand this year... maybe I should just sink it.

guess who does ride it...visitors and people attending conventions and trade shows at the Prime Osborn....so I would suggest keeping it if Jax. is at all interested in convention/tourism business.

Quote from: stephendare on October 16, 2009, 11:16:33 AM
nah.... tufsu.  Its right up there with the courthouse and the post office.

If they cant turn a profit, then obviously get rid of them. ;)

Quote from: tufsu1 on October 16, 2009, 11:13:00 AM
guess who does ride it...visitors and people attending conventions and trade shows at the Prime Osborn....so I would suggest keeping it if Jax. is at all interested in convention/tourism business.

Stephen, this isn't a question of turning a profit and I have made that clear from the beginning.  The question is how much should a subsidy be and does that subsidy detract from a subsidy elsewhere (e.g. street cars, commuter rail, bus shelters...) .  Too many people here seem to think money grows on trees and I am sorry to disappoint everyone, it doesn't.  We have to make CHOICES, you can't have it all.

For both you and Tufsu, the question is how much something COSTS versus how much it gives in BENEFIT.  Although I am not a proponent of road building our way out of transportation issues, I would venture to say there are, by a factor of a 100 (or even 100's) or more, users of Southside Blvd. for perhaps the same or less annual costs than the $ky-high-way.

Tufsu, if our visitors were looking of a Disney ride they would be in Orlando.  If you really want to accommodate visitors and conventions, put the $14 million a year into a convention center project.

Be careful what you ask for.

Do you guys know that this system was almost fully built with federal money? I am pretty certain if we tear it down we would owe the feds all the money back.  I may email JTA about it, but I am almost certain that would be the case. You can't just tear down a  federally funded project like this. That would be like saying, we don't like 95 anymore. That land could be used for something else, so lets rip it up and claim all that land. Come on people, think a little.

Quote from: stephendare on October 16, 2009, 11:44:02 AM
stjr

how many more billions are we going to have to spend on road maintenance for sprawl.

No problem by me.  Take the billions for roads and spend it elsewhere.  What's your point?

Stephen, you are in denial.  You and Tufsu apparently could care less what the facts are about the $ky-high-way.  It could cost a trillion dollars and you would be mesmerized by its spell.  It is pointless to debate you in that mode.  I guess I just want to make sure unbiased others aren't swept up by your wishful thinking without at least knowing what the realities are.

Quote from: Dapperdan on October 16, 2009, 11:47:18 AM
Do you guys know that this system was almost fully built with federal money? I am pretty certain if we tear it down we would owe the feds all the money back.  I may email JTA about it, but I am almost certain that would be the case. You can't just tear down a federally funded project like this. That would be like saying, we don't like 95 anymore. That land could be used for something else, so lets rip it up and claim all that land. Come on people, think a little.

Dapper, if you check any of several previous $Ky-high-way boards on MJ, you will see we have discussed this issue several times.  Despite repeated requests from posters for documentation on charges that we would have to give money back to the Feds and can't fire the $ky-high-way employees, no one has produced a shred of specific evidence it's true.

And, as I have pointed out, this was an EXPERIMENTAL and/or DEMONSTRATION project that the Feds questioned from the very beginning.  (That's being kind.  It was really pork barrel.) So, given that it is an unmitigated failure, I don't think the Feds, if they even care, would mind us walking away from it.  Politically, I am sure we could pull it off.  The Feds should be grateful they didn't fund more of these in other cities beyond Jax, Detroit, and Miami.

Quote from: stephendare on October 16, 2009, 12:06:03 PM
stjr

Im not in denial.

We all have the same facts, but just have different conclusions.

I think the system should be expanded and finished, and that the city should bust its ass making the downtown so dense and populated that its necessary again.

thats all.

You've still never explained how you would build a transit bridge over the st john's. And that not the only fatal flaw in the grousing as far as I can see.

Love you my friend, just disagree. :)

OK, Stephen, let's kiss and make up.  I love you too, but, likewise, we do disagree.  :)

Regarding the bridge crossings, we have already covered that.  The Main Street and/or Acosta could be adapted for street cars.  Can't remember which, but I believe Ock and/or Lake have conceded that point even though they are in your camp.  Failing that, a bus running continuously over the bridge 24/7 would be a lot cheaper than $14 million.

I think the real question you and other $ky-high-way supporters need to answer is what should be the MAXIMUM SUBSIDY per ride for a mass transit rider.  And, if you can subsidize a street car, commuter rail, or bus rider for a fraction of the $ky-high-way subsidy, why wouldn't you want to substitute the more cost effective transit for the lesser one since you "ain't gonna get" money for all of it?

As to downtown density, that's been "coming" for over 30 years and was a premise then for justifying the $ky-high-way.   While we are far from it, your wished-for density will be supportive of all mass transit options, so it is not a factor in distinguishing the $ky-high-way from other more cost-effective mass transit options.

And, as I have noted, even though density has a long, long way to go, we do have more of it than 30 years ago, yet ridership on the $ky-high-way just keeps dropping.  Now, Tufsu says, it's not for residents, but visitors!  Really?  Where did that info come from?  I thought the reason we wanted a new convention center was because we don't have many Downtown visitors.  Regardless, I am skeptical that if locals can't figure out how to use the $ky-high-way, visitors are.   

Are there any more straws to grab?

Quote from: stjr on October 16, 2009, 10:49:49 AM

Quote from: thelakelander on October 16, 2009, 07:46:14 AM
This isn't anything new.  JTA and the city have left this thing to die.  With Saturdays being eliminated ridership is going to fall even more.  Regardless of how you may feel about it, this is unfortunate.  Completely ignoring the system, because its "taboo" to address, cost us more money and benefits no one.  

Lake, what's new is the costs keep escalating and the ridership keeps going down.

Isn't this really more common sense than "new"?  If you don't address what continues to negatively impact the system (ex. doesn't hit connect residents with origin and destination spots) and implement things (ex. higher fares, reduced service) that make it less end user friendly, ridership will drop.  Lower revenue + continued aging = high annual O&M costs.

The skyway's main problem (other than the bad rollout and route selection) is the topic is "taboo" and no one is willing to properly address the situation.  By ignoring it and walking on eggshells around the topic, things only get worse.  As long as we remain status quo on the skyway discussion, no one should expect it to do anything other but continue to drop in ridership and the cost on the taxpayer to increase.  Which means, we need to do something either way.  Address the negatives to make it more beneficial to the public or figure out how to convert the infrastructure into becoming a part of the proposed streetcar network.  As far as dismantling it, that's a silly and super expensive option that should not even be discussed.  That would really flush money down the drain.

If the $ky-high-way tracks can be used for street cars (seems a little odd, but I'll keep an open mind until I see more on it), I say let's go for it.

The "taboo" is that the $ky-high-way is the third rail for politicians.  Again, this is point I have been trying to make.  There isn't just limited FINANCIAL capital, but also limited POLITICAL capital.  Such capital needs to go toward a more cost-effective, greater serving mass transit solution than the $ky-high-way.  If you are going to be beholden to politicians, you have to appreciate their modus operandi.

Quote from: stjr on October 16, 2009, 12:50:03 PM
If the $ky-high-way tracks can be used for street cars (seems a little odd, but I'll keep an open mind until I see more on it), I say let's go for it.

It would basically be an elevated portion of a larger rail system.

Blue Line LRT in Los Angeles
(http://www.geocities.com/los_angeles_coast/T_Blue_Line_for_web_picture.jpg)

QuoteDapper, if you check any of several previous $Ky-high-way boards on MJ, you will see we have discussed this issue several times.  Despite repeated requests from posters for documentation on charges that we would have to give money back to the Feds and can't fire the $ky-high-way employees, no one has produced a shred of specific evidence it's true.

Perhaps you should talk to those in South Florida and see what the Feds said about cutting back Tri-Rail.  They will want their money back.

QuoteFeds want money back if Tri-Rail cuts service on Oct. 5
By Michael Turnbell | South Florida Sun-Sentinel
4:07 PM EDT, May 21, 2009

Ante up, Tri-Rail. The feds want their money back.


The Federal Transit Administration says it can hold the commuter train in default of a $256 million federal grant used to add a second track if Tri-Rail cuts service this fall as planned.

And don't count on getting any more federal money in the future.

"In the event of default, the FTA may demand all federal funds provided to (Tri-Rail) for the project be returned," said Yvette Taylor, the FTA's regional administrator in Atlanta.

Tri-Rail received the grant in exchange for promises to run 48 trains a day with rush-hour service every 20 minutes.

But Tri-Rail plans to drastically reduce service from 50 trains to 30 trains on weekdays starting Oct. 5 due to a cash crunch. All weekend and holiday service will be eliminated.

If no funding is found, Tri-Rail can survive another 18 months beyond October. After that, all service would end.

The 20-year-old commuter service's long quest for a dedicated funding source - a $2 tax on all rental cars in Broward, Palm Beach and Miami-Dade counties - went down in defeat in the Legislature earlier this month.

The $2 tax would have brought in $40 million or more, replacing funding that has been provided by the three county governments.

Budget negotiators declined to include a $30 million infusion to keep Tri-Rail running.

Tri-Rail's board of directors will hold a news conference Friday morning to talk about the train's dire financial situation.

The threatened service cuts come as Tri-Rail has broken numerous ridership records, putting it among the nation's fastest-growing commuter trains.

Michael Turnbell can be reached at mturnbell@sunsentinel.com, 954-356-4155 or 561-243-6550.

Quote from: cline on October 16, 2009, 01:07:10 PM
Perhaps you should talk to those in South Florida and see what the Feds said about cutting back Tri-Rail.  They will want their money back.

I am not familiar with the Tri-rail details, but my impression is this a different project on a much grander scale and is a lot newer.  At some point, even if such a provision exist, it must expire.  Nothing is guaranteed indefinitely.

I would like to see Washington tell all those South Florida voters to give that kind of money back.  They may have a legal right, but I doubt they have the political fortitude.  

Is there any significant example anyone knows of where the Feds actually demanded, enforced, and received a payback on an abandoned project?

I think this may just be an idle threat.

Add-on: Just saw Lake's post.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out.  Is it just posturing or will the Feds call in their chips?  Also, if South Florida still closes it, maybe they think a payback is cheaper than operating it.  Or, they don't have any money regardless, and the Feds can't bleed blood from a turnip?  See what happens.  Thanks for posting it.

Quote from: stjr on October 16, 2009, 11:39:40 AM
If you really want to accommodate visitors and conventions, put the $14 million a year into a convention center project.

Stop with the misleading information....its $7 million per year for operations and another $7 million for depreciation.

Oddly enough all facilities, including a convention center, would need to account for depreciation.

Quote from: tufsu1 on October 16, 2009, 01:36:15 PM
Stop with the misleading information....its $7 million per year for operations and another $7 million for depreciation.

Oddly enough all facilities, including a convention center, would need to account for depreciation.

Tufsu, depreciation is a valid operating expense.  First, you ignore it for the $ky-high-way and then concede its required everywhere.  That's not a consistent argument.

Ask any CPA.  Ask the JTA's accountants.  It's GAAP, required by the SEC and all other regulatory agencies demanding an accounting of activities.  You can't get audited statements without it.  Even the IRS accepts it, and they don't exactly give up unjustified breaks  ;)

JTA's report states "Operating Losses".  It's there in black and white: $14 million rounded. 

Wear and tear and obsolescence of the original investment is money out the door.  A real cost of doing business.  Why do you not get that?

Here's the problem with your theory STJR....let's say the Skyway broke even on pure operations and maintenance (which no transportation system does btw)....you would still argue it lost money because of depreciation.

Quote from: tufsu1 on October 16, 2009, 02:02:02 PM
Here's the problem with your theory STJR....let's say the Skyway broke even on pure operations and maintenance (which no transportation system does btw)....you would still argue it lost money because of depreciation.

Quote from: stephendare on October 16, 2009, 01:54:51 PM
its misleading.

Well Stjr.  Im looking for you to start forty two more posts on the need to pull up southside boulevard and the jail.

Those money losers are way huger than the unfinished skyway.

Guys, you are circling back around.  I am getting off this treadmill for now.  Reread my posts.  If you are open, you will get my points.  If your minds are closed, there is no point in carrying on.  No disrespect, I just have to move on.  See ya' later.

$ky-high-way ridership drops another 20% to 1,400 rides a day (from 1,700 last quarter) per American Public Transit Association's latest quarterly  report.

Based on round trips, that's 700 unique riders.  $14 million subsidy/year/700 riders = $20,000 subsidy/year per daily rider!

See page 16 of report at http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/Ridership/2009_q2_ridership_APTA.pdf .

By the way, JTA officials now say the $ky-high-way is designed to serve auto commuters to Downtown, not connecting bus riders or others moving about the Downtown area.  So the $20,000 subsidy per rider or $14 million total subsidy per year is just to cover the last mile of transit for a suburban commuter by car.

Per Suraya Teeple,  JTA transportation planning manager (followed by my comments made on the BRT thread from which this article was quoted [http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,321.0.html]):

Quote from: stjr on December 19, 2009, 02:08:11 PM

QuoteExcept for Jefferson and Broad, the bus-only lanes follow the same route as the Skyway, which hasn’t come close to meeting the ridership estimates anticipated when it was being built.

Teeple said the two systems serve different people. The Skyway was designed for people who drive downtown and then get on the people mover to get closer to where they work,she said, and people using the new lanes will take a bus into the downtown and then transfer over to one of the downtown buses.

So, the $ky-high-way is for commuters, now, not people trying to get around Downtown.  It's official so let's not have any more MJ posters suggest we need to expand the $ky-high-way to take us to Riverside, San Marco, or the Stadium.  It's only for AUTO (not BUS) commuters headed to work, and then, only if the job is directly at a $ky-high-way stop.  That may offer us just one more reason why the thing has no riders.

I guess JTA figures that AUTO commuters wouldn't be interested in literally lowering themselves into taking a street level Downtown bus from their parking lot along with the BUS commuters from the burbs.  No, we need a separate system that literally elevates them to segregate everyone and duplicate services.

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2009-12-18/story/jta_considering_bus_only_lanes_downtown

[/quote]

Not surprising at all. They've cut its hours and days of operation. They've cut its headways. And they raised the fare.

Hopefully they weren't expecting a ridership increase with those moves.

We have to believe in the skyway.  It is a great hope for downtown.  Like others have said, the system needs to be finished and lead to viable destinations.  Currently, the sysytem is not very efficent and most stations do not really stop at anywhere anyone wants to be.

Should the system be expanded with a line to the stadium and down Riverside Ave. and San Marco, ( and maybe Main St to Springfield) I think it would be a hit. 

It is very hard for high cost systems like the skyway to make a profit, but the benefits of easy automated transportation and connectivity are amazing.  Just imagine the benefits to restaurants, bars and hotels during Jaguar games and special events (Like FL-GA, Gator Bowl etc.).  Think of how valuable this system could be once we finally get some more residents and businesses into the urban core, or (crossing fingers) we get a functional convention center.

I personally would love to use this system to navigate the central core and I think thousands of others would as well.

Only one more criticism though.  We need to police the trains and keep vagrants out of these trains.  They make me uncomfortable during the very few times a year I do use the train.

Quote from: Lunican on December 20, 2009, 10:40:02 PM
Not surprising at all. They've cut its hours and days of operation. They've cut its headways. And they raised the fare.

Hopefully they weren't expecting a ridership increase with those moves.

To tell the truth, its amazing the thing gets as much as 1,400 riders a day.  Nearly every move made concerning it this decade has been the type that would kill it.  Higher fares, reduced hours, unreliable headways, reduced operating days, etc. have been pretty effective in reducing ridership during a time when mass transit use is becoming popular again.

Chipwich, all your desires have been previously posted and thoroughly discussed in thousands of MJ posts.  Rather than repeat why I and some others feel your well-intentioned desires are misplaced, please reread the previous posts on this and numerous other threads on MJ to view counterpoints to your proposals (if you remain open on this subject).  I think you will find many good reasons offered as to why the $ky-high-way is not the best solution to accomplishing your end goals which we all share.  Some among us think there are far better and more cost effective solutions than the $ky-high-way in any form it may be capable of taking.

And, it's not about making a profit, it's about delivering the best transit solution for the least costs.  The $ky-high-way is far from the answer in my book.  The $ky-high-way has run on "belief" and "hope" for long enough.

The $ky-high-way's lack of real purpose is best demonstrated by JTA's ever shifting explanation of why it exists and why it fails and by its continuous failure over 20 years to fall over 90% short of "expert" expectations for each of the already constructed phases.

If you want some MJ $ky-high-way thread links beyond this one, I will be happy to furnish on request.

Quote from: thelakelander on December 20, 2009, 11:08:52 PM
To tell the truth, its amazing the thing gets as much as 1,400 riders a day.  Nearly every move made concerning it this decade has been the type that would kill it.  Higher fares, reduced hours, unreliable headways, reduced operating days, etc. have been pretty effective in reducing ridership during a time when mass transit use is becoming popular again.

Lake, your "wish" may come true.  Based on the APTA report, the last month of the quarter reported showed ridership down to a low of 1,100 riders per day.  This may be the average or peak going into the third quarter.  We shall see.

Will the implementation of BRT downtown precipitate more declines?  How few have to use it to kill it off?  That is the question.  We are already at the point where it is truly a "flush millions down the hole" spectacle with no chance of a revival in its future.  Just remember how far $14 million a year could go to supporting street cars!

We can stop skyway service,stop skyway cars on tracks and turn it into homeless housing,that way we can get homeless off the street.

Quote from: stjr on December 20, 2009, 11:22:01 PM
Will the implementation of BRT downtown precipitate more declines?

Of course it will.  Unless JTA reverses the moves they've made and continue to make there is no realistic reason to believe ridership will increase any time soon.

Knowing that it costs "X" amount of dollars to extend or add to the Skyway, how much of the current system could be reconfigured?  Obviously, it's not as easy as moving Lionel toy train tracks around out of the box, but could sections of the Skyway be salvaged to extend to say, the stadium?  Realizing that there's tons of infrastructure already in place with stations & elevated rail/track,  if it goes from nowhere to nowhere as it is currently configured, how much could be manipulated?  Where is the weakest link?

Quote from: stjr on December 20, 2009, 11:12:02 PM


The $ky-high-way's lack of real purpose is best demonstrated by JTA's ever shifting explanation of why it exists and why it fails and by its continuous failure over 20 years to fall over 90% short of "expert" expectations for each of the already constructed phases.

Your reasons for wanting to replace the skyway are well founded. I also agree that there are many other cheaper and more effective systems that could better serve the urvban core.   However, it must be noted that the skyway never lived up to expectations because it was built wrong and with no realistic purpose or direction.  

If you put up a mag-lev system in the middle of Arkansas, it would be cool, but illogical and a waste of money.  The system as it stands was built incorrectly and with no real reason.  Sure other types of transportation could work very well, but we can also build on what we have and give it a real reason to exist.  

The Las Vegas monorail is probably the best example here. MGM and Harrahs built a small monorail system in Las Vegas back in the 1990s.  It only stopped at two hotels and have no major advertising.  It was a waste of money between the two companies and carried very few passengers to only two locations.  As a decade went by, with city help assistance (bonds), a private company was able to build on the ill-fated monorail by extending the track to more hotels and the convention center and replaced the entire system with a state of the art Bombardier system that was fast, efficient and reached critical places of interest.  It now serves as a great system that has helped tourists, resorts, and has cut down on traffic along the congested strip.  It is not yet profitable, but it is close.  Rider-ship before the economic crisis was increasing every year.

While Jacksonville indeed lacks the mass amount of residents and travelers that justify a system like the one in Las Vegas, I think it shows that with a purpose and thoughtful planning, an elevated people mover (or monorail) could do wonders.  Perhaps Jacksonville would need 50,000 more workers and 20,000 more residents in the core before a total system overhaul could be economically justified. Blaming the skyway for not having riders is not the skyway's fault.  It is the fault of those who planned it.  The skyway could yield awesome returns if it reworked into a system that takes riders to desirable destinations.  Problem is, downtown has few people and even fewer desirable destinations.

I think our main disagreement is that some believe there is no chance for the skyway to be revived into a viable and useful mode of transportation in the core.  Some of us disagree and think that given the right direction and planning, the skyway can indeed become a useful and valuable asset to the downtown and the entire urban core.  I for one am not willing to give up on it yet.  One day in the future maybe, but I can't give up on something that has not had a chance to truly prove whether or not it is useful.

Blizz and Chipwich, your responses are noted.  My issue is that your collective desires to continue to invest in the $ky-high-way in the "hopes" it will finally find riders to justify its existence, are in my opinion, not financially or politically feasible.

Why?  First, all the existing phases were estimated based on what exists, not future expansions.  Those estimates were heavily defended when funding was sought as conservative and fact-based.  Now that, after 20 plus years, they are off over 90%, we have some people trying to re-write history and wrongly suggests the figuring was somehow dependent on additional expansions of the $ky-high-way.

Repeating this history by making new ambitious projections to support anther substantial expansion challenges credibility.  Why should the same "experts" be believed this time after being so grossly incorrect at least twice before?  Furthermore, I  believe when one puts whatever numbers to the proposed costs of any expansions versus potentially ACHIEVABLE ridership increases, you will find expansion of the system not at all cost effective or even feasible.  This is especially true when measured against the costs of other alternatives such as streetcars which have the potential to be far more flexible, user and street friendly, less expensive to build and operate, and to carry more passengers to more areas.

The density numbers you cite yourself, Chipwich, are far (perhaps, decades) beyond anything on the horizon for Jax and, as in the past, would amount to pure speculation and guess work.  Further, JTA doesn't view the $ky-high-way, as you do, as a downtown people mover, but rather as the last link in a commute by auto drivers from the suburbs.  This also defies expanding it as you suggest.  

The $ky-high-way also has the burden of not being very desirable by many it theoretically might serve due to the toll it takes on adjacent property owners and those along the streets it travels with its time to build, intimidating elephantine structure, architectural incompatibility, and other street killing attributes.  In previous phases, it destroyed retail on every street it was built upon, and to this day, Downtown still suffers its ill effects.

Lastly, I think it really is a DREAM to expect that taxpayers here will support BOTH an expansion of the $ky-high-way AND commuter rail and streetcars.  The $ky-high-way is a huge political liability to the growth of mass transit in Jax and until our politicians can safely distance themselves from it, it will CONTINUE to serve as an impediment to the expansion of mass transit in this area.  Mass transit advocates need to thoughtfully consider sacrificing the $ky-high-way on the political alter to get much better results from the alternate options awaiting in the wings for the demise of the $ky-high-way.  The sooner, the better.

With essentially zero ridership for its investment, it has no real political constituency and will not be missed.  With millions in annual losses, there would be many money vultures ready to celebrate its demise.  Put all of us out of our misery and let's begin anew.  Kill it off.
 

JTA can not make up its mind as just what the hell the $kyway is going to be used for........what is its purpose in life and just keep coming up with excuses to substantiate $14 Million Dollars a year out of our pockets! This is what I am referring to when I say they have no vision.......other than concreting everything over so we have more and more roads. This should not be the prudent approach to a twenty year point of view which JTA should have to make most efficient use of our tax dollars! Don't need more bus's and darn sure don't need dedicated bus lanes. JTA wants to foul up downtown and it looks like they are going to do it.........sorry downtown!

Quote from: CS Foltz on December 21, 2009, 04:36:49 AM
This should not be the prudent approach to a twenty year point of view which JTA should have to make most efficient use of our tax dollars!

That's the crux of the problem....efficient and effective are quite often noty the same thing...which would you rather have?

tufsu1 I so no reason to not get both! To me they both go hand in hand........you should not have to chose between the two!

^ Agreed, CS.  In fact, efficiency and effectiveness are mutually dependent on each other in most cases.  They combine to provide the best VALUE which is what we should always require.  Not the cheapest or most expensive, not the most elaborate or simplest, but the best combination of features that minimally meets and hopefully exceeds requirements and delivers the best total return on the resources invested.

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.

Quote from: tufsu1 on December 21, 2009, 06:56:30 PM
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).

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.

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.

 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!

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.

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

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.  

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!

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.

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!

Quote from: CS Foltz on December 22, 2009, 08:31:51 AM
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!

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

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.

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!

NO TRANSIT SYSTEM IN THE WORLD PAYS FOR ITSELF!!

CS after all this time did you just make the not paying for itself argument? Do I have to point out that Police, fire, roads and so many other services do not pay for themselves or bring any direct revenue again?  But if transit brings in a dime then it better be profitable. The government is not a for profit business!  If you do not think you are getting your bang for the buck with any service fine argue against it.

Please help us fight the battle that if government services aren't the next Multi level Marketing phenomenon we should axe them.

Do not hold transit to a higher standard because it brings in some direct revenue that is not a bad thing.

JeffreyS.......I did not say anything about government being a business for profit! By my standards at best it should be a BREAK EVEN business! Transit should be in the same category I would think! You and I have to operate within our Budgets or we will have trouble and I see no reason why everything else should be exempt! Any business must make a profit to keep their doors open and did not say anything about the $kyway making money............at best it should be a break even prospect and it is not doing so! So I would ask you the same thing that I asked tufsu1..........at what point do you cut your losses?

CS, nothing in government breaks even or makes a profit.  Roads, bridges, sewer systems, flood control projects, public health systems, trash collection are all "common good" things that we would be badly off without so we pay for them with our taxes.  Public transit falls into this same category, in my opinion.

Now, they should all be run as efficiently as possible and we can have arguments about what should be paid for under the "common good".  I personally am outraged that we have built a stadium for the Jaguars, a baseball field for whoever, and a concert hall for rock music groups.

QuoteI personally am outraged that we have built a stadium for the Jaguars, a baseball field for whoever, and a concert hall for rock music groups.

I would argue that those amenities enhance quality of life for the citizens of Jacksonville.  You speak of "sewer systems" and "flood control projects" as "common good things" in which we would be "badly off without".  Should we de-fund all of of our area's parks and recreation areas?  After all, they are not a necessary public service and they don't break even.  My answer would be no.  All of these things add to the quality of life of our city.

Quote from: CS Foltz on December 23, 2009, 09:12:41 AM
I did not say anything about government being a business for profit! By my standards at best it should be a BREAK EVEN business! Transit should be in the same category I would think!

well at least now we know where you really stand!

That said, businesses don't HAVE to make a profit...they just need to break even....but often times certain sectors of a business make more money than others...and if/when costs get too high, businesses usually cut back or raise prices.

So what is the solution to help the skyway make money instead of lose money?  The way it presently is configured, it is going nowhere, and not contributing to anything let alone the success of downtown and the City.  

I think the problem is we need to give the skyway a definitive direction and purpose, through planning initiatives so it will have a reason to exist and be a substantial benefit and success for the City.  At present it doesn't even come close.

How about extending it to the Airport, the Sports Complex, West Side, Riverside/5 Points, Southside, NAS/Orange Park, and even maybe go as far as to extend it into St. Johns in the future (I know, Public Transit already covers these areas, but the Skyway could complement the present Bus Transit System in some way to these destinations).  Something has to be done, otherwise, tear it down and forget about it.

"HU"

Exactly!  This we can argue about!  Where should we "invest" our tax money to enhance the overall good?  If these things could be made profitable then a private company would be doing them.

Food is pretty important, but Publix, Winn-Dixie, Whole Foods, etc. are all knocking themselves out to provide it without tax money.  Television is pretty important to most people too, but it is not necessary for the City to provide it.

Parks can't pay for themselves so the City does.  Now about the Jags:  The Dolphins built their own stadium when Miami-Dade refused to do so.  If the Jags are so important to the City that we built the stadium for them, why do I have to pay $200 to go to a game?  Bad investment I think.

QuoteSo what is the solution to help the skyway make money instead of lose money?

In my opinion, it needs to be extended to the stadium as well as into Brooklyn.  Additionally, it should be better integrated into the overall transportation system.  This includes allowing transfers with buses, potential commuter rail and potential streetcar.  Right now it is basically a stand-alone system.  I don't know if the Skyway can ever break even (as some on this board would require to justify its existence) but it could serve a purpose and be an asset to our city.  I don't believe tearing it down is a rational solution.  

As for extending it to the airport, southside or orange park- I don't think that would be feasible.  Those areas would be better off being served by other modes.  

I agree with HU completely, if they do not develop it, scrap it. The sports complex alone would be a huge step, add in the historic districts and we have something. The airport & NAS would be huge achievements, but more than I would expect anytime soon. I would prefer the money thrown at it in the past not be wasted, but I can't support continuing to waste money on it if something is not going to be done.

...which brings us full circle back to "expand it to take it somewhere and watch the ridership explode" stance.

East:
Stadium. 

South:
Additional stop (or replacement stop) to better serve the three (and future) residential towers on the Southbank.
That new hotel on the Southbank (name escapes me at the moment).
San Marco Square region.
Jackson Square development.

North:
River City Marketplace.

Even then, stjr will hate it and think it's a waste. :D

It was never meant to go 15 miles (the airport or O.P.)....extending it into surrounding areas would be nice but I'm not sure that Riverside or Springfield would see it as compatible w/ their historical neighborhoods.

We are building an inter-modal transportation center at one end of it, Laura Street improvements alongside it and a courthouse that will have a great impact on downtown as a whole. I would think even the most ardent critics of the skyway would want to see the effect those projects will have on it before scrapping the skyway.

We have had sevral big developments targeted as adjacent to the skyway that are now delayed due to market conditions.(St. John, Brooklyn Park and Bay street station) I would like to see if some may come back on line. A few projects built that suffered high "flipping" issues that should fill with residents over time.(The Strand, The Peninsular and Riverstreet).

Mass Transit should be multimodal inclusive not exclusive.

So rather then improve our lot, we quit to end a $14,000,000 perceived deficit? Then we build a streetcar system and it runs a $15,000,000 "deficit", what have we gained?

The way to fix this is to make the Skyway a smaller part of a integrated mass transit system that includes Bus, BRT, Commuter Rail, Amtrak, Greyhound, LaCubana, Southeastern Stages, Skyway, and streetcar's as the foundation. When it's 4Th and long in the last 30 seconds of the game, you don't walk off the field, this is simply "failure thinking."

OCKLAWAHA

Quote from: Ocklawaha on December 23, 2009, 11:01:05 AM
When it's 4Th and long in the last 30 seconds of the game, you don't walk off the field, this is simply "failure thinking." [/color][/b]

OCKLAWAHA

but Ock...that's exactly what people on this board say Jax. always does ...why should this be any different  ;)

Well, pip pip cheerio old chap if your not bloody well right! Why SHOULD we be any different?


OCKLAWAHA

Well kids...........I say that any business is in business to make money, that is capitalism at its best and seems to have worked for a couple of years or two. I have no problem with any business making a buck, but I do have a problem with government operating at a deficit. The solution is not to print more money (Last I heard the projected deficit will be around 12 TRILLION DOLLARS next year) which the Federal government can and does do but the State of Florida and the City of Jacksonville can not do! So if any prudent person or entity can operate within a specific budget (as in spend no more than what is coming it) then any person or entity is not spending more than what they have coming in.............I mean to me this is common sense! I will agree there are somethings that could be labeled for the common good or to better the quality of life but that requires prioritizing! I don't know about any of you but I have reservations about any political person having my best interests at heart since most appear to be connected to the GOB Network. What I want is quite simple, government and/or any government entity should be able to do their job with a specific Budget, I have to! If they can not then there is a choice to be made.........change management or shut the doors! Granted this is a simplistic outlook but one I hold dear ......

By the way, this applies to all government and City Agency's............business's are self monitoring! Spending or Cost's too much, business goes down the tubes! Federal government needs more capital, prints more money! City of Jacksonville needs more revenue, imposes's Fee's and the like or additional taxes! Common person has no options but to do the best they can do within their monetary income..........why should government or any Agency thereof be any different? I could point out the Healthcare issue being discussed......no one seems to know just how that will be paid for but Nebraska got theirs..........it was paid for by the Senate, that provision was in the original Bill, not only now but future increases! So I have to ask once again..........at what point do we or someone decide just when something is not cost effective? Ock has the idea to integrate Skyway into intermodal picture for all of downtown and that idea has merit, at least it is part of an overall picture. But right now in time it is basically stand alone, too short and kinda isolated. For this we get to waste $7 Million Dollars a year.......is it worth it?

Quote from: tufsu1 on December 22, 2009, 08:26:59 AM
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.

Tufsu, there is a fundamental problem with your scenario in my opinion.  Streetcars would move multiple times the numbers of people that the $ky-high-way would.  Why?  Streetcars will run more places, more often, and be more accessible and user friendly.

Second, when you calculate the costs of the $ky-high-way, to be apples to apples, you have to include the $100 million plus already invested.

Once again ( ??? ), as to depreciation, it reflects the "wasting away" over time of the original investment.  You can not ignore this cost. Otherwise, you would be indifferent to two investments, each having the same non-depreciation costs, but one requiring an investment twice as much as the other.  Depreciation reflects that the relative upfront investment will be "wasting away" during the life of the operating asset.

When you devise a realistic scenario based on the above, I am confident the streetcar will come out on top every time.  That's why you see dozens of streetcar systems operating or planned and only a handful of existing $ky-high-ways (mostly built on the same premise of ours, to get pork barrel Federal dollars) with next to none (are there really any?) being planned.

Quote from: Ocklawaha on December 23, 2009, 11:01:05 AM

So rather then improve our lot, we quit to end a $14,000,000 perceived deficit? Then we build a streetcar system and it runs a $15,000,000 "deficit", what have we gained?

Ock, what you gain is a significantly, by multiple times in my opinion, more useful service to the community.  If streetcars carry multiple volumes of the current, or even any potential, ridership of the $ky-high-way, and do so at far less per rider, then its time to make the switch (see my extended example at Post #63 above) .  Every day until then is taxpayer money be wasted.

Quote from: CS Foltz on December 23, 2009, 09:12:41 AM
......I did not say anything about government being a business for profit! By my standards at best it should be a BREAK EVEN business!

If one stands back at 10,000 feet, you would see that ALL public projects BREAK EVEN.  Why?  Because, between the direct revenue (tolls, fees, fares, etc.) of the projects AND taxpayer dollars, all costs get paid for.  The issue is how to determine and implement the most efficient projects and how to allocate the costs between the direct and indirect beneficiaries of the projects.

Many projects offer uneven benefits to various segments of the community (more police in high crime areas, more mass transit serving the urban core, more parks in the suburbs, etc.).  However, government plays a role not unlike the risk sharing performed by insurance companies.  The costs to achieve the benefits of a myriad of government projects are spread out over the entire community.

Unlike insurance companies, government doesn't make much, if any, effort to directly identify and charge each of its  beneficiaries.  This is, arguably, where government fails and, thus, distorts the marketplace.  If every beneficiary was charged proportionately, it is clear that urban sprawl would be unaffordable motivating us to live in the most compact cities possible and that mass transit would be far more cost efficient than automobiles and roads.

Failure to take into account the full societal costs of public projects versus their benefits is the cause of so many issues we face today.

In the issue at hand, if beneficiaries were properly charged their full costs (NO government subsidies) on the three competing alternatives of driving a car on a modern road, using the $ky-high-way, or taking streetcars, all for the same travel path and distance, and each wished to do so with the greatest efficiencies, the streetcar wins.  When viewed this way, in a perfect world, the auto and $ky-high-way modes of transit would disappear.

Quote from: CS Foltz on December 23, 2009, 06:23:43 PM
I have no problem with any business making a buck, but I do have a problem with government operating at a deficit. The solution is not to print more money (Last I heard the projected deficit will be around 12 TRILLION DOLLARS next year) which the Federal government can and does do but the State of Florida and the City of Jacksonville can not do!

FYI....the $12 trillion is the national debt....not the annual deficit!

Quote from: stjr on December 23, 2009, 06:51:34 PM
Tufsu, there is a fundamental problem with your scenario in my opinion.  Streetcars would move multiple times the numbers of people that the $ky-high-way would.  Why?  Streetcars will run more places, more often, and be more accessible and user friendly.

That fully depends on how extensive the system is, how often the streetcars run, and how much it costs to ride.  For example, the TECO line in Tampa is about 3 miles long, runs on 15-20 minute headways, and costs about $3 per ride....and sguess what....their overall ridership averages about 1,000 a day...less than the Skyway!

Well if the Chinese continue to buy vast amounts of our T Bills I can see just what will take place and I hate rice! Call it what you will..........Debt/Deficit.....either way we still operate in the red rather than the black and this bothers me over the long term! At the rate we are going.....that 12 Trillion Figure will be a deficit. Government whether it is Federal or State or Local can not continue to spend money that it does not have......I can not print money so I had better stay within my budget............you can say all you want about the public good and quality of life but there is no free lunch.......so I ask once again .....at what point do you pull the plug on the Skyway? At what point is any project stopped because of cost or management issue's? This would bring the new "Courthouse" to mind also.......voters approved $190 Million Dollars.......projected cost(I still say final figure will be more)$350 Million! I did not ask to spend that much......Annex and old Courthouse could have been renovated and upgraded at far less than that and would have just as good but Judge Moran and Johnny worked a deal out........now WE will get to pay for it! So by my standards, 7 cents, 7 dollars or 7 Million, government needs to be accountable......so once again I ask.........what does it take to shut down the $kyway?

fine CS...but let's look at history....check out the Federal tax rates when Reagan was in office vs. what we now have....or even compare the Clinton years (remember there was no deficit in 1999) to now.....you'll see they are far lower...so I ask you again....would you favor tax increases to help balance our books?

I would at least think about it if it could be proven beyond doubt that the $kyway is the most efficient use of our tax dollars! At this point ......I do not believe so! I am more concerned about getting the most for our tax dollars before we even consider raising tax rate's!

Quote from: tufsu1 on December 24, 2009, 08:51:03 AM
fine CS...but let's look at history....check out the Federal tax rates when Reagan was in office vs. what we now have....or even compare the Clinton years (remember there was no deficit in 1999) to now.....you'll see they are far lower...so I ask you again....would you favor tax increases to help balance our books?

More efficient use of our tax dollars first..........cut the waste, cut the frills and go lean! That's my take on the situation! Yes , I do remember when we had no deficit in 1999! What took place to change that scenario? When a stupid wrench cost's 6K something is not right! That also applies to government across the board!

Trying to predict what the Feds will do is like predicting the weather. Stay local and figure out how the local peeps will react and move forward, namely JTA. China? Worry more about what cost figures Arrington will come up with since he is fond of throwing around numbers.

mtraininjax..........your probably right! Local stuff first then worry about the big picture......but concerned about the long range picture which is not very bright for the grandkids and that coming generation!

CS - China, India, and Africa will tell the rest of the world to go screw themselves. They will point to the rest of the world's growth of industrial revolution, and tell them to go jump off a cliff, for all they care. I hope they learn from our piss poor lessons of providing healthcare, a retirement plan, and unemployment to all who are breathing. We are the land of the home and the free, for sure. Teach our future generations that Capitalism was killed by the Democrats.

mtraininjax............I am begining to believe that the two Party system sucks the big one! It may be time for a viable third or fourth party option to appear! Yeah.........I know all about multipule party systems and coalitions but something needs to take place! This picture of either or just does not get the point across!

Oh dear Lord!

Quote from: CS Foltz on December 23, 2009, 09:12:41 AM
JeffreyS.......I did not say anything about government being a business for profit! By my standards at best it should be a BREAK EVEN business! Transit should be in the same category I would think! You and I have to operate within our Budgets or we will have trouble and I see no reason why everything else should be exempt! Any business must make a profit to keep their doors open and did not say anything about the $kyway making money............at best it should be a break even prospect and it is not doing so! So I would ask you the same thing that I asked tufsu1..........at what point do you cut your losses?

So you are saying military and NASA should bring some money back...a lot of money.

Military should be at least a break even situation but that won't happen with the current system in place! I mean why should the military pay 6 Grand for a lousy cresent wrench? Milspec's not with standing it just is not right! GAO should be able to reign that in but they have not to this point. Spinoff's from NASA have taken place for years............your probably working off of one right now..........not to mention all of the electronic spinoff's that have entered into the civilian market.......medicene's , equipment and the like! At least with NASA we have gotten something for the dollars spent. I still say "Any government entity should be able to work within a Budget" you and I have too so why not them?

but how would the military "at least break even"...other than taxes, what revenue is generated?

tufsu1..........I am refering to the ability to operate within a Budget. Military Defense is something I do know something about having spent 9 yrs, 6 mnths and 28 days in the USCG. Part of what I had control over was called the SURF system (Simplified Unit Replenishment Fund) Everything for the unit came from that Fund and units tried to stay within the limits of the fund. At the end of the quarter, you double checked your figures and if you had money left, then standard practice was to buy till you closed within $1.00 of Fund amount! I did that many times over the years because that was standard practice...........if you did not , then Command would cut your money short for the next quarter by whatever you had managed to save! So even if you tried to save money, the odds were against you. I would like to see that changed and GAO actually do their stinking job! The days of $6k cresent wrenches should be over! The military does their job's with with Milspec's issue's and I have no problem with the military using and getting the best we can give them.......give them an adequate Fund and turn them loose! All units will make do with what Funding they are given since they normally do so anyway!

United States Military operates with a specific Budget number in mind......as in X amount of dollars is requested up the chain of command, equipment is requested on a per unit basis! Congress controls how many ships are replaced, aircraft are bought in bloc's, same for tanks and all of the other mechanized things that make up the various branches of Service. Congress controls all of that.....not the Armed Services! Most, if not all, units will operate within the budget constraints passed down the line, I just wish there was some way for the $kyway to do the same and if they can't ...............shut the doors!

the problem with that theory CS is that the US Military (and the rest of the Fed) operates with a budget that hasn't added up for a decade...state and local govt. can't do that.

What the both of you probably don't know is that we have two Congressional representatives that are vigorous supporters of the $kyway. The problem isn't at the national level, it's our own JTA and MPO that has pulled the plug on every proposed betterment. These are all improvements that the current administration has virtually garuntied will be forthcoming just for the asking. The criteria for the best shot at funds? A fixed rail system already in operation and in need of improvement or expansion... Well shuck my corncobs Jesup - THAT WOULD BE US!

OCKLAWAHA

Quote from: Ocklawaha on December 25, 2009, 10:09:11 PM
What the both of you probably don't know is that we have two Congressional representatives that are vigorous supporters of the $kyway.

Having our Congressional reps "support" is, at best, a conditioned response to their self-perceived mission in life of raping the Federal treasury for any and all dollars to bring back to their home districts.  They could care less whether they were used for this project or that or whether such projects make any sense or represent the best use of taxpayer dollars.  Congressional budgeting today is nothing but a free-for-all grab for dollars and the theme is "Pork, Baby, Pork" if nothing else will work.  So, I wouldn't take this "support" as much of an endorsement.

Also, consider that Rep. Brown was instrumental in the initial funding and thus may have some "pride of ownership" in keeping the system running so as not to look overly foolish for supporting it originally.  It's not politically acceptable to admit a gross mistake.

Alaska had their Congressional rep's "support" for their "bridge to nowhere" and we know how famously ridiculous that was.  Just prostituting themselves for their districts so they can serve another term.

Ock...........your right! I had forgotten that there had to have been some kind of Congressional support along the way to even have received Federal Funds to begin with! So based on that........chances of pulling the plug are going to be slim to non-existant!

Noticed Ron Littlepage today picked up on the $4 million a year TRANSFERRED from the BUS system to SUBSIDIZE the $ky-high-way! (Even though taxpayers where promised this would never happen.)  He echoed my immediate thought about how many bus shelters that could have paid for and that we should again consider shutting down the Skyway for good.

And, after TWO years, still no update on JTA's web site of their financials.  I guess with numbers like those cited by Littlepage, JTA is ashamed to come clean.  What a surprise!

http://www.jtafla.com/AboutJTA/showPage.aspx?Sel=32

I'm counting on Tufsu to get his buddies there to address this but have heard nothing.  How about it Tufsu?  They should be embarrassed playing this silly game of hide and seek.  But, then again, it seems to be part of JTA's culture.

QuoteRiderless Express rolls on; city cutbacks derailed

Submitted by Ron Littlepage on August 21, 2010 - 11:40pm Ron Littlepage's Blog

Spinning around the news dial … click.

Click.
All kinds of interesting facts pop up during the City Council’s Finance Committee budget hearings.
For example, last week the committee examined the Jacksonville Transportation Authority’s budget, including the funding for the Riderless Skyway Express.
Of the $5.3 million that will be spent on Skyway operations in the next fiscal year, only $400,000 will come from passenger fares.
Isn’t it time to put this mistake out of its misery?

Click.
A big chunk of the subsidy for the Skyway comes from $4 million transferred from the budget for bus operations.
That’s particularly galling for those who remember that when the life of the local option gasoline tax was extended, promises were made that none of the money would go to the Skyway.
That’s exactly where some of it is going.

Click.
Hmmm. I wonder how many bus stop shelters could be built with that $4 million?

http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/400564/ron-littlepage/2010-08-21/riderless-express-rolls-city-cutbacks-derailed

Hey stjr,

I too saw the Littlepage editorial today and came here to see if a new topic had started on it.

While I am a fan of the Skyway (as long as it has a future) I am not liking what I am reading here.  I knew there was some subsidy going on, but this scrap of information is way over the top.

JTA needs significant reform NOW. They need full disclosure NOW.

When I read this my impression is that JTA chases federal bus money because it is easy to get and use to subsidize other activities with little or no oversight.  They are currently getting burned on the TBJP reimbursements issue, no finances available online, 2 tax increase requests without any public justification.

I don't want to start a rumble but I think its time to make this a mayoral election issue. Up front and center.

My first thought is how much of the Fed BRT money will actually go to BRT?

Well since they have no posted any operational figures for the past two years........me thinks they know better! Past due for sure! Either way we, the taxpayers, get to subsidize JTA and yet we can not get any figures to show just how inept, non-professional  they are................or is it just a smoke screen while they siphon off funds for bonuses?

In today's T-U, Mr. Blaylock offers the "official" justification (excuse?) for maintaining the Skyway.  Now, it's Downtown's fault that the system is a failure.  That, and "PRIVATE" garages.  He doesn't mention the PUBLIC garages built by all those "downtown" mayors he cites.  And, after 20 years, the Skyway is still way "ahead of its time" and its "too early to give up" on it.  "As the economy improves" all will be well.  Forget, that before the recession, we had one of the best economies on record.  The next wave will be the "big" one.

The "$90 million" threat to the taxpayers amounts to extortion and deserves a thorough and full independent investigative review as to its legal AND political correctness.  How much money must we lose and how long must be wait, if this were even likely to be enforced, for such provision to lapse?  Surely, it does not go on forever.

The biggest issue here is there is no black/white measure or time frame for the Skyway to "put up or shut up".  It just languishes indefinitely and Blaylock's words promise more of the same.  A half-a** and stretched justification for the Skyway from the "experts".  If this is the best that can be offered, I doubt few will be persuaded to change opinions.

I am sure Blaylock is singing music to the ears and made-up minds of MJ's Skyway adherents but these lines will likely ring hollow in the ears of most.

QuoteGuest column: Jacksonville's Skyway a long-term investment
Source URL: http://jacksonville.com/opinion/letters-readers/2010-08-27/story/guest-column-skyway-long-term-investment

At the Jacksonville Transportation Authority's budget presentation to City Council's Finance Committee a week ago, the Skyway's operating cost was discussed.

The big alluring question: Why not shut the Skyway down?

It's a legitimate question. After 21 years in operation, the Skyway continues to have lower-than-expected ridership and a higher-than-desired operating deficit.

In fact today, the Skyway averages about 2,000 riders a day.

So, why is the transportation authority continuing to support such an operation?

The answer: Careful analysis shows that it is in the best long-term interests of the community to do so.

The basis of this operating decision stems all the way back to 1971, when the city first proposed a "people mover" system with the Florida Department of Transportation as a solution to increasingly congested bridge crossings and intersections, plus increased parking issues in the downtown core (including the Southbank).

This was a time when the city had a fairly vibrant downtown, with several department stores, restaurants and major employers.

A decade later, Jacksonville was one of the three cities (Miami and Detroit were the others) to win federal funds to build a demonstration project to see if "people mover" systems could help downtown centers.

Early projections by city planning had 100,000 people working in the downtown area by 1990. Looking at today's numbers, we see the projections did not hold up. Current downtown vacancies are 26 percent with approximately 51,000 employees.

Additionally, the creation of more private surface lots and parking garages impacted the Skyway's strategy of connecting the urban core with long-term parking located away from downtown's core.

JTA still believes that the Skyway, ahead of its time, is and should be integral to Jacksonville's long-term transportation strategy and vital to helping foster economic opportunity in downtown.

For us to be successful, we need an active, prosperous downtown.

A succession of mayors, beginning with Hans Tanzler in the 1960s, embraced the downtown development as we have, and JTA is not prepared to turn its back on downtown Jacksonville.

Downtown is still the most dense and largest employment center in the region and is the site where sustainable development will work best.

Furthermore, the cost of shutting down the Skyway, dismantling the super structure and returning at least $90 million in federal funding used to build the system far outweigh the costs of operating the system, which allows us to keep our long-term options available.

We know the system functions as it was intended when we get big crowds downtown. During Super Bowl XXXIX in 2005, over 200,000 patrons utilized the system.

For now, JTA has been continuing improvements to maximize intended use of the Skyway. We are making more bus and trolley connections at the Skyway stations, saving valuable time and miles, which are put back into the system outside of downtown.

Additionally, as the economy improves we have a series of public/private opportunities for potential developers to consider in locating their venues along the Skyway route.

It would be a travesty to close the Skyway now. Downtown Jacksonville will come back, and the Skyway will be there to tie it all together.

Those with long memories will recall similar criticism when we built the Dames Point bridge and Butler Boulevard.

While not all long-range decisions turn out as timely as planned, we believe it is too early to give up on the important strategies that the Skyway was built to serve.

Michael Blaylock is executive director/CEO of the Jacksonville Transportation Authority.

Then why install BRT along the same route? This is really looking like a smoke and mirror magic act just like Johnny loves to do to us! Baylock has more than likely never ridden the darn thing anymore than he has rode on a bus! JTA really needs some people who know what they are doing rather those who just spend money like it is not theirs! Something really smells here and badly! I think it is time for a full outside audit by an independent third part auditor in order to come up with figures that are not cooked or slanted!

What are your desired put up or shut up annual O&M numbers for the skyway and other forms of mass transit?  Would you be against the implementation of a plan that gets you to that place with the skyway intact?

stephen..................stjr has a point! At some point, the need versus the cost have to come together! To me it is not a question of local money (Federal Funds are still our money! Just collected by someone outside of City Hall.......right?) As to just what the $kyway generates for revenue......we are still subsidizing no matter what! So at what point does the public put their collective feet down and say no more? Those 2K riders could use the bus right? BRT is running close to there and the way downtown is being laid out it paralells a good chunk of the $kyway so I have to ask WTF? I am after the most cost effective way to move large numbers of people from point A to point B

Last figures that I saw said................$7 Million a year to operate! This was on one of the past threads here and was in a TU article about the same time. Latest and greates is $14 million which is why I question just what the heck that JTA says about anything! Passenger revenue was $440,00 according to Ron Littlepage and that is posted earlier! Advertisements or kiosiks have not been posted or seen! So like stjr......I would have to ask....what the heck is going on?

OK..........I see what your saying! stjr does have a point though.............dollar lose is not as bad as 14Mil but still, for what it is and what it does........and an annual report dated 9/30/08 is not good! I still think there needs to be an outside auditor to fully review everything that JTA does in the course of a year!

Where are the revenues associated with park and ride and leased properties?  Are they factored into the operating cost above?  Without those, who knows what the actual number is?

lake.........I did just what stephen did and followed the link! I did not see anything at all.....maybe I just over looked it, but not sure! There should be something for vendors in there also and did not see that either!

OK ...then I did not miss it! Then could you hazard a guess as to why those figures would not be included? Cost yes but the revenue is not? Something is not right here! It would seem to me, JTA is not being up front or honest with actual revenue!

Bottom line? (watch stjr take this out of context), Had the Holy Trinity constructed a state-of-the-art LRT on the exact same route with the exact same end points and stations, we'd still be talking about "massive losses".  Flip this and consider that 2,000 autos (most commuter cars are single passenger) are NOT making that trip daily.

If we extended the "Holy Trinity Railroad" a few miles to places where the workers either live, or cross roads where they are likely to pass before jumping into downtown's shallow canyons we'd be singing a completely different song. Put another way, if Commuter Rail was online and those 50,000+ persons had the choice to ride the train, I predict the Skyway, the BRT and THE STREETCAR will have all of they can handle.

So Ock, is THAT when they will make a profit? Not even close my friend, but consider your quality of life without a transit choice, city parks, library etc...   Some things are not pure expense, they are in fact INVESTMENTS IN OUR FUTURE.

Wow Ock, so you like the Skyway? Not a chance of a snowball in hell, but I will defend the transit principals that it was built on until I die (which might be sooner then later!).

FACT:

We never finished any completed route combination of the studied lines.

We are somehow expecting full return for about 1/6 of the system.

Nice job Stephendare, glad your aboard.


OCKLAWAHA

Gentlemen...........it is a gime that anything involving mass transit will be subsidized to a certain extent! I am just confused as to when we reach the limits? $kyway does not even begin to make the route it was designed for from the beginning....right? Even with, a supposed 2k riders per day, it is not anywhere close to fending for itself which means "Subsidize"! Answer to me is simple............extend the thing clear to the stadium and use BRT or plain old bus's to feed! $kyway should be one part of the intermodal system, not the half assed thing of today!

Quote from: thelakelander on August 29, 2010, 03:58:53 PM
What are your desired put up or shut up annual O&M numbers for the skyway and other forms of mass transit?  Would you be against the implementation of a plan that gets you to that place with the skyway intact?

Lake, the Skyway long ago failed my standard for put up or shut up so my opinion isn't what counts here.  What remains is the opinion of those who think it should still keep operating.

Why don't you ask JTA this question?  They are (1) supposed to be the "experts", (2) are the ones that bushwhacked the taxpayers into building the thing with $200 million of OUR money so they should have to show US a proper "return on investment" [not to be confused with making money but with providing value to our community commensurate with its cost], (3) are the ones saying to give them an indefinite period of more than 20 years to prove the thing is worthwhile, (4) are in a position to make or break the case for keeping it, whatever the standard is, (5) should be held accountable for some OPERATIONAL measure to say it is or is not a success, and (6) have some basis in their mind for keeping it going.

What we have now is MUSH and how to you go from there to ascertain its feasibility?  This is what allows the thing to proceed with no forward progress and accountability by JTA.  Clearly, even its proponents must have SOME standard to determine if it is worth their continuing support.  What is YOUR standard for your continuing support?

What have I always said I looked for? My standard is that the Skyway produces value for the dollar equal to or in excess of other mass transit projects that are being deprived of those same dollars but could serve the same purpose.  I have repeatedly said that this is how the private sector deploys its capital and the same should be true here.  I have also said repeatedly that I am not asking for the measure to be against revenue but rather investment vs. usage.  [Maybe you can get your buddy Stephen to understand this because so far, he doesn't.  He keeps wrongly thinking I expect it to pay for itself.]

Quote from: stephendare on August 29, 2010, 03:59:37 PM
Another rant about the Skyway from STJR.

OK, my post is a rant, yours is pearls of wisdom, and Blaylock is Shakespeare.  Are you happy now, Stephen.

QuoteWhat is the total amount of local money that has been spent on the Skyway?

What is the total amount of revenue that has been generated by the system, including park and rides, lease payments, vending and advertising?

What is the total value of the real estate that is owned by the JTA for the implementation of the Skyway System and the adjacent TODs?

Do you know?

I only know what JTA publishes and have discussed their now published TWO YEAR OLD numbers here extensively and fully.  Can't help you if you don't like the numbers they publish.  Does JTA know more?  Where, Stephen, are your questions for them?  Or, are you in their hip pocket on this one?  If they can't publish proper numbers, as you suggest, whose incompetence is that?  JTA has already proven they do accounting in whatever manner that supports their position.  I really don't see how anyone knows what is real and what isn't with their creative approach to numbers.  It's not my job to do their accounting.  Blaylock just wrote his "side of the story" in the T-U.  I am responding to what he wrote.  If you don't like his presentation, go get the numbers from JTA and make the case for them. Then, we can respond to you.

Quote from: stephendare on August 29, 2010, 04:28:47 PM

Quote from: stjr on October 15, 2009, 01:52:03 AM
Out of curiosity I went to JTA's latest annual report (9/30/2008) and found that it reports the $ky-high-way had a NET OPERATING LOSS of $13,735,138, not the $7 million previously reported in the press and elsewhere.  Operating Revenues were a paltry $357,123 from passengers and a total of $529,465 against massive operating expenses of $14,264,603.

Can someone explain why the big discrepancy?  If not, the reasons for dumping the $ky-high-way just doubled!!!

Also, as I suspected, JTA benefits are running a very rich 55% of the cost of labor.  My experience is this would typically be around 20 to 30% in the private sector.

No wonder JTA can't afford bus shelters.

By the way, we local taxpayers are giving JTA $54,650,113 in operations (not the road building sales taxes, etc, which are another almost $80 million) subsidies via our taxes to the City of Jacksonville.

I bolded the relevant numbers below but for the more curious and a lot more revelations about JTA's finances go to:  http://www.jtafla.com/pdf/Annual%20Report%20for%20the%20web.pdf

QuoteStatement of Revenue, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Assets
Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2008

Columns, in order: Bus ASE CTC Totals

Operating revenues:
Passenger $ 8,418,407 $ 357,123 $ 480,498 $ 9,256,028
Agency - - 7,251,730 7,251,730
Charter 243,343 - - 243,343
Auxilliary transportation 267,363 - - 267,363
Non-transportation 352,531 172,342 916 525,789

Total operating revenue 9,281,644 529,465 7,733,144 17,544,253

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

Operating loss (70,328,940) (13,735,138) (6,126,005) (90,190,083)

Nonoperating revenues
Public funding:
United States government 5,349,297 1,555,604 805,664 7,710,565
State of Florida 4,250,155 - - 4,250,155
City of Jacksonville 53,439,498 163,052 1,047,563 54,650,113
Other subsidies 137,670 - - 137,670
Investment earnings 139,993 334,986 14,098 489,077

Total nonoperating revenues 63,316,613 2,053,642 1,867,325 67,237,580

Loss before capital contributions
and transfers (7,012,327) (11,681,496) (4,258,680) (22,952,503)
Capital contributions 8,700,146 2,310,482 1,946,348 12,956,976
Transfers in 11,100,000 3,829,119 2,834,734 17,763,853
Transfers out (6,663,853) - - (6,663,853)

Change in net assets 6,123,966 (5,541,895) 522,402 1,104,473

Net assets, beginning of year, as restated 73,451,617 113,684,269 865,039 188,000,925
Net assets, end of year $ 79,575,583 $ 108,142,374 $ 1,387,441 $ 189,105,398

Follow the link that STJR provided in the original post.  

I did.

In order to get this imaginary 14 million dollar figure, STJR had to include the entire benefits package of all JTA employees.  Not for the Skyway engineers.

That seems somewhat disingenuous.

Stephen, you may consider yourself an expert on transit, but I would stay far away from accounting.  To get the $14 million number, all I had to do was go to JTA's last self-published statement (now TWO years old) and look at the number under ASE described BY JTA as "OPERATING LOSS".  How hard is that?  It is THEIR number.  What is there for me to manipulate?  You just quoted it directly into your own post!  I would say JTA looks to allocate their costs to various operations and this number represents their idea of a fair allocation.  Sorry JTA doesn't support your case.  Talk about a misleading and discredited rant! ???

QuoteThere was a 7 million dollar loss in revenues between the two years, but it was a loss in the total net assets (not gross) of the system, valued at over 121 million.

More lack of understanding of accounting, Stephen.  I have no idea how this is relevant to the subject operating losses, but, generally, a reduction of "net assets" (e.g. capital and retained earnings) typically comes from either capital distributions/additions, dividends, and/or OPERATING LOSSES. Per the above, the OPERATING LOSSES, rounded, are $14 million.  Then, the Skyway sucked in about $2 million in "NONoperationg Revenues" from the Feds and the City.  This leaves the Skyway with a rounded $12 million "Loss before capital contributions and transfers".  Those contributions and transfers (hmmm.... from whose pocketbook I wonder?) amounted to $5 million leaving a $7 million rounded net asset change.   All JTA numbers in black and white. So, you were saying, Stephen??

If this is how you evaluate transit projects, I see why you continue to support the Skyway.

Quote from: stephendare on August 30, 2010, 10:34:23 PM
by 'operating loss' do you mean the 14 million dollar total operating expenses?

because that would indeed be true if there were no other revenues.  Which there were.

This is basically a P & L statement, STJR.

You don't get to rearrange the meaning of the column to suit you.

Stephen, Stephen, Stephen.... I didn't rearrange anything!  Why do you insist so?!  I merely quoted DIRECTLY from JTA:  ASE Operating Losses = $13,735,138.  What remains your issue?  Don't like JTA's accounting, see them.  I have no idea how they figured it but that is THEIR number.  Straight from the horse's mouth.  To get to that number, they showed REVENUE in TWO of five possible revenue categories:  Passenger revenue = $357,123 and Non-transportation revenue = $172,342.  I have no idea what is in "Non-transportation" but in the total scheme of things, it is a miniscule number.  If it includes parking revenues, the whole thing could double or triple and it barely moves the bottom line.  What is your fixation on this?  If JTA leaves out other revenues that could be attributed to the ASE why are they not included?  Whose job is it to make this right?  Certainly, not mine.  Why to you attack me and not hold your buddies at JTA accountable?  This is their business, profession, livelihood, and (alleged) expertise.  All you are demonstrating is how incompetent they are.  Appreciate the assist but they do a good job all by themselves.  :D In the meantime, your zest for protecting JTA is making you look like the odd man out.  I suggest you reconsider your defense of them.  They will hang you out to dry as they have done so many others.

QuoteIf you are going to attempt to be witheringly sarcastic, at least make sure that you are correct.

I did, Stephen.  You need to worry about yourself.

Quote
The drop in revenue was due to another component of the ASE, which was the loss in parking revenues.

Perhaps the problem here is that you literally do not understand the business model being discussed.  The Park and Ride Revenues are part of the revenues of the skyway.  It was designed that way from the very beginning.

See above comment.  Not material to the discussion, whatever the number is.  Revenue is a pittance against operating expenses.  By the way, did you consider that the cost of the parking lots may not cover the parking lot revenue (I think that's a pretty good bet given the garages are nearly empty)?  Maybe JTA is excluding this not to make the ASE losses even GREATER.  If they count the revenue, they have to count the expenses that match to the revenue.  Basic accounting principals.

Perhaps, Stephen, you don't understand JTA or its accounting practices.  ;)

Quote
Finally, I have already confirmed that the JTA does not accurately account for a realistic Skyway P & L, STJR. Since you cannot answer any of the questions that I have asked you, Im not really all that interested in your opinion any further, because its meaningless and you don't mind misleading readers in your posts.

Your claims about losses only make sense if you totally don't count specific kinds of revenue.  Not because its not revenue, but because you don't agree with it.

This is a little unhinged.

I say that your opinion is uninteresting to me because I  would like to know the actual figures.  I have requested them from the appropriate people and will have an answer shortly.  I will post them as well.

None of this has much effect on your bizarre suggestions that we should destroy the value of a 121 million dollar TOD system by tearing it down.  This is the kind of loony suggestion that you hear occasionally from people, but I hope that sensible people don't pay it much mind.

When you can answer any of the questions I asked, then your opinion on the subject will be worth listening to.

Until then, thanks for the 2cents worth. ;)

Stephen, this is double speak and gobbledygook, but I sense you don't approve of JTA's accounting and somehow that is my fault.  I can't even figure a way to give a rational response given how nonsensical it is.  I'll let readers judge you by your own words on this.  I don't think I need to help them figure out who is "bizarre" on this issue.

Well, Stephen, now that we have completed our discussion on JTA's accounting, or lack thereof, why don't you answer Lake's question and my request below. What is your measure/standard of success for the Skyway?  How long do you give it to meet that standard?  What would it take for you to say "put up or shut up"?

Quote from: stjr on August 30, 2010, 09:35:02 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on August 29, 2010, 03:58:53 PM
What are your desired put up or shut up annual O&M numbers for the skyway and other forms of mass transit? 

Lake, the Skyway long ago failed my standard for put up or shut up so my opinion isn't what counts here.  What remains is the opinion of those who think it should still keep operating.

Why don't you ask JTA this question?  They are (1) supposed to be the "experts", (2) are the ones that bushwhacked the taxpayers into building the thing with $200 million of OUR money so they should have to show US a proper "return on investment" [not to be confused with making money but with providing value to our community commensurate with its cost], (3) are the ones saying to give them an indefinite period of more than 20 years to prove the thing is worthwhile, (4) are in a position to make or break the case for keeping it, whatever the standard is, (5) should be held accountable for some OPERATIONAL measure to say it is or is not a success, and (6) have some basis in their mind for keeping it going.

What we have now is MUSH and how to you go from there to ascertain its feasibility?  This is what allows the thing to proceed with no forward progress and accountability by JTA.  Clearly, even its proponents must have SOME standard to determine if it is worth their continuing support.  What is YOUR standard for your continuing support?

What have I always said I looked for? My standard is that the Skyway produces value for the dollar equal to or in excess of other mass transit projects that are being deprived of those same dollars but could serve the same purpose.  I have repeatedly said that this is how the private sector deploys its capital and the same should be true here.  I have also said repeatedly that I am not asking for the measure to be against revenue but rather investment vs. usage.  [Maybe you can get your buddy Stephen to understand this because so far, he doesn't.  He keeps wrongly thinking I expect it to pay for itself.]

Quote from: stephendare on August 30, 2010, 11:33:55 PM
you first stjr.

If you bothered to read my post, you would see I have already responded.  I am not the one saying to give it more time, you are.  How much time to accomplish what level of success?  Go on record, Stephen.  You say you are the expert.

Quote from: stjr on August 30, 2010, 09:35:02 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on August 29, 2010, 03:58:53 PM
What are your desired put up or shut up annual O&M numbers for the skyway and other forms of mass transit?  Would you be against the implementation of a plan that gets you to that place with the skyway intact?

Lake, the Skyway long ago failed my standard for put up or shut up so my opinion isn't what counts here.  What remains is the opinion of those who think it should still keep operating.

You're opinion is very valid because you started the thread.  What's your standard for put up or shut up?  Not just for the skyway, but all modes of transportation.

QuoteWhy don't you ask JTA this question?  They are (1) supposed to be the "experts", (2) are the ones that bushwhacked the taxpayers into building the thing with $200 million of OUR money so they should have to show US a proper "return on investment" [not to be confused with making money but with providing value to our community commensurate with its cost], (3) are the ones saying to give them an indefinite period of more than 20 years to prove the thing is worthwhile, (4) are in a position to make or break the case for keeping it, whatever the standard is, (5) should be held accountable for some OPERATIONAL measure to say it is or is not a success, and (6) have some basis in their mind for keeping it going.

This isn't my argument.  These are the questions you raise.

QuoteWhat is YOUR standard for your continuing support?

My standard is operating and integrating complementing land uses around the system in a manner that best utilizes its assets.  That's my standard for all modes of mass transit in general.  At this point, we still have a long way to go with the skyway and the buses in the arena of maximizing their potential.  Now, what's yours?

QuoteWhat have I always said I looked for? My standard is that the Skyway produces value for the dollar equal to or in excess of other mass transit projects that are being deprived of those same dollars but could serve the same purpose.

Operational cost only?  How about other forms of revenue?

Quote from: stephendare on August 30, 2010, 11:37:28 PM
I can wait for as long as you like

LOL, that sounds like JTA's slogan for losing money on the Skyway!  :D  Nice duck but I understand your reluctance to stick your neck out for the Skyway and JTA.  Can't really blame you on this.  ;)

Quote from: thelakelander on August 30, 2010, 11:39:50 PM

Quote from: stjr on August 30, 2010, 09:35:02 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on August 29, 2010, 03:58:53 PM
What are your desired put up or shut up annual O&M numbers for the skyway and other forms of mass transit?  Would you be against the implementation of a plan that gets you to that place with the skyway intact?

Lake, the Skyway long ago failed my standard for put up or shut up so my opinion isn't what counts here.  What remains is the opinion of those who think it should still keep operating.

You're opinion is very valid because you started the thread.  What's your standard for put up or shut up?  Not just for the skyway, but all modes of transportation.

I gave it at the end of the subject post, Lake.  What more do you want?  Why aren't proponents of the Skyway who are asking the taxpayers to keep feeding this beast not accountable for telling us what they think "success" is in a MEASURABLE, OBJECTIVE way?  

Quote

QuoteWhy don't you ask JTA this question?  They are (1) supposed to be the "experts", (2) are the ones that bushwhacked the taxpayers into building the thing with $200 million of OUR money so they should have to show US a proper "return on investment" [not to be confused with making money but with providing value to our community commensurate with its cost], (3) are the ones saying to give them an indefinite period of more than 20 years to prove the thing is worthwhile, (4) are in a position to make or break the case for keeping it, whatever the standard is, (5) should be held accountable for some OPERATIONAL measure to say it is or is not a success, and (6) have some basis in their mind for keeping it going.

This isn't my argument.  These are the questions you raise.

So, you are OK with JTA having NO MEASURABLE, OBJECTIVE standards to offer for the Skyway's success?  How do we know we have "won" the game if we don't know the score?

Quote

QuoteWhat is YOUR standard for your continuing support?

My standard is operating and integrating complementing land uses around the system in a manner that best utilizes its assets.  That's my standard for all modes of mass transit in general.  At this point, we still have a long way to go with the skyway and the buses in the arena of maximizing their potential.  Now, what's yours?

Lake, can you measure objectively "operating and integrating complementing land uses around the system in a manner that best utilizes its assets"?  Is your measure ridership?  And, at what cost per passenger mile?   If so, how many riders and what costs make this a worthwhile venture?  Do you have some other measures?  What would you benchmark these measures against to see if they are superior or inferior?   I noticed the other day someone posted a report from a State public transit agency that developed its idea of measurables. Would you follow that model?

Quote

QuoteWhat have I always said I looked for? My standard is that the Skyway produces value for the dollar equal to or in excess of other mass transit projects that are being deprived of those same dollars but could serve the same purpose.

Operational cost only?  How about other forms of revenue?

Lake, why do you and Stephen keep thinking I am hung up with revenue?  I hardly mention the subject.  What I would expect to look at is the net cost (revenue less cost and if revenue is zero, then it is pure costs, but whatever) per passenger mile vs. what alternative modes can move that same passenger per mile for.  To be fair, costs must include all costs (not just direct operating costs, but environmental and societal costs) and I have stated this before, including measuring against transit by automobile.

Common sense tells me that mass transit should almost always be less costly but, within the world of mass transit, we have many options.  The available data to date and another dose of common sense says the Skyway is not the optimal choice for mass transit.  To date, I have not seen a substantive argument to convince me otherwise unless one accepts that we simply can't walk away from the existing investment AT ANY PRICE.  I say everything has a price and at some point it does pay to walk away.  Honest people can disagree but I seem to get skewered here for disagreeing.  I can handle it because outside of these boards, the vast majority of the community sees it my way more than the proponents way and because I feel principled in my belief as much as you do yours.  I don't begrudge proponents and they should not begrudge me.  That's all.

Quote from: stjr on August 30, 2010, 09:35:02 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on August 29, 2010, 03:58:53 PM
What are your desired put up or shut up annual O&M numbers for the skyway and other forms of mass transit?  Would you be against the implementation of a plan that gets you to that place with the skyway intact?

Lake, the Skyway long ago failed my standard for put up or shut up so my opinion isn't what counts here.  What remains is the opinion of those who think it should still keep operating.

Why don't you ask JTA this question?  They are (1) supposed to be the "experts", (2) are the ones that bushwhacked the taxpayers into building the thing with $200 million of OUR money so they should have to show US a proper "return on investment" [not to be confused with making money but with providing value to our community commensurate with its cost], (3) are the ones saying to give them an indefinite period of more than 20 years to prove the thing is worthwhile, (4) are in a position to make or break the case for keeping it, whatever the standard is, (5) should be held accountable for some OPERATIONAL measure to say it is or is not a success, and (6)6.

I'm your Huckleberry!

1. "Supposed to be the experts?" My opinion is probably about like yours, highway experts maybe, mass transit experts, just follow the wreckage of the last 50 years.

2. "bushwhacked the taxpayers..." No argument here except to say you are giving the bushwhackers of Southern Lore a very bad rap linking them as you do to JTA. Should you see a violent old ghost in a red shirt, with a Santa Claus face and beard whilst you sleep his name is Uncle Sant and you've probably pissed him off!

3. "...saying to give them an indefinite period..." I believe this is where you and I are on opposing trains. I believe 20 years is more then enough time to prove the patent but only after the system is completed to the original studied perimeters.

4. "in a position to make or break the case for keeping it..." No case can be accurately made either way until we have a whole-studied system with which to judge.

5. "should be held accountable for some OPERATIONAL measure..." In transportation "operations" are a or division of the whole, in this case the operations appear to be fairly successful with little down time based on the funds they allocate to maintain the thing. The original goal was 99% dependability and I'd just guess this is really somewhere around 80% in real life practice. This would give it a mediocre score but frankly it is probably still superior to the % on the bus side.

6. "have some basis in their mind for keeping it going..." 2k persons per day on a route that is only 2 miles long isn't really too bad as it comes down to 1k per mile. If that holds true, then expansion a mile or so in each direction bringing the whole system up to around 5 miles should produce 7k riders per weekday. I actually believe the ridership is half again as many riders as they are counting as I have NEVER been on it when the fare system was working! They could be losing 50% of their true riders simply by shoddy maintenance, frankly they don't have a clue.

Suggesting that it is a total failure is like trying to offer an opinion on half of a cat, it WON'T PURR until all of it's pieces are in place. Do I think it will vindicate the planner (Steve Arrington) for this fiasco? NOT! If Arrington had any culpability in pushing this thing forward in the beginning he should have long since been looking for a job. At it's best the Skyway MIGHT be expanded to a point where the passenger per mile raises enough to silence the lynch mobs forming below the stations. At it's worst, it has set back all fixed rail transportation in North Florida by a good 20 years. No doubt the streetcar proposal, had it been built, would have overwhelmed the downtown core with an unprecedented building and economic boom. Streetcars with five digit daily ridership numbers from the start. We can say this not as mere opinion, but as FACT based on every other streetcar build out in the country and keeping in mind that we could have been FIRST.



OCKLAWAHA

It is a capital asset with a useful life, therefore it has to be depreciated using one of many different methods.  Judging by the number, I agree it seems really high since it has been 2 decades, but didn't the thing cost around $200M?  If so, then maybe they are using a very basic straight-line depreciation, which is very common in regular financial statements (and hardly used for tax purposes).

Looks like a very basic income statement.  Hate accounting, but I'll take a non-professional stab at it?  A depreciation expense is the increase in accumulated depreciation.  Basically, an accountant would debit the income statement with an entry for "depreciation expense" and credit the balance sheet for "accumulated depreciation."  A depreciation expense reduces the expenses (debit to a liability is a reduction).  The resulting credit to the accumulated depreciation allows anyone who examines the balance sheet to determine the original cost of the asset and the remaining "useful" life (depreciating an asset has many benefits depending on the asset and how it's depreciated) and does not mean that we can only use it for x more years (obviously, I think everyone knows that).

How was the financing for the skyway provided?  Is that in another thread?  Was it provided largely with the sale of bonds?  I almost completed my accounting degree, but I hate accounting and I am so bad at it...just stuck with finance, so someone else is probably going to have to correct me, but nothing looks out of the ordinary except for the lack of operating revenue and the total of the net assets (if depreciation is $7M and original cost is $200M spread over many years 2 decades ago and total net assets is still over $100M, something doesn't add up).  Also, I am assuming their capital contributions were in the form of loans meant to be repaid?  Does anyone know about that?

For most of these questions the answers must be noted in the footnotes, so we can find out what method of depreciation they use, what the makeup of the capital contributions is, etc.  We can find out their method of valuation for the assets, and plenty more.

IIRC the capital expense was in the form of Federal grants, with local (and maybe state) matching funds. No loans.  Although, if the oft repeated meme that "if JTA tears it down, they have to repay the Feds" is true, would depreciation have anything to do with that?

depreciation should be considered a capital loss...not an operational loss

Quote from: tufsu1 on August 31, 2010, 11:25:14 AM
depreciation should be considered a capital loss...not an operational loss

Clearly, we need an accounting course for some MJers.  Depreciation is an operating expense Tufsu!  That's why JTA's GAAP accounting (posted above) factors it in "OPERATING losses" and the always stingy IRS accepts it as a tax deduction.  It represents the ongoing "wasting away" of an asset over time and usage and is incurred commensurate with a given operating period.  Maybe you better stick to transit issues.  The lack of common understanding of the measurement and accounting of an operational enterprise such as this may help explain why I am at opposite ends with some MJ'ers in my perspective of the Skyway.

Depreciation is not a "CURRENT cash flow" item but it represents the amortization of the UP FRONT cash flow invested in the project.  Thus, it does represent real cash expenses, just with a timing difference between the flow and the expense.  This is the same for accruals and reserves for other items in the financial statements.

Stephen posted JTA's statements here but failed to say what is misleading.  I guess he is implying JTA is providing misleading financial statements.  I won't argue that possibility given JTA's history of using numbers to mislead in other respects.  At face value, as I have always said, in JTA's own words, the Skyway has "OPERATING LOSSES" of nearly $14 million, at least as of TWO years ago.  Apparently, JTA isn't interested in giving us updated information and one can only wonder what their motives are for failing to do so.

Quote from: stephendare on August 31, 2010, 12:26:51 PM
The difference is, STJR, you arent really that interested in finding out the truth.  Just ranting.

The truth of what, Stephen?  I sure can't do battle with the demons populating your mind so why try.  ???

Quotehow much 'Depreciation Loss' would occur if you tore down the system?

How would you pay for that?

I suppose you really mean to ask what is the "undepreciated costs" of the Skyways assets.  Without seeing a detailed depreciation schedule and knowing what lives and depreciation methods they are using, I can't tell you.  You know people at JTA.  Why don't you find out and post the info here for all of us to analyze and discuss.

I would look at the CURRENT value of what I am walking away from (i.e. my investment at this moment in time) versus the total future and ongoing operating costs I would be avoiding plus the value of the greater benefits I would attain by redeploying those operating costs in something more productive (the total of these two items being my "return on investment" at this moment in time).  Got that?

Quote from: stephendare on August 31, 2010, 12:32:12 PM
Ive made the missing information abundantly clear, and will post it shortly, once its found.

Let's see, the information is "abundantly clear" but you haven't posted it yet?  LOL.

QuoteUntil the facts are on the ground I shall endeavor not to make any crazed suggestions.

Smart.

QuotePsst!  Did you know that the Independent Life Building is depreciating?  Should we tear it down?

While we are at it, shouldnt we tear all those skyscrapers down?

Stephen, depreciation is your hang up, not mine.  It's just one of many expenses in assessing the whole enterprise.

Not sure what the Skyway has to do with skyscrapers?  They both begin with "sky"?....... LOL.

Quote from: stephendare on August 31, 2010, 12:49:57 PM
Isnt half of your 14 million dollar 'operating losses' from 'depreciation'?

Uuuuhh.... excuse me, but that would be JTA's (not mine) "operating losses" of $14 million.  Seems you have a mental block on this one.  ;D  Have a good day, Stephen.  ;)

Do other transit projects depreciate over time?

how about roads?
parks?
wasterwater treatment facilities?
power plants?
schools?
other buildings?

Maybe we shouldn't build anything!

Quote from: tufsu1 on August 31, 2010, 02:36:23 PM
Do other transit projects depreciate over time?

how about roads?
parks?
wasterwater treatment facilities?
power plants?
schools?
other buildings?

Maybe we shouldn't build anything!

Of course, Tufsu.  Everything depreciates.  What's your point?  That it's not an expense?  I guess if you don't like the expense numbers for utilities, supplies, maintenance, salaries, cost of goods sold, etc., you just ignore those at will too? 

Do you not get that depreciation is part of measuring your performance?  Does not the magnitude of your initial investment and its gradual wasting away not require an accounting?

If I buy a piece of equipment for $10,000 that five years later is worth zero and during that five years it generates a profit of $10,000 (not counting the time value of money which would make this an even worse deal), did I come out ahead or just tread water?  Well, if you ignore the depreciation as you and Stephen desire to do, you would be foolish enough to think you actually made money.  But, if you look in your pockets, you will see you are right back where you started.  So, you ignore depreciation at your own financial peril (and without regard to the fundamentals of accounting).

Quote from: stephendare on August 31, 2010, 04:34:43 PM
The problem is that you understand this, and yet are deliberately trying to mislead people into thinking that somewhere along the way someone wrote a check for 7 million dollars that was expended 'operating' the skyway.

A check was written....not for $7 million.... actually, it's reported at $200 million as I recall.  It was paid up front.  But, it's accounted for ratably over time as it wastes away. You and Tufsu seem to be unable to comprehend that just because there is an interval between the cash expended and the accounting for it that its not a real cash outflow.

Think of it as a PREPAID expense.  Like paying for a service agreement for the next 5 years up front.  You don't  deduct the prepayment in full up front but rather one year at a time with the unexpended balance capitalized as an asset until the time has come for another year to be "sliced" off and expensed.  Does that help?

OK horrible analogy, but I am with STJR on this one.  I guess think of depreciation like amortizing a loan.  Just about everything has a book value, including capital expenditures.  One of the only things not depreciated is land.  I hate accounting so much, so I am bowing out of this debate, but I hardly doubt there is something seriously wrong with the current books.  We all know the skyway was a horrible project to begin with and cost wayyy too much money.  Everything you want to know about how they are depreciating that asset should be in the notes.  All of the details, especially since it is a public project, should be completely transparent and public in the footnotes somewhere.  If something on any of the financial statements (income, balance, cash flow, whatever) for this project seems unclear, it probably has a whole page devoted to it.

Quote from: stephendare on August 31, 2010, 09:36:03 PM
So the expense was paid twice?  Once when we built it, and then once again during depreciation?

I don't think so.

Stephen, you just failed my "accounting class".  You need to take a remedial accounting course.  On the other hand, maybe you are "unlearnable" !  ;D

I see the depreciation issue as a gimmick.

Both on the part of JTA and the part of $ky-high way detractors. I suppose it matters as a part of accounting, It represents a capital investment. Does JTA pay income taxes?

It isn't like the skyway is going to be resold.

There was a $200m investment. The money will not be seen again. The Skyway will not make a return on the money.

I think a comprehensive mass transit system is more than just desirable. It is a necessity. Should the skyway be a part of that comprehensive system? Even if it is less than desirable (which I do not believe), it is a necessity. We already spent daddy's money on half the erector set. When we try to get the rest of our comprehensive erector set money from dear old dad, he may wish to see that we have been good stewards of the first erector set.

The "expenditure" was made when the $200 million was spent, but the accounting "expense" occurs over the useful life of the asset.  Depreciation is indeed an operational expense, but since the Skyway presumably has little to no salvage value, it is largely a sunk cost at this point and should not be considered when evaluating whether to continue or discontinue service, assuming that's what the current debate is about.  If not, please clarify.

Stephen, I really don't appreciate your accusations that I am "lying" to cover your own total ignorance of accounting.  Enough already.  Just admit you don't know what you are talking about and cut this foolishness.  You should be embarrassed.  Also, you are acting very un-dignified and I thought your standards were higher than that.  Maybe not.

Quote from: Traveller on August 31, 2010, 09:52:02 PM
The "expenditure" was made when the $200 million was spent, but the accounting "expense" occurs over the useful life of the asset.  Depreciation is indeed an operational expense, but since the Skyway presumably has little to no salvage value, it is largely a sunk cost at this point and should not be considered when evaluating whether to continue or discontinue service, assuming that's what the current debate is about.  If not, please clarify.

I have demonstrated the difference between "cash flow" and "P & L accounting".   If someone wants to talk "cash flow" I have no problem with that.  But, that doesn't address the "wasting away" costs of an asset that is only addressed by considering depreciation.

Also, not all costs are sunk one time.  Many parts (and associated value) of the Skyway last for far shorter periods than, say, the superstructure.  The cars, the movable parts, the computers, the software, fixtures, A/C.... just about anything not made of reinforced concrete will likely require regular and repeated replacement during the life of the system.  Even the concrete may need major structural attention at some point.  When does Stephen propose expensing all those costs?  That is what depreciation does.  Plain and simple.  Try OPERATING the Skyway with out these monies.  You can't.  That's why depreciation is an "OPERATING expense" and JTA shows it this way.

Quote from: stephendare on August 31, 2010, 09:59:06 PM
Are you claiming that the system both cost 200 million up front, and is additionally costing 7 million dollars a year?

I know this is a total waste of time talking to a wall, but once more:  Two distinct facts:  FACT #1: The initial INVESTMENT is $200 million. FACT #2:  The investment of $200 million is depreciated annually as it loses value, per JTA, at $7 million, over time.

There is no double counting except by Stephen Dare.  Your conclusion is a pure figment of your imagination because you don't seem to have a clue about what I am saying.  Go talk with your CPA and let him explain it to you.  Like I said, you appear to be "unlearnable".  ???  Lashing out against others due to your own shortcomings is inappropriate.  :o

I think your needle is stuck.  I hear a broken record.

Quote from: stephendare on August 31, 2010, 10:15:50 PM
I think your refusal to answer the question is laughable.

Then have a good laugh on me.  Because you don't seem to be getting anything else from me. LOL, myself.  I will let my posts stand for themselves and you do the same.  Others can draw their own conclusions.

Quote from: stephendare on August 31, 2010, 10:19:46 PM

Quote from: stephendare on August 31, 2010, 10:14:21 PM
Are you claiming that the system both cost 200 million up front, and is additionally costing 7 million dollars a year?

So would you answer this question, Yes or No?

I answered above and I am finished with you on this subject.  Reread my posts and maybe one day you will find my answer.   If not, then your mystery will just have to stay a mystery.  I know you like a good mystery.  Now you have one.  ;D

so...assuming the $200 million investment depreciates at $7 million a year....after about 28-29 years, there would be no value t the system....so would it continue to depreciate (thereby creating negative value) or would the operating loss miraculously look much better?

Quote from: tufsu1 on August 31, 2010, 10:40:38 PM
so...assuming the $200 million investment depreciates at $7 million a year....after about 28-29 years, there would be no value t the system....so would it continue to depreciate (thereby creating negative value) or would the operating loss miraculously look much better?

Tufsu, I suspect it's the blind leading the blind here, between you and Stephen.  Blinded by your love of the Skyway, that's for sure.  ::)

While it is technically possible that depreciation could expire fully at some point, here it is very unlikely. First, because the system's original $200 mil is actually not allocated to a single component, but likely hundreds or even thousands of components.  As these are replaced and repurchased, much of the original $200 million will be replaced with millions more in capital investment to keep it OPERATING.  See example I posted above.  These new investments will (a) result in any undepreciated balances, less any salvage proceeds, being written off fully (or, if salvage exceeds the net asset value, recognizing a gain) in the year of disposal and (b) reset the depreciation schedule for that replacement asset to its new investment value to begin depreciation anew .

Second, "when" depreciation is taken is a factor of the assumptions made of the assets' productive life expectancies.  If JTA overestimates an asset(s) life, rest assured depreciation will always be there.  If JTA underestimates an asset(s) life, it is possible that asset is fully depreciated while still in use.  But, given hundreds or thousands of components and fair estimates, I would imagine, on average, JTA should come pretty close to replacing assets as they approach the end of their depreciable lives.  Since their replacements, per above, will start depreciation anew, I expect there will always be depreciation at a level, that if anything, will gradually increase over time as the cost of replacements will likely be higher than the cost of what is being replaced (you know, inflation!).  

Since you and Stephen are such brilliant accountants, tell me how you would expense the cost of buying and re-buying assets that waste away?  Tell the accounting world your marvelous new way of doing this.

You depreciate assets to zero, not in continuum.  Book value is for accounting purposes.  Depreciation is necessary because of GAAP rules (and IFRS).  Depreciation is also used for tax purposes, and FASB rules involving depreciation are almost as complicated as inventory rules, but you can use more than one method of depreciation for different components and different purposes and between different reports.  As stjr has stated (I believe), there are many different components to the skyway, both physical and intangible.  I'm sure it's more complicated than anyone on this board not directly involved in the accounting and financing process of the skyway can answer for.  I don't have my CPA and don't plan on getting it (CFA maybe, but I need to work on the accounting for test 1 before I start that).  From the conversation that I have been hearing on this thread, as bad as I am and uninformed about accounting as I am, I still feel like I am one of the only ones grasping the non-issue here that is being made into an issue by people who don't seem to know absolutely anything about accounting (and btw Wikipedia is a good place to start or you can take my accounting textbooks from me for free because I have been trying to sell them back for a year and more and they are only 2-3 years old, but nobody wants them because FASB keeps changing, and if you don't know what GAAP, IFRS, or FASB are, then you should not even comment at all on this thread).

^ +++++

Finally, a voice of understanding and reason.  Thank you, Simms.

Stephen's imagination runs amuck again.  :P  Looks like the midnight hour must be nigh!  Yep.

Stephen, you would make a terrific straight man in a comedy routine.  Seriously, you should check it out.  I just reread this thread and got a few more great laughs out of it.  You may have a hidden "talent".  :D

This thread is going nowhere, nobody wins.  Done.  Bottom line, Skyway is a boondogle that should never have been built in the first place.  At this point, any accounting errors or gimmicks could do verrryyyy little to make the situation better or worse.

Accounting can put anyone to sleep. Even imaginary accounting.  Gd' night.  ;)

Quote from: stephendare on September 01, 2010, 06:58:45 AM
If you purchase a 100 thousand dollar car, and it depreciates 50% over 5 years you did not spend 150 thousand dollars when you end up selling it for 50 thousand.

You spent 50 thousand plus operation and maintenance, and you got the value of use for the five years.

Pretty damned simple eh?

It pains me to say this....but yes Stephen, you are right...it is just that simple!

Quote from: tufsu1 on August 31, 2010, 11:25:14 AM
depreciation should be considered a capital loss...not an operational loss

Well, really depreciation is a capital expense that would be factored into the net operating income/loss

Both SJTR and Mr Dare are making some good points, but

QuoteYour contention that the depreciation figures constitute a 'cost' of operation is a bugaboo in this case, designed to make an accounting procedure look like an outlay of cash, and you have repeatedly used this bugaboo to make claims like 'it costs so and so dollars per rider' and several other similar deceptive remarks.

I would have to agree here... you can't use a depreciation expense to factor what the costs are per rider. 

Stephen, don't appreciate you hijacking my thread so you could change the title and the subject to suit your purposes.  I have retitled the original post.  Try leaving it alone this time.

Quote from: tufsu1 on September 01, 2010, 08:12:10 AM

Quote from: stephendare on September 01, 2010, 06:58:45 AM
If you purchase a 100 thousand dollar car, and it depreciates 50% over 5 years you did not spend 150 thousand dollars when you end up selling it for 50 thousand.

You spent 50 thousand plus operation and maintenance, and you got the value of use for the five years.

Pretty damned simple eh?

It pains me to say this....but yes Stephen, you are right...it is just that simple!

I have no idea where you guys are coming up with this nonsense (I sure never made these statements even though you are trying to attribute them to me) but you sure are showing your ignorance of accounting.  I hate to think you are qualified to evaluate the finances of transit policies.  Very scary.

Quote from: fieldafm on September 01, 2010, 12:25:48 PM
I would have to agree here... you can't use a depreciation expense to factor what the costs are per rider. 

So, Field, where do you allocate the cost of depreciation too?  We didn't get the system for free.

Good overview of the Skyway in today's T-U (see quote below).  It notes that the Skyway costs $14 million a year to operate.  Hmmm.... I bet they included depreciation.  Just like JTA and I do.   Only a few accounting challenged posters here seem to not get it.

Love the quotes from all the mayors backing away from it.  And, from Ron Barton confirming my understanding that it HURTS DEVELOPMENT and PROPERTY VALUES.  Who wants to look at an ugly street killing albatross?

The most salient point is made by the George Mason Center for Transportation Policy that notes no one will ride it downtown (vs. an airport or Disney) because there are other options.  This is precisely why I advocate its immediate demise.  I don't think the Skyway will ever be worthy of its costs.  It's a failed concept as it doesn't have the cost effectiveness to travel the distances needed to make it a success.  So why keep it going?  Kill it and invest the money in something more appropriate like streetcars.  Or, even buses.

I guess Stephen and other proponents here can be satisfied that all their positions are articulated:  Wait for downtown to grow, connect the thing to other transit, get rid of parking, make it go somewhere worthwhile.  But other than JTA and Mica, looks like they couldn't find anyone to bite on those hooks.  Even Blaylock refuses to support its expansion.  Mr. Blaylock, I may have been a critic of yours on other JTA matters, but this we are in full agreement!  ;)  Now, if we could just work on agreeing to abandon it.  Well, maybe another day.  I think time is on my side.

In the end, I think I can continue to rest easy that there is close to zero interest in investing more in the Skyway and a significant desire to wish it would just go away.

QuoteAfter 20 years, Jacksonville Skyway remains a punchline
Source URL: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-09-05/story/after-20-years-jacksonville-skyway-remains-punchline

By Larry Hannan

The Skyway has been a Jacksonville joke for a generation.

But the underachieving, 2.5-mile elevated people mover that first opened in 1989 isn't all that funny.

Look up at its silent, almost-empty cars and you can see the failure of downtown as a place to live and work. The dingy stations reflect Jacksonville's inability to come up with a successful long-term transportation plan.

More than 20 years after it opened, the number of people who ride the Skyway remains low. The Jacksonville Transportation Authority originally promised 100,000 riders per month, but its average last year was less than a third of that.

And it loses money - a lot of money.

The system that was built for $183 million, more than half from the federal government, needs $14 million to operate each year - $1.5 million of that from Washington for maintenance alone.

In 2009, it generated only $431,000 in revenue, less than a 4 percent return. Most public transit systems lose money, but by comparison JTA's bus system made back more than 20 percent - $6.2 million - of its $30.2 million cost in 2009.

JTA says to be patient and that eventually the Skyway will be a success. The agency is counting on things breaking its way, such as vibrant downtown development and private entities who are willing to partner with JTA to expand the Skyway or build a transportation system that links to it.

Those things, though, didn't happen even in a roaring economy.

While running for mayor in 1991, Ed Austin said he wanted to stop construction on the nearly new system because of doubts it would ever work. As mayor, he changed his mind, in part because of fears - true to this day - that Washington would force JTA to pay back the money it had gotten.

Last month, Austin said he still thinks it was a mistake.

"It could work if you get more people downtown," he said. "But it would take a major revitalization of the downtown for that to happen."

Who uses it, anyway?

Most of today's Skyway ridership appears to be on the northern section, between Hemming Plaza and Florida State College at Jacksonville.

Stations at Jefferson Street on the Northside and Riverplace Boulevard and Kings Avenue on the Southside are a good place to enjoy some peace and quiet.

A fire shut down the Riverplace station last year for several months until about $270,000 in repairs were made. No one seemed to notice, or care.

And yet it has its supporters.

Brian Presley takes the Skyway from San Marco to the Central Station most weekdays while commuting to his office in the Wachovia Building. It's cheaper for him take the Skyway than park in a downtown parking garage.

"I think the Skyway is a good idea that badly needs to be expanded," he said.

Beth Slater enjoys taking the Skyway from the Southbank into downtown, especially when she's showing the city to out-of-town visitors and newcomers.

"Occasionally I get the feeling I'm in a different city," Slater said, "or that Jacksonville has a grasp on public transit."

She just wishes the ride wasn't so short.

And that's the problem, said Ken Button, director of the Center for Transportation Policy, Operations and Logistics at George Mason University in Virginia. Urban people movers need to travel farther to be effective.

"It's the type of system that works great at Disneyland or at an airport when there are not other options available," Button said. "But people in downtown areas won't ride it when they have other options."

Why didn't it work?

In the 1970s, local leaders thought they had a great idea.

Concerned with congestion on roads and toll bridges, air pollution and a lack of parking, Jacksonville transportation planners came to believe another option was needed for getting people into downtown.

The solution? A 4.4-mile people-mover system that would connect the medical centers on Eighth Street with Riverside, San Marco and the Gator Bowl.

The federal government was willing, having already put up money for similar elevated people movers in Miami and Detroit. And although Jacksonville wasn't able to get enough money to build the whole route, after years of twists and turns, it built the first stretch of the 2.5-mile downtown line that exists today.

Former Mayor Jake Godbold championed the Skyway and was in office when the city was awarded the first federal grant in 1985. He said he now regrets it.

"The business community thought it would help the downtown," Godbold said. "But if I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have pushed for it."

The system was built on the assumption that growth would continue downtown and that didn't happen, said former Mayor Tommy Hazouri.

"We all assumed people would always come downtown to go shopping," he said. "We didn't anticipate something like the St. Johns Town Center."

JTA and the city should have focused on a system that took people from the suburbs into the downtown, Hazouri said.

Instead, JTA wanted the city to limit downtown parking, which it said would have encouraged people to take the Skyway. That plan made its way into some of the city's long-term comprehensive plans but was never enforced.

In fact, it was reversed.

Available parking has probably doubled in downtown since the 1980s, said Ron Barton, executive director of the Jacksonville Economic Development Commission. Keeping cars out of downtown was never a priority, he said.

Then there was the stadium idea.

A line to the Gator Bowl was on JTA's initial plans and remained on the drawing board until as recently as 2002. JTA Executive Director Michael Blaylock tabled it, saying the system needed to be successful before it expanded.

Former Mayor John Delaney said it should have been the other way around.

"The Skyway was built in the wrong place," he said, "and will not work until an extension is done to connect it to the football stadium."

Failure is not an option

Despite the Skyway's shortcomings, no local leader has called for it to be torn down.

It would probably cost tens of millions of dollars, and JTA estimates it would have to pay about $90 million back to the federal government if it did.

It would also hold the city back from getting money for projects it actually needs.

U.S. Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., the ranking Republican on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said Jacksonville would struggle to get money for future public transit projects if it threw away the Skyway.

"It would go to the end of the line for everything," Mica said.

But that shouldn't be an issue, because there's nothing wrong with the Skyway, Mica said. It is supposed to connect to other modes of public transportation, those have never been built, and that is why the Skyway looks like a bad idea, he said.

"A lot of cities would love to have a system like the Skyway," Mica said "It would probably cost $500 million to install something similar today."

Blaylock said he would fight to keep the Skyway even if the federal government didn't care about getting its money back.

"Shutting down the Skyway is like turning your back on downtown," he said. "I can't do that."

But downtown may have already turned its back on the Skyway. Although the system needs downtown redevelopment to thrive, the feeling is not mutual.

Barton said its success or failure is not expected to have much impact on redevelopment. In fact, the Skyway's presence on Hogan Street may be making it harder to attract businesses downtown.

"Recognizing its marginal use," Barton said, "you certainly could make an argument that the Skyway has reduced the value of some properties it goes past."

What the future holds

Hazouri ties the success of the Skyway to efforts to revitalize downtown.

"Get people living and working downtown," Hazouri said, "and everything changes."

He's not alone in that view.

Steve Arrington, JTA director of resource management, said more people who work in the downtown are choosing to live closer to where they work. This is causing communities like Riverside, Springfield and San Marco to flourish. That will lead to more congested roads and parking downtown - and, Arrington believes, create a need for the Skyway with people parking at the Prime Osborn Convention Center parking lots and at the Kings Avenue parking garage on the Southside.

The Skyway has seen an uptick in ridership recently, and Arrington said that is largely due to more people living and working close to downtown.

Next, connecting the Skyway to other forms of transit is necessity. Blaylock said that includes getting a commuter rail system built that will take people from the suburbs to the Prime Osborn - and getting federal money to build it.

A recent study found that a system could be built for about $600 million, and JTA hopes to get the money to build it within the next 10 years. Mica said JTA has a good chance because the Obama administration is pushing for more rail.

JTA might also pursue a fixed-rail trolley system to get downtown pedestrians to areas the Skyway does not go, such as Shands, EverBank Field and Riverside. A public-private partnership would be sought to get this done, Blaylock said.

The Metromover in Miami, which has a similar design to the Skyway, is a good model for eventual success Jacksonville, Mica said.

Opened in 1986 and extended in 1994, the 4.4-mile Metromover averaged 660,000 riders a month in 2009. The downtown system connects to Miami Metrorail, which goes to the outskirts of the city.

The Metromover, which cost $23.3 million to operate in 2009, is free of charge because of a half-penny sales tax Miami-Dade County voters passed in 2002.

The Skyway was also free of charge when it opened and, initially, ridership was at capacity. A month later, JTA began charging 25 cents, and ridership tanked.

Back in those days, former JTA Chairman Arnold Tritt, responding to continued criticism that the Skyway was costing too much, predicted that history would vindicate the agency.

"I really think in the year 2020, 2010 ... whenever," Tritt said, "people are going to say, 'What visionaries!' "

No one has, yet.

QuoteHOW IT ALL BEGAN

1972: A people mover is first proposed for Jacksonville to solve downtown traffic and parking problems.

March 1976: Planning for a people mover is renewed after a four-year hiatus, when the U.S. Urban Mass Transportation Administration invites Jacksonville to apply for a demonstration grant.

May 1976: A mayor's task force approves a two-stage, 2.2-mile proposal.

June 1976: The city applies for an UMTA grant to build a $33 million system from University Hospital (now Shands Jacksonville) to FCCJ, down Hogan Street to Bay Street and east to the Duval County Courthouse.

December 1976: Jacksonville's proposal is rejected. City officials vow to seek other grants.

June 1977: The U.S. Senate orders Jacksonville added to list of cities.

November 1978: A citizens commission recommends a route that would link Riverside, San Marco, the Gator Bowl and University Hospital.

October 1979: JTA approves what it says is the final, 4.6-mile route that would end at University Hospital at the north end, Market Street on the east, the Blue Cross Blue Shield building on the southwest and St. Johns Place across the river. Estimated cost: $120 million-$140 million.

November 1980: Washington tells Jacksonville to cut the size and cost, saying the project does not fit into the program guidelines.

February 1981: The route is cut to 2 miles, estimated to cost $50-$60 million.

April 1981: The Reagan administration ends the people-mover program. Cities that have received funds are told to spend it on other transportation needs.

January 1983: Congress reauthorizes the program; cities are told to reapply.

February 1985: The Federal Urban Mass Transit Administration grants JTA $23.5 million for the 0.7-mile first leg of what is called the Automated Skyway Express. The grant requires that it be running by Sept. 30, 1988. This will be delayed several times.

July 1987: JTA awards a contract to build the first 0.7-mile section, from the Prime Osborn Convention Center to Bay Street between Pearl and Julia streets.

May 1989: The starter line opens. Cost: $34.6 million.

September 1989: JTA hires Kaiser Engineers Inc. to design a 1.8-mile extension.

December 1990: A report from the U.S. Department of Transportation, citing low ridership, criticizes the Skyway and recommends that no funding be given for the extension. Florida members of Congress rally to its defense.

August 1994: JTA awards a contract to extend the Skyway from Central Station to the downtown campus of FCCJ. Another leg will cross the Acosta Bridge to the Southside.

December 1996: The Skyway is shut down so its cars can be replaced with a new monorail system. Buses take riders along the route.

December 1997: The system reopens, several months late. The only stops are the Prime Osborn and Hemming Plaza. Officials say other stations will open or reopen in 1998.

October 1998: The first passengers take the Skyway over the St. Johns River.

February 1999: JTA announces the Skyway endpoint on the Southbank will be on Kings Avenue next to a 2,400-space parking space garage. The total, final cost: $183.3 million.

November 2000: The entire system opens to the public. The total, final cost: $183.3 million.

(http://jacksonville.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/story_slideshow_thumb/Skyway090510.jpg)

Good article.  It highlights the problems that many of those who don't want to throw in the towel have been saying.

1. You have to pay the government back as much as $90 million in addition to demolition costs.

2. It wasn't built as planned (2.5 miles instead of 4.4 miles means it's incomplete).

3. It won't work until its connected with a regional transit system to feed riders into it.

Quote from: thelakelander on September 05, 2010, 03:36:39 AM
Good article.  It highlights the problems that many of those who don't want to throw in the towel have been saying.

1. You have to pay the government back as much as $90 million in addition to demolition costs.

2. It wasn't built as planned (2.5 miles instead of 4.4 miles means it's incomplete).

3. It won't work until its connected with a regional transit system to feed riders into it.

Lake, you are true to form.  I acknowledge all your points were made in the article.

But the article makes clear #2 isn't going to change.

With regard to #1, unfortunately, the reporter failed to explore the documentary and legal support for the oft quoted payback to the Feds, whether it would truly harm (Mica's self-serving face saving comments aside) our standing given this was a Federal EXPERIMENTAL project, and, for the same reason, if the Feds, even if legally entitled, would truly require the payback given the time elapsed and miserable failure (for whatever reasons) of the Skyway.  [In fact, to your point #2, if the Feds failed to build out what you believe is a critical mass, then they, being complicit in its failure, should allow taxpayers at every level to cut their losses by forgetting the whole project without penalties.]

As to #3, this is a long time coming, even now, and, when it does come, there are superior and more cost effective ways to achieve the connectivity you tout.  The Skyway would no way be missed more then than it is now.  

I was looking at a breakdown of JTA ridership by route and found that most are under 2,000 per day. Numbers such as 1,600-1,800 were the most common. In the light of route length the Skyway is one of the best performing of the lot!

Unfreaking believable, especially in light of the FACT that a full 50% of the Skyway's ridership goes aboard with UNPAID FARES. Without some form of ticketing at the turnstile there is no way to prove that a person is freeloading.


OCKLAWAHA

Quote from: stjr on September 05, 2010, 03:48:39 AM

Quote from: thelakelander on September 05, 2010, 03:36:39 AM
Good article.  It highlights the problems that many of those who don't want to throw in the towel have been saying.

1. You have to pay the government back as much as $90 million in addition to demolition costs.

2. It wasn't built as planned (2.5 miles instead of 4.4 miles means it's incomplete).

3. It won't work until its connected with a regional transit system to feed riders into it.

Lake, you are true to form.  I acknowledge all your points were made in the article.

But the article makes clear #2 isn't going to change.

It's clear that it won't attract riders if it does not go anywhere.  If Blaylock is scared to expand it, he should be aggressively pushing forward with commuter rail and streetcars to feed riders into it instead of backing a BRT plan that will make the situation worse.  In this case, JTA has become their own worst enemy.

QuoteWith regard to #1, unfortunately, the reporter failed to explore the documentary and legal support for the oft quoted payback to the Feds, whether it would truly harm (Mica's self-serving face saving comments aside) our standing given this was a Federal EXPERIMENTAL project, and, for the same reason, if the Feds, even if legally entitled, would truly require the payback given the time elapsed and miserable failure (for whatever reasons) of the Skyway.

If you have access to information proving otherwise, please provide a link.  Such news would change the conversation.  However, we would still have to risk being black balled by the feds for any other transit improvements we want to make in the future.

Quote[In fact, to your point #2, if the Feds failed to build out what you believe is a critical mass, then they, being complicit in its failure, should allow taxpayers at every level to cut their losses by forgetting the whole project without penalties.]

Locally we stopped.  For all we know, we could probably win an urban livability grant or something to make the skyway a more usable part of a long range transportation plan.  However, if we don't ask, we won't know.

QuoteAs to #3, this is a long time coming, even now, and, when it does come, there are superior and more cost effective ways to achieve the connectivity you tout.  The Skyway would no way be missed more then than it is now.

Unless you have access to secret documentation saying there won't be negative effects from the feds by tearing down something they paid for, we have to assume that there will be no number 3 without the skyway.

Thus, this brings us full circle back to my view about the skyway. Whether it's expanded or not, we need to find ways to better utilize what is in place, which will cut down on the current cost to the taxpayer.  With this in mind, Blaylock and Barton (especially him) are way off base on their views.  Downtown will always struggle without good reliable mass transit between it and the surrounding neighborhoods.  The JEDC, JTA and other agencies should be working together to make sure everything they plan is properly coordinated in an effort for us to reach long term vibrancy as quick as possible.  That won't happen when agencies continue to plan and integrate projects that don't fit with one another.  We blow more money this way than anything else.

so, stjr, you basically ignored many of the salient points in the article and just highlighted the negative ones.

For example, what the heck does the guy from George Mason know...if downtown people movers can't work, how does MetroMover in Miami get over 600,000 riders a month?

I'll tell you how...it is connected into other modes of transit...we're starting to do that here by ending bus routes at Skyway stations...and ridership is up....that will continue to increase if we build commuter rail and revitalize downtown.

TUFSU? LAKE? While my projects were "South of the border" my understanding of the rules for the FTA grants state that if you fail to implement, or remove, you MUST reimburse the government. When we bought into the Skyway game, we signed the agreements for the grants and POOF we ARE on the hook forever.

There is no negotiating a "deal", to the FTA it's a DONE DEAL. No doubt we could fairly easily obtain grants to finish the whole system, even John Mica is 100% behind that idea. This would be the time to strike but all we have is cowering politico's and managers over at JTA and CITY HALL.


OCKLAWAHA

QuoteSo, Field, where do you allocate the cost of depreciation too?  We didn't get the system for free.

Exactly where its being reported... in the net operating income statement posted here.  But that money was already spent.  We're not getting it back if we tear the system down(actually the cost to tear it down, dump it in the ocean, and pay back the federal government would be FAR worse than continuing to operate it.... especially considering that not all revenue attributed to the skyway is actually being reported in this particular income statement)

You know what you're talking about, but you also know that the depreciation expense(a capital expense) isn't adding or subtracting to the cash JTA, COJ, or the feds have to lay out per rider in the current fiscal year.  That's like saying 'well Hell's Bells Martha, those fellers over at General Electric ain't making no money b/c they ain't paid no coporate income tax in years.'

If this was 1989, I would probably be outspoken about the skyway never getting built, so I'm not sitting here being an apologist about the system.

That is right depreciation is about the value things once had depreciated as they age for tax purposes.  Money already spent.  It allows you to on paper to spread your costs around.  Unless you can sell what you are depreciating you can not recoup the cost by not using the asset or even destroying it.
It is sad all of the skyway's revenue is not being clearly stated for all to see. My post is redundant I guess because feildafm already said it better than I.

Quote from: Shwaz on October 16, 2009, 10:54:09 AM
My boat depreciated a few thousand this year... maybe I should just sink it.

Damn man you got a Boat?! Thats real cool man. I didnt know that.

Quote from: blizz01 on December 21, 2009, 12:24:04 AM
Knowing that it costs "X" amount of dollars to extend or add to the Skyway, how much of the current system could be reconfigured?  Obviously, it's not as easy as moving Lionel toy train tracks around out of the box, but could sections of the Skyway be salvaged to extend to say, the stadium?  Realizing that there's tons of infrastructure already in place with stations & elevated rail/track,  if it goes from nowhere to nowhere as it is currently configured, how much could be manipulated?  Where is the weakest link?

Weakest link is Rosa Parks & Jefferson stations..even FBC doesnt use it and the church is right there!

Quote from: stephendare on September 05, 2010, 10:22:10 AM

Quote from: Ocklawaha on September 05, 2010, 10:20:31 AM
TUFSU? LAKE? While my projects were "South of the border" my understanding of the rules for the FTA grants state that if you fail to implement, or remove, you MUST reimburse the government. When we bought into the Skyway game, we signed the agreements for the grants and POOF we ARE on the hook forever.

There is no negotiating a "deal", to the FTA it's a DONE DEAL. No doubt we could fairly easily obtain grants to finish the whole system, even John Mica is 100% behind that idea. This would be the time to strike but all we have is cowering politico's and managers over at JTA and CITY HALL.


OCKLAWAHA

Well, Ock.  To be an expert on transit, I suppose you have to hate all aspects of it, deny that it needs funding, and never personally use it yourself.

Yeah, you got me Stephen... Passion for the subject always got me in trouble and kept me bared at the gates, complete disinterest with abandon, that was the one key thing I was just never able to master.

That's why they ran me out of town, and I ended up in the rare air of the high Andes cloud forest rebuilding a wrecked railroad system. While I was wasting my time with such a silly project, the REAL experts like Mike Miller, John Peyton, and Don Redman got the really good jobs!

If I would have only hated better it would all be different now... hell, I'd have a future in Jacksonville Transit. All I got for my troubles was learning the Spanish Language, some Portuguese, some Latin a bunch of Pidgin and retirement at 50! Damn bad luck I guess!

Moni i kam baimbai JTA. Hurry up, chop-chop, me kickee ass bilong you.

OCKLAWAHA
numbawan bikpela long transit

Quote from: Coolyfett on September 05, 2010, 10:27:20 PM

Quote from: blizz01 on December 21, 2009, 12:24:04 AM
Knowing that it costs "X" amount of dollars to extend or add to the Skyway, how much of the current system could be reconfigured?  Obviously, it's not as easy as moving Lionel toy train tracks around out of the box, but could sections of the Skyway be salvaged to extend to say, the stadium?  Realizing that there's tons of infrastructure already in place with stations & elevated rail/track,  if it goes from nowhere to nowhere as it is currently configured, how much could be manipulated?  Where is the weakest link?

Weakest link is Rosa Parks & Jefferson stations..even FBC doesnt use it and the church is right there!

The original system (or fraction thereof) doesn't need anything more then a change of the switches west of Central Station to allow trains to run from end to end on two routes:

(denotes potential expansion)

LINE #1 (Shands-VA-Health Dept-FSCJ) Rosa Parks-Central Station-Jacksonville Terminal (Farm Market)
LINE #2 (Jackson Square-Atlantic at FEC RY-Hilton) Kings Avenue-San Marco-Central (BOA-Newnan-JSO/Berkman-Maxwell House/Randolph-Stadiums/Met Park)

Two branchline shuttles could be added to run:

LINE #3 (San Marco-Aetna-Baptist/Wolfson)
LINE #4 (Central-Brooklyn-Blue Cross-Park/Roselle-PS4/Riverside Park/5 Points)

The cost of expansion for track similar to what we now have but a tad on the lean side IE: less concrete, would be around $25-35 Million a mile. Max distance in my proposal would add about 5.5 miles, with the initial two lines accounting for about 4 miles.

As for the current weak link? ALL OF IT, the Skyway is like owning 1/2 of a cat and expecting to hear it purr.

OCKLAWAHA

Geez Ock..............why do you continue to do JTA's job for them? You forgot to mention Baylock also!

Damn! Did anyone else know Shwaz had a boat?

I guess all of you here that wish to ignore depreciation do the same when you submit mileage reimbursements to your companies for using your car on company business.  You are happy to drive as many miles in your personal car as your employer demands and settle only for reimbursement of your gas, tires, maintenance, and insurance.  You could care less that your car is worth less after every mile you put on it?  Can I hire you to for a courier service?  Without having to ever pay for running down the value of your vehicles, I will be able to undercut everyone in town!

Quote from: tufsu1 on September 05, 2010, 09:35:05 AM
so, stjr, you basically ignored many of the salient points in the article and just highlighted the negative ones.

Reread my post, Tufsu.  I listed all the significant points highlighted by the article that proponents claim would make the Skyway work.  Sorry, if after all that is taken into consideration, the article implies the skepticism remains about the Skyway's viability.  Maybe some people just see it differently from you, Lake, Stephen, and Ock.  Maybe, even most.  Can you handle that?

QuoteFor example, what the heck does the guy from George Mason know...if downtown people movers can't work, how does MetroMover in Miami get over 600,000 riders a month?

Well, from the articles I have seen, the people in Miami don't seem to think the MetroMover is worth the investment much more than those here think the Skyway is.  And, once again, the number of rides needs to be measured against investment.  600,000 riders in Miami for their investment doesn't look to be a ringing success either.  Remember, we predicted 300,000 riders a day for just our 2.5 miles.  Miami, with a far larger population, a system that is twice as long, and, arguably, interconnected to Metrorail or other mass transit, is only doing double that?  Big deal.  It only looks like a big number because the Skyway is an even bigger disaster.  It's all relative.  By the way, I love how whenever I quote an "expert" that speaks contrary to you and other proponents, you love to dis the expert and say they aren't expert enough.  But, you are?

QuoteI'll tell you how...it is connected into other modes of transit...we're starting to do that here by ending bus routes at Skyway stations...and ridership is up....that will continue to increase if we build commuter rail and revitalize downtown.

The charts accompanying the article indicate a sustained downward trend for both the Metromover and Skyway.  The little zigs and zags on the way down don't mean anything unless they show a trend over time.  I note that the spike in March appears for both systems and looks to be seasonal as it shows up in previous years for both systems.  Seasonally adjusted, it looks to be less than prior years.  That says that ridership is actually continuing to drop.  I guess hope springs eternal through rose tinted glasses.

I have asked before and still await an answer: What should a "ride" cost the taxpayers?  How much less than the current $32 or so per ride?

QuoteThe charts accompanying the article indicate a sustained downward trend for both the Metromover and Skyway.

These systems aside, there has been a downward trend on most forms of transportation over the last year or two, due to the fall of the economy.  People don't commute as much when they're out of work.

Quote from: stephendare on September 06, 2010, 01:38:21 AM
meh.   more of the same.

A mirror image of the dribble from the opposing side.  ;)

Quote from: thelakelander on September 06, 2010, 01:29:31 AM

QuoteThe charts accompanying the article indicate a sustained downward trend for both the Metromover and Skyway.

These systems aside, there has been a downward trend on most forms of transportation over the last year or two, due to the fall of the economy.  People don't commute as much when they're out of work.

Lake, I am not the one trying to convert a one-time uptick into a major sign of sudden success.  Talk to Stephen and Tufsu.  By the way, where were all the riders before the economy fell?

Economy up or down, proponents have their excuses.  I love it.

Has anyone ever seen Purple Rain?

Quote from: stephendare on September 06, 2010, 01:58:34 AM
The real disaster is the calamity that you and your highway building and road dependent ilk have perpetrated on the rest of us.  Billions of dollars a year so that you can tool around in your peices of junk and present the rest of us with a bill for it.

No thanks, drivey mcSprawlmonster.

Stephen, just because someone is against your beloved Skyway doesn't mean they oppose mass transit.  To the contrary, you know very well my position here but as usual you spin away to suit your imaginary debate.  In fact, it is because I care so much for the success of mass transit, that I want the Skyway to go away because it has done, and continues to do, such a magnificent job of killing any local love for mass transit projects, diverting funds from better mass transit projects, and dampening downtown's possibilities for the last 20+ years.  [See Ron Barton's quotes above for confirmation of same.]

But, don't let the facts get in the way of your delusions.

Quote from: stephendare on September 06, 2010, 02:17:26 AM

Im glad the skyway is there, and I am glad to see it finally getting the ridership it deserves.

And, what ridership number is the Skyway getting that it so "deserves" (twice next to nothing is still next to nothing by the way)? And, at what cost?  Still waiting.....

QuoteYour argument is so intellectually bankrupt that you literally have to make false assertions in order to keep the conversation going.

LOL.  The only thing going bankrupt here are the taxpayers!  In the meantime, name one false assertion I have made about the Skyway.  And, because you don't understand basic accounting, don't bring up depreciation.

stjr..........you make valid points! $kyway is here and I fail to see how the continuing to subsidize works in the best interests of the City/Taxpayer! The proposed BRT is mirroring the $kyway's route and duplicating is not something that any planner would suggest over a long term! The Skyway could be a tourist draw, along with a transit vehicle to move people into and out of the core, but that would require lengthening to the full original planned length..............don't see that happening anytime soon! City is broke....right! Johnny still keeps writing checks that the taxpayer will have to cash at some point in the future.............Metro Park and River Walk come to mind!

Quote from: stjr on September 06, 2010, 01:46:28 AM

Quote from: thelakelander on September 06, 2010, 01:29:31 AM

QuoteThe charts accompanying the article indicate a sustained downward trend for both the Metromover and Skyway.

These systems aside, there has been a downward trend on most forms of transportation over the last year or two, due to the fall of the economy.  People don't commute as much when they're out of work.

Lake, I am not the one trying to convert a one-time uptick into a major sign of sudden success.  Talk to Stephen and Tufsu.  By the way, where were all the riders before the economy fell?

Economy up or down, proponents have their excuses.  I love it.

I feel like either you keep mixing me up in other people's arguments or you're flat ignoring what I've been saying about this skyway stuff the last couple of years.  My view hasn't changed and after countless debates on this, you should know it as well as I know your's.  For the last time, ridership has been impacted by....

1. Its an incomplete system that does not link major destinations at end points or integrate with adjacent residential neighborhooods.

2. JTA's bus system duplicates the skyway's routes limiting whatever potential the existing system has left.

3. Because of a lack of local government agency coordination, parking garages that were not supposed to be built now exist on nearly every corner.

4. Downtown has declined significantly over the last two decades.

5. There's no regional mass transit system to feed riders into it as originally proposed.

Until you address these issues, it will struggle.  Knowing this, I prefer to focus on implementing steps to get better utilization of the fed's investment.  This should answer your question to me but in reality you all ready know this is my position.  Btw, these same points are addressed in the article you just posted.

Quote from: stjr on September 06, 2010, 12:57:18 AM
I guess all of you here that wish to ignore depreciation do the same when you submit mileage reimbursements to your companies for using your car on company business.  You are happy to drive as many miles in your personal car as your employer demands and settle only for reimbursement of your gas, tires, maintenance, and insurance.  You could care less that your car is worth less after every mile you put on it?  Can I hire you to for a courier service?  Without having to ever pay for running down the value of your vehicles, I will be able to undercut everyone in town!

We are not ignoring it just correctly stating that depreciation represents money already spent.  The fact that it is spread out over years is just on paper.  No matter what you do that money is spent so eliminating the system does not save you the depreciation costs.  You can mitigate those costs if you can sell what you are depreciating.
I am for continuing the skyway although I do think arguments against make some reasonable points.

Quote from: CS Foltz on September 06, 2010, 08:02:29 AM
stjr..........you make valid points! $kyway is here and I fail to see how the continuing to subsidize works in the best interests of the City/Taxpayer! The proposed BRT is mirroring the $kyway's route and duplicating is not something that any planner would suggest over a long term! The Skyway could be a tourist draw, along with a transit vehicle to move people into and out of the core, but that would require lengthening to the full original planned length..............don't see that happening anytime soon! City is broke....right! Johnny still keeps writing checks that the taxpayer will have to cash at some point in the future.............Metro Park and River Walk come to mind!

Everything does not have to revolve around extending the line before getting better utilization out it.  Here are a few things that can be done with what's in place to attract more riders and to produce more revenue.

1. End all bus route/stop duplication.  Those heading downtown should be forced to transfer to the skyway or PCTs.  Those who aren't will get to their destination faster by not making a ton of stops in DT.

2. Run a reliable service.  Fix the turnstiles, consider eliminating the fares, and run the trains from end-to-end to reduce the need to wait and transfer at Central Station.

3. Allow for wrap advertising on vehicles.  Its a great way to bring in some revenue without spending an extra dime.

4. Turn stations into small TODs.  The stations take up a ton of area for a ridership population that just isn't there.  Try and get some income out of that dead space by leasing ground floor area to retail vendors.

5. Integrate cultural uses.  Again, lots of space is being wasted but money still has to go to maintain that space.  Integrate art work, sculptures or historical elements into each of the stations along the line.  The thought here is to add things that will attract people to ride the system itself.  Think of it as being a linear museum.

6. Get with Southbank office towers and medical centers to have the skyway serve as the primary transit spine instead of each of them running their own private shuttles.  My guess is that better reliable service can be run by pooling private and public resources together.

7. Fixed-mass transit can spur economic development when properly integrated with surrounding land uses.  Never underestimate the importance of connectivity and urban clustering around major mass transit lines.  Imagine if the arena or the baseball grounds were constructed at Convention Center, Jefferson, Riverplace, Kings Avenue Station or in FCCJ's parking lot at State & Laura?  Can anyone say that ridership would not be higher and that downtown would not be better because of it?  Cities like Phoenix and Charlotte are benefitting from moves like this.  Going forward, we should be applying a few of these techniques in our own sick urban environment.

Anyway, implement some of these ideas and I guarantee that ridership and revenue will increase without investing one dime in more tract.  In the meantime, don't be afraid to compete for federal dollars to fund logical short extensions (Riverside Ave, Stadium District, Atlantic Blvd, etc.) of the system.  The worst thing that can happen is the feds tell us no and we end up where we are currently.  However, if we did land some sort of sustainability or livability grant, it may have a chance to actually connect people with a real destination that leads to more riders and revenue.

Quotebecause it has done, and continues to do, such a magnificent job of killing any local love for mass transit projects,

This is a point that is difficult to ignore.  In casual conversations I have, whenever I bring up the topic about fixed mass transit options... invariably the uninformed party will bring up the skyway as opposition to commuter rail, streetcars, etc.  Hell, I was at a bbq yesterday discussing the launch of the expanded Riverside PCT trolley service starting tomorrow and that skyway boondoggle point was made twice. 

Which is why it is imperative we do a better job of educating the public about the benefits of fixed transit options as it relates to community building.  This site does a great job, and I will say I am officially a convert b/c of Metrojacksonville.com.  One of the ways to do that, would be to have a more honest look at skyway costs/revenues... and truly that is the main point of my contention towards these numbers being presented and oft-quoted in public communications.  All the average person sees is this top line number, and the average person thinks the city is kicking in some 14 million in cash to keep the system running every year... and honestly, they don't.

QuoteSTJR, was a check written last year to pay for the depreciation cost?

Agreed.

Look, is the skyway a success?  Hardly.  Is there reason for its failure thus far to live up to its initial billing?  Clearly.  But, the real issue is... how do we better use this asset in our transportation needs, and how would this advance fixed mass transit options in our community?  Any other argument is a wasted exercise.

Quote from: fieldafm on September 06, 2010, 09:13:53 AM
Look, is the skyway a success?  Hardly.  Is there reason for its failure thus far to live up to its initial billing?  Clearly.  But, the real issue is... how do we better use this asset in our transportation needs, and how would this advance fixed mass transit options in our community?  Any other argument is a wasted exercise.

Well said, fieldafm.

The skyway stinks because it is a stand alone computer in the age of the internet.

lake........you make valid points! Turnstile's not operating, would lead me to believe that any count of ridership is a case of he said .......she said! JTA's numbers have allways been suspect with me and when someone says......well we average around 2k per day............I allways say, to myself, how were they counted? Until there is an accurate count, it is kind of hard to make any educated guess as to how many and when! Federal Funds still come out of our pocket and yes, I do agree, that if that funding is available.....then we should go for it,since the $kyway as is, is not productive for what it cost's per rider! We have to have a barometer to measure its success no matter what anyones position is regarding the silly thing! There has to be a point of no return on investment, depreciation added to the figures or not!

Regarding federal funds, you might as well fight for them to spent on local "logical" projects. If you don't there are thousands of other American cities that will be more than willing to use your tax money for their own projects.

Quote from: stjr on September 06, 2010, 01:16:45 AM
600,000 riders in Miami for their investment doesn't look to be a ringing success either.  Remember, we predicted 300,000 riders a day for just our 2.5 miles.

um...I believe the projections were for no more than 300,000 riders A MONTH.

but what about streetcars and/or commuter rail....we're likely to not see more than 5,000 riders a day on any of those routes...are they worth investiong $100+ million in?

Quote from: tufsu1 on September 06, 2010, 08:21:45 PM

Quote from: stjr on September 06, 2010, 01:16:45 AM
600,000 riders in Miami for their investment doesn't look to be a ringing success either.  Remember, we predicted 300,000 riders a day for just our 2.5 miles.

um...I believe the projections were for no more than 300,000 riders A MONTH.

but what about streetcars and/or commuter rail....we're likely to not see more than 5,000 riders a day on any of those routes...are they worth investing $100+ million in?

What is JTA spending to move 2k per day now.....with just bus? If rail were the main people moving system and bus was the feeder for rail, it seems to me that would be a more cost effective efficient system!

Quote from: tufsu1 on September 06, 2010, 08:21:45 PM

Quote from: stjr on September 06, 2010, 01:16:45 AM
600,000 riders in Miami for their investment doesn't look to be a ringing success either.  Remember, we predicted 300,000 riders a day for just our 2.5 miles.

um...I believe the projections were for no more than 300,000 riders A MONTH.

but what about streetcars and/or commuter rail....we're likely to not see more than 5,000 riders a day on any of those routes...are they worth investiong $100+ million in?

JTA is already wasting as much money to move less people than that with the skyway, and again with its crappy bus system, which in addition to being a giant waste is also creating pollution and traffic congestion. You're acting like rail is some giant waste of money, but you're forgetting JTA wastes plenty of money on its crappy nonfunctional bus 'system' already. If you can eliminate that mess, it would be hard for it not to be an improvement. That is, unless JTA runs the rail system too. Then it would be just one more disaster.

Chris...........I agree!! JTA has no business running any rail system, since they have proved beyond any jury's deliberation they are inept,misguided and stupid! I offer our illustrious bus system as proof!

This issue really needs to be brought up during the Mayor debates. Regardless of each canidates take on it. The question needs to be presented.

What to do with the Skyway?

Should it be expanded/finished/connected to commuter rail

Should it be shutdown?

Should it be left as is?

We need the future mayors to touch this because Peyton & Delaney did not touch it at all. And so far this thing is still tied to Godbold. So 4 mayors did nothing to what Godbold helped create. So all the beefing over cost needs to stop. Take it to the powers or future powers to be. MetroJax may interview some of these canidate and you guys better ask....bring it up. The whole stay still at 8 stations is not progress at all. Every mayor did something great for Jax...Delaney did the most, its time this situation get talked abou during elections.

Economic development alone makes systems like streetcars worth investing in.  Tampa's TECO streetcar line gets less riders a day than the skyway but it has stimulated over $1 billion in private development along its route since 2002.  Assuming I had the money, I'd invest $100 million for a return of $1 billion in less than a decade any day.

lake I do agree! It has been proven over and over and still the powers that be, continue to push the likes of "BRT" which is just as good as rail ....right? Until the lights go on or the next Mayor starts pushing for this, we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past! BRT is nothing but a continuation of JTA policy and I don't see anyone pushing BRT.........any where!

Instead of "BRT" I think a more approiate name would have been "FART";

F:@#$'ed up beyond
A: All
R: Repair
T: ransit

Forget
About
Real
Transit?

Quote from: buckethead on September 07, 2010, 09:07:52 AM
Forget
About
Real
Transit?

Love it!

Why was the Skyway built as a monorail instead of a rail system like Chicago's L Trains?  At least with the L Trains, the tracks could be cheaply put on the ground and the rail system would be easily convertible.  Extending a monorail track, especially a monorail track that depends on concrete, isn't cheap.  

Because the skyway was a federal demonstration people mover project that Jacksonville competed for and won.  Also, the L is third rail.  To construct such a system in Jax would be just as expensive (probably more) than the skyway.

Quote from: cityimrov on September 07, 2010, 03:51:11 PM
Why was the Skyway built as a monorail instead of a rail system like Chicago's L Trains?  At least with the L Trains, the tracks could be cheaply put on the ground and the rail system would be easily convertible.  Extending a monorail track, especially a monorail track that depends on concrete, isn't cheap.  

The current track is overbuilt....the beam is on a track. all monorail needs from what Ive read is just the beam & beam support. The undertrack that the beam sits on was the rail waste of money...maybe Ock can correct me if Im wrong.

Quote from: thelakelander on September 07, 2010, 03:56:50 PM
Because the skyway was a federal demonstration people mover project that Jacksonville competed for and won.  Also, the L is third rail.  To construct such a system in Jax would be just as expensive (probably more) than the skyway.

I was thinking that too. L Train costing more

Quote from: thelakelander on September 07, 2010, 03:56:50 PM
Because the skyway was a federal demonstration people mover project that Jacksonville competed for and won.  Also, the L is third rail.  To construct such a system in Jax would be just as expensive (probably more) than the skyway.

Would it cost more to extend a monorail system to the airport or a 3rd rail system to the airport?  

3rd rail would cost more.  To get a system to airport, we're better off focusing on commuter (currently proposed) or light rail.

Can a light rail run on the existing elevated portions of the skyway? 

Yes, third rail would absolutely blow the bank and every good old conservative on the board would simply die of heart failure... Hell Lake  and I might too!

Basically with third rail one is talking about a FULL SIZE RAILROAD on an elevated or subway structure. Do the math, BILLIONS! The old Chicago CTA (back when Ock was a pup) linked directly with the Chicago, North Shore and Milwaukee, AKA: North Shore Line Interurban. What would easily be known today as America's first HIGH SPEED RAIL line.  The big interurbans would haul ass between the two lakeside cities and hook up with the CTA and Milwaukee streetcars at each end. Even today the "Village of East Troy Railway" is a small part of the old system still under the original wires that feed freight from East Troy WI into the national network.

The Skyway is a Bombardier UMIII Monorail, which was marketed as a low cost, light transit vehicle. While I too question not only the Skyway in it's original form, I also question if this low cost vehicle was anywhere near the price tag of streetcar. Granted Monorail has certain advantages over streetcar, and in a complete FUBAR downtown where traffic is backed up to Union Street trying to move south, I'd rather be on the Skyway, how often does that happen? Was it worth the cost?

In any case we now have a monorail system which "could be" expanded for somewhat less if they don't hang 200 tons of extra Gate Concrete on it.

Light rail on the Skyway would require some major alterations to the stations themselves as the right-of-way is too narrow, otherwise it could be done and would certainly support it.


OCKLAWAHA

I was looking at the Skyway and thought to myself - "They are using a lot of concrete to build this thing".  It looks like it would have been cheaper to build it using steel beams.  

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/JTA_Skyway_train.jpg

Although the concrete does make the tracks look prettier. 

(http://www.lightrailnow.org/images/kuala-lumpur-monorail.jpg)
Similar monorail system in Kuala-Lampur, note that in the USA we would probably require a steel mesh catwalk between the tracks for emergencies but certainly not the walled city they built with the Skyway.

The walls on the Skyway are for noise abatement btw.

OCKLAWAHA

Ock..........based on what I am seeing, it would seem to me that design could be used to enhance the $kyway! Unless I am missing something, $23 to $25 Million per mile seems a high figure. Those piers are probably in the ground atleast 25' and there is #9 or bigger rebar in a cage layout.......thats pretty standard stuff for bridges and above ground structures like what you show!

CS, I AGREE!...  Yes, JTA screwed the works with the costs on this thing and it was probably too close to home for little Johnny to get away with expanding it. Concrete, you'll understand.

I have actually talked with several consultants and suppliers in the large scale theme park industry and told them the costs per mile. A typical response was dead silence followed by a southern drawl "SAY WHAT DADDY?" Most of these guys think in terms of $12-15 million a mile.


OCKLAWAHA

Quote from: stephendare on September 06, 2010, 11:13:27 PM

Quote from: tufsu1 on September 06, 2010, 08:21:45 PM

Quote from: stjr on September 06, 2010, 01:16:45 AM
600,000 riders in Miami for their investment doesn't look to be a ringing success either.  Remember, we predicted 300,000 riders a day for just our 2.5 miles.

um...I believe the projections were for no more than 300,000 riders A MONTH.

but what about streetcars and/or commuter rail....we're likely to not see more than 5,000 riders a day on any of those routes...are they worth investiong $100+ million in?

We spend a lot more moving them by highway, so of course.  Please stop trying to be so disingenuous in the framing of the conversation.

that wasn't my intent Stephen...sorry if it came across that way.

I'm just curious because people keep commenting about the vast waste of $ the Skyway is because it only attracts 2,000 riders a day....but some of those same people seem fine with spending lots of money for rail that likely won't draw that much more.

Personally, I'm ok with the amount we spend on the Skywayt and the amount we might spend on rail

I agree with tufsu.

Quote from: Ocklawaha on September 07, 2010, 05:54:40 PM
Yes, third rail would absolutely blow the bank and every good old conservative on the board would simply die of heart failure... Hell Lake  and I might too!

Basically with third rail one is talking about a FULL SIZE RAILROAD on an elevated or subway structure. Do the math, BILLIONS! The old Chicago CTA (back when Ock was a pup) linked directly with the Chicago, North Shore and Milwaukee, AKA: North Shore Line Interurban. What would easily be known today as America's first HIGH SPEED RAIL line.  The big interurbans would haul ass between the two lakeside cities and hook up with the CTA and Milwaukee streetcars at each end. Even today the "Village of East Troy Railway" is a small part of the old system still under the original wires that feed freight from East Troy WI into the national network.

The Skyway is a Bombardier UMIII Monorail, which was marketed as a low cost, light transit vehicle. While I too question not only the Skyway in it's original form, I also question if this low cost vehicle was anywhere near the price tag of streetcar. Granted Monorail has certain advantages over streetcar, and in a complete FUBAR downtown where traffic is backed up to Union Street trying to move south, I'd rather be on the Skyway, how often does that happen? Was it worth the cost?

In any case we now have a monorail system which "could be" expanded for somewhat less if they don't hang 200 tons of extra Gate Concrete on it.

Light rail on the Skyway would require some major alterations to the stations themselves as the right-of-way is too narrow, otherwise it could be done and would certainly support it.


OCKLAWAHA

Ock you are a funny dude... third rail is heavy rail right? same terms?

YEP! BTW, never piss on the 3rd rail!

OCKLAWAHA

How much would it cost per mile if it were built with steel tracks & columns like this monorail?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuppertal_Schwebebahn

Of course, the big elephant in the room is Downtown Jacksonville.  Ridership of the Skyway will keep going down if people keep moving out of Downtown Jacksonville.  I don't like the locations of the stations but it's hard for me to say the skyway is a success or not because quite frankly, Downtown Jacksonville is on life support right now and has been on life support for several years now.  

Quote from: cityimrov on September 07, 2010, 11:36:06 PM
How much would it cost per mile if it were built with steel tracks & columns like this monorail?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuppertal_Schwebebahn

Of course, the big elephant in the room is Downtown Jacksonville.  Ridership of the Skyway will keep going down if people keep moving out of Downtown Jacksonville.  I don't like the locations of the stations but it's hard for me to say the skyway is a success or not because quite frankly, Downtown Jacksonville is on life support right now and has been on life support for several years now. 

Cityimprov, what I see is that even when Downtown was on the uptick during our recent boon times, the Skyway's ridership failed to reflect that, continuing to slip-slide downward.  The converse is that the currently configured Skyway was supposed to uplift downtown and, as noted by Ron Barton, has probably had the opposite effect.  Neither of these observations relates to the further expansion advocated by proponents, so, where's the beef?

Quote from: Ocklawaha on September 07, 2010, 11:07:25 PM
YEP! BTW, never piss on the 3rd rail!

OCKLAWAHA

Ouch! That hurts more than that rigged article Shwaz posted.

Quote from: stjr on September 07, 2010, 11:58:21 PM

Quote from: cityimrov on September 07, 2010, 11:36:06 PM
How much would it cost per mile if it were built with steel tracks & columns like this monorail?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuppertal_Schwebebahn

Of course, the big elephant in the room is Downtown Jacksonville.  Ridership of the Skyway will keep going down if people keep moving out of Downtown Jacksonville.  I don't like the locations of the stations but it's hard for me to say the skyway is a success or not because quite frankly, Downtown Jacksonville is on life support right now and has been on life support for several years now.  

Cityimprov, what I see is that even when Downtown was on the uptick during our recent boon times, the Skyway's ridership failed to reflect that, continuing to slip-slide downward.

We've been over this before.  Ridership falling was a direct result of higher fares, unpredictable service, reduced weekday operating hours and the complete elimination of weekend service.  Search the archives, this was predicted a couple of years ago.

QuoteThe converse is that the currently configured Skyway was supposed to uplift downtown and, as noted by Ron Barton, has probably had the opposite effect.  Neither of these observations relates to the further expansion advocated by proponents, so, where's the beef?[/b]

Again, we all know that there is no one trick pony to bring downtown back.  The JEDC's position towards the skyway is more detrimental to downtown than anything.  Instead of integrating the thing with complementing land uses and projects around stations (like the successful transit friendly cities tend to do), we subsidize parking garages, demolish historic buildings, spread out urban infill projects and spend more money on cobblestones than connecting complementing transportation options, such as bike lanes to improve the area's connectivity.  Forget expansion talk, this city has shown that it can't even properly run the existing line, a bus system or plan for a sustainable downtown right.  Seriously, 2011 can't get here fast enough.  This place needs a political makeover.

lake .....as you stated "This place (COJ) needs a political makeover"! Therein lies the root problem with our problems! Without a mayor that has the best interests of Jacksonville and the people at heart and everything revolving around that premise, nothing will take place or move in the right direction......other than lip service or windowdressing! Everything is centered around a leader with a vision of what could be and has an idea on how to get there! It will take work, some ethics and a real effort on everyones part.....from the neighborhoods on out!

I just visited APTA's ridership report for the second quarter and found JTA not represented in the report (rather something called "Runways Transportation Company").  Did JTA reincarnate itself?  Fail to supply the data?  Was there a glitch?  I was looking for the alleged increase in numbers for the Skyway but now don't really know. Anyone know what gives? 

http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/Ridership/2010_q2_ridership_APTA.pdf

Smoke and mirrors again stjr!

Runways Transportation is a private fairly new-start bus line running from JIA to MCO(Orlando) via highway 301. They pickup at the bus-train and/airports and operate very nice Sprinter-Bus-Vans. PLEASE don't mix them into JTA as they are completely different animals, ditto for SUNSHINE BUS in St. Johns county.

JTA and SUNSHINE are inter county and the RUNWAYS is intercity (Think a baby Trailways).


OCKLAWAHA

Quote from: Ocklawaha on September 22, 2010, 08:21:58 PM
Runways Transportation is a private fairly new-start bus line running from JIA to MCO(Orlando) via highway 301. They pickup at the bus-train and/airports and operate very nice Sprinter-Bus-Vans. PLEASE don't mix them into JTA as they are completely different animals, ditto for SUNSHINE BUS in St. Johns county.

Ock, thanks for explaining who Runways is but I am just reading from the report.  Click the link I posted and see for yourself.  JTA is completely absent from the APTA report this quarter.  How can this be?

Here's the goods on Runways and Sunshine...

https://www.rnwy.com/

http://www.sunshinebus.net/

Both are mass transit companies deserving of our patronage and JTA connects with them.

OCKLAWAHA

Article calls $2 million for Skyway "repairs" as the federal government is "giving away" the money.  LOL.  More pork barrel or a real boost to the system?  I will have to see the latter to believe it.  Wonder what could possibly cost $2 million to "improve Skyway hubs" for bus transfers?  What's wrong with Rosa Parks?  Kings Rd. garage?  What other hub could their be?  More LOL.  If its "repairs", add it to the $14 million annual losses already incurred?  This is $2 million of Fed money that the Fed's could have spent elsewhere in Jax, like on starting streetcars or bus shelters!  But, no, the Skyway soaks it up.

QuoteLocal News      
Jacksonville Picking Up Federal Money For Skyway Repairs
By
Jeff Hess
@ October 4, 2010 3:05 PM Permalink | Comments (0)
Jacksonville is lining up for more federal money to help improve our transportation system.

Jacksonville is getting about 2-million bucks of the roughly three-quarters of a billion dollars that the federal government is giving away. The city plans to spend that money to improve Skyway hubs were people can transfer to buses.

"Currently more than 40% of the nation's buses are in poor or marginal condition," said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

La Hood argues that this is just the state of what is needed to bring the public transit system up to date.

"Will take nearly 78-billion dollars to bring the nation's bus and rail service into good repair overall," LaHood said.

LaHood thinks this spending is important because people rely on the public transportation system, doing the work will put people back to work and it is what the country needs to move forward into the 21st century.

http://wokv.com/localnews/2010/10/jacksonville-picking-up-federa.html

well that seems like a good imvestment....especially since JTA has reconfigured bus routes to serve Skyway stations....which in turn has led to a pretty strong ridership increase over 2009.

Quote from: tufsu1 on October 04, 2010, 08:04:55 PM
well that seems like a good imvestment....especially since JTA has reconfigured bus routes to serve Skyway stations....which in turn has led to a pretty strong ridership increase over 2009.

I thought I passed a bus or three that had "Kings Ave Station" in the marquee.  It's nice to see a baby step in the right direction of complimenting services. 

dedicate the station at FCCJ to the college and church district.
move the bus station.
JTA holds mass amounts of open land west of DT.
fairgrounds moving?