According to JTA representatives, the recent report that the Transportation Authority would be backing down from its plan to build new bus shelter using an advertising based funding model is basically incorrect.
Spokesmen say that the words of Chairman Ava Parker were taken out of context and that the Authority is moving forward with the plan.
"At the Council Meeting when the motion was approved to allow JTA to go ahead, Michael Blaylock assured the Council that if there were alternative models that funded the construction and maintenance of the Bus Shelters, then JTA would certainly consider them. Chairman Parker was just basically confirming that assurance".
Executive Director Michael Blaylock was responding to long standing claims by groups against the effort to build bus shelters that there were other funding mechanisms in place to build and maintain adequate shelters.
However, according to sources at the JTA, these groups were challenged in 2005 to identify these alleged funding sources, and five years later ---according to JTA representatives---have still failed to do so.
"Look" this reporter was told "Its going to take basically 90 days to bid out any contract to implement this program---everyone knows that. Basically the opposition has been given that time, in good faith, to identify funding sources that are equal to the costs and provide the same funding as the shelter advertising."
If they are able to find such funding, then of course we will be glad to take a look at it.
JTA told MetroJacksonville that it was aware that the reporting of Ms. Parker's statements had left an incorrect impression of what was actually happening---to the embarrassment of the agency and the many people who have supported the Authority's efforts to build shelters for one of the country's most sprawling bus systems.
And they nixed the idea that the plans to move ahead have been cancelled:
"It says right there in Chairman Parkers statement that the JTA is moving ahead with the Plan.
Good!
Kudos JTA and Stephen for going to the source.
I take back all those "good" things I said giving JTA credit for backing off due to misrepresenting the data, ignoring the legal experts advice, and listening to an attorney with a conflict of interest.
JTA appears to still be the same "old dog" that doesn't learn new tricks.
As to being shown where to find the money, that is what they are paid to do. Just to help them out, I gave several scenarios on the original MJ shelter board. According to the article in the T-U yesterday, so have others. The easiest and most obvious, is to take it out the $ky-high-way budget. They could exceed even the ad supported shelter plan by several times with that money.
One step forward, two steps backward, once again.
With General Counsel and city attorney/Consolodation learnings so fresh (thanks Stephen and Rick!...) I see in today's FTU reference to possible legal showdown-city General Counsel by law at arms length from JTA.So within the county wide tent of public policy we have many Camel noses present it seems.
GO FOR IT JTA! Nice to see some follow through thinking, that would be backed by action. Kudos to Mike Blaylock and company.
OCKLAWAHA
at this point I wouldn't take everything said by "JTA spokesmen" as gospel.
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 30, 2009, 06:47:23 PM
at this point I wouldn't take everything said by "JTA spokesmen" as gospel.
Stephen, can you name the spokesmen? If this is official policy, JTA should go on the record. Are you sure JTA isn't speaking out both sides of the mouth? Being disingenuous again? This, after supplying misleading data?
The Times Union (see red quotes below) was specific that Cleve Warren was re-meeting with certain opposing councilmen and quoted them. It also was specific naming the Vice Chair investigating the JTA attorney, David Cohen, for conflict of interest. And, it quoted Arpen as citing alternate sources for funds with no denial by JTA.
Something seems amiss here.Quote from: stjr on October 29, 2009, 07:28:50 PM
QuoteJTA says it will put the brakes on bus shelters with ads
* By Larry Hannan
* Story updated at 6:51 PM on Thursday, Oct. 29, 2009
Bus shelters with advertisements may not be coming to Jacksonville after all.
Two weeks after the City Council amended its sign law to allow the Jacksonville Transportation Authority to build bus shelters with advertisements, JTA’s board said Thursday it would delay moving forward until at least January.
JTA had wanted to hire a sign company to build and maintain shelters. Instead, board Chairwoman Ava Parker said Thursday that JTA will meet with the proposal’s vocal opponents and ask them to suggest ways that shelters can be built and maintained without a company’s help.
Parker said JTA was still committed to building more bus shelters â€" only about 350 of the city’s 6,000 bus stops are covered â€" but the negative reaction made the board decide to step back.
“We’ve studied this issue and believe we came up with the best solution,†she said. “But it’s possible there are better ideas out there, and we want to hear what they are.â€
JTA builds about 20 bus shelters a year but doesn’t have money to build and maintain more. It said shelters cost $4,000 to $12,000 to build and about $1,200 a year to maintain.
JTA has said it could built about 80 shelters a year with help from a sign company.
Board member Cleve Warren was told to meet with opponents, specifically City Council members Bill Bishop, John Crescimbeni and Clay Yarborough, who were outspoken in their opposition when the council approved the amendment by an 11-6 vote.
Crescimbeni said JTA made the right call and hoped money could be found to keep advertising off shelters.
“I have several ideas for how we could do this,†Crescimbeni said. “But I prefer to discuss it with Mr. Warren before he reads about it in the paper.â€
Tracey Arpen, a former attorney with the city General Counsel Office, also said there were ways to build more shelters without ads.
“There are federal grants that could pay for the construction of shelters,†Arpen said. “And the city could designate all the fine money it collects from code enforcement violations go towards shelter maintenance.â€
Opponents like Arpen and Crescimbeni worry that sign companies that don’t get the JTA contract will sue the city and argue that the amendment makes the entire 1987 sign law unconstitutional.
Attorneys for JTA and the city General Counsel’s Office have said they believe the amendment will stand up in court.
The original law limited the number of signs that could be built in the city. A voter-approved charter amendment later that year also banned billboard construction in Jacksonville and mandated the incremental removal of existing billboards.
Critics of the bus-shelter amendment have also accused JTA of collaborating with Clear Channel, the largest sign company in Jacksonville. The law firm Edwards Cohen has both JTA and Clear Channel as clients, and Parker said Thursday that the agency would review its relationship with the firm.
Vice Chairman Michael Cavendish, an attorney with Gunster firm, will lead the review.
As a state agency, JTA is not obligated to use the city General Counsel’s Office. David Cohen, JTA’s attorney, said he welcomed the scruntiny. He said there is no conflict because he doesn’t deal with Clear Channel and doesn’t talk about JTA business with his partner who does.
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2009-10-29/story/jta_says_it_will_put_the_brakes_on_bus_shelters_with_ads
For another take, here is how Leo King reported this portion of the JTA meeting in the Examiner:QuoteChair Ava Parker said the JTA is rethinking its position on advertising on bus shelters.
“We would be remiss if we didn’t recognize that there were some concerns, opposition, to the legislation†which allowed advertising to be placed at bus shelters.
“JTA respect those concerns…†she said, and added they would work with Jacksonville City Council members “In their efforts to develop committed, adequate revenue sources for the transit shelter maintenance, which can serve in lieu of economic support from shelter advertising.â€
http://www.examiner.com/x-10977-Jacksonville-Transportation-Examiner~y2009m10d30-JTA-okays-bus-terminal-plan
Well if the shelters cost from $4k to $12k as has been stated, JTA has supposedly found $73 Million in an unused account that is a no-brainer to me! I don't see where having "Advertising" emblazoned will make up the total cost of installing and maintaining! Four K for a simple shelter makes perfect sense when you take into account three sides and a roof............that is something cost effective to produce and maintain! I have not received pricing from the three outlets that I contacted, but 4K for a simple shelter seems to be a reasonable amount! Don't buy one new bus and there is 600K to work with............that translates into 150 simple shelters more than we have now and 125 with money left for maintaining them.......so why can't JTA come to this conclusion too?
Perhaps because $73 million is better used for more impactful capital projects. Building streetcar, commuter rail or BRT would be a better use of the money if you have private companies willing to fund and maintain shelters with their own money.
If people don't want JTA to best utilize their financial resources, they should be willing to step up and come up with alternative solutions that don't alter other JTA-based services or donate some funds. It seems like JTA is at least open to giving the opposition a chance. Let's see what they come up with.
Doesn't JTA record their meetings? Someone could request a copy, under Sunshine Laws. Then post a word for word quote here, maybe Lake could even put up the appropriate piece of the recording, so we could all hear. And end all this "that reporter wrote this, another reporter wrote that, JTA said they really meant this" stuff.
Quote from: stephendare on October 30, 2009, 11:15:11 PM
I spoke with several people today STJR.
They did confirm that Cleve Warren had been appointed in a good faith effort to review the alternatives.
which says to me that there was no false reporting in the T-U article....just misinterpretation by some.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 31, 2009, 08:29:26 AM
Perhaps because $73 million is better used for more impactful capital projects....
If people don't want JTA to best utilize their financial resources, they should be willing to step up and come up with alternative solutions that don't alter other JTA-based services or donate some funds...
Lake, following your advice, JTA, best utilizing its financial resources and using them for more "impactful" capital projects, should immediately shut down the barely used, never-to-be-more-useful, $ky-high-way and reallocate its $14 million annual losses to better projects. Like improving our bus system operations and infrastructure with more headways, routes, and bus shelters to encourage more riders. That would leave the entire $73 million for advancing rail oriented options.
It only hurts a second to give your full endorsement! :D
The difference in Route Miles/and all of their stops, and Highway Miles/and all of their stops, is not a lie or misleading, its just a different way of calculating the services.
OCKLAWAHA
ok...sorry...I was not suggesting that the T-U reported anything falselt...just that the viewpoint that the story was misreported is not correct.
Looking back at wha appears to have been said, the T-U article seems to be accurate...it just may have been misinterpreted by some
Well perhaps there should be a standardized method of reporting that kind of information. A mile is a mile , not a route mile! Makes me wonder just what consulting firm came up with this accounting method..............why not make the information plain and simple so most people could understand the blipping stuff? Sometimes some people make things more complicated then they need to be just to substantiate their being involved! I say speak in plain language.....come up with some plain talk to explain how to account miles,mileage and all of the other factors pertaining to a transportation system. Everyone seems to have forgotten the $73 Million Dollars found in an unused account and I have to ask.............what about it?
I met with the TU yesterday, they DID NOT understand why or how JTA could have used two figures. I explained the difference in the reporting methods used in transportation, either of which could be applied depending on what information you are looking for. It REALLY is plain and simple and was NOT a JTA invention by any stretch:
EXAMPLES:
A bus leaves Rosa Parks, turns right on Main, and makes 3 stops before crossing the bridge into the southside...
Assume that this bus goes on 10 miles, straight south to complete it's route, then it returns on the same roadway. The total trip or was 20 route miles, but only 10 highway miles (since we used the same road both ways). When the bus stops are counted, one could say we have 3 stops downtown, on Main St., Southbound.
If 10 other buses pass the same 3 stops, we now could say we have 30 stops downtown, on Main St., Southbound.
So both miles, and stops can be wildly different and still be CORRECT. With railroads it's the same thing, we have Route Miles and Track Miles, For example Talleyrand Terminal Railroad is perhaps 4 route miles long, from Commodore Point to Springfield Yard. But Talleyrand Terminal Railroad might have 38 miles of tracks in that same space, if one counts all tracks.
At least this is what the TU did not get... They do now.
OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: Ocklawaha on October 31, 2009, 08:22:02 PM
I met with the TU yesterday, they DID NOT understand why or how JTA could have used two figures. I explained the difference in the reporting methods used in transportation, either of which could be applied depending on what information you are looking for. It REALLY is plain and simple and was NOT a JTA invention by any stretch:
Ock, here is the issue. There was a discussion on the table about how many bus shelters might be needed to service the system. One piece of relevant info would be how many physical locations are in the system where buses stop. JTA did not provide this information but rather let fly a different calculation that had no relevancy to the discussion at hand. For this reason, JTA allowed the decision to proceed based on misinformation. They did the same thing when computing the annual maintenance costs. JTA again allowed inappropriate info to be relied upon in arriving at a decision.
If JTA did this in error, with respect to such a simple matter, I would question the competency of anything JTA says, especially on more complex issues, because all of it could be based on bad info. I certainly would hate to be a test pilot for a plane built by JTA. Their failure rate is unacceptable.
If the misinformation was known to JTA and they deliberately made a decision not to correct it, heads should roll. This is an out and out fraud on the decision makers. The issue isn't keeping multiple sets of numbers, it's about timely giving people the right set for the right reason. Your defense of this behavior I just don't understand.
It's really laughable that now JTA wants to split hairs about "misrepresentation" in the Times Union. Let he without sin cast the first stone.
Quote from: stephendare on October 31, 2009, 07:34:14 PM
It has to do with the misrepresentation that JTA is not going forward with the plan.
see...I didn't ever get that impression from the article...just that JTA agreed to look into the issue more...check my post in that thread.
dude...any journalist knows that often the title and the article aren't written by the same people
Title: JTA says it will put the brakes on bus shelters with ads
Subtitle: Agency will work with opponents to try to find a way to build them without ads
First line of article: Bus shelters with advertisements may not be coming to Jacksonville after all
Quote from: stjr on October 31, 2009, 08:59:10 PM
Ock, here is the issue. There was a discussion on the table about how many bus shelters might be needed to service the system. One piece of relevant info would be how many physical locations are in the system where buses stop. JTA did not provide this information but rather let fly a different calculation that had no relevancy to the discussion at hand. For this reason, JTA allowed the decision to proceed based on misinformation. They did the same thing when computing the annual maintenance costs. JTA again allowed inappropriate info to be relied upon in arriving at a decision.
If JTA did this in error, with respect to such a simple matter, I would question the competency of anything JTA says, especially on more complex issues, because all of it could be based on bad info. I certainly would hate to be a test pilot for a plane built by JTA. Their failure rate is unacceptable.
If the misinformation was known to JTA and they deliberately made a decision not to correct it, heads should roll. This is an out and out fraud on the decision makers. The issue isn't keeping multiple sets of numbers, it's about timely giving people the right set for the right reason. Your defense of this behavior I just don't understand.
It's really laughable that now JTA wants to split hairs about "misrepresentation" in the Times Union. Let he without sin cast the first stone.
(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa111/Ocklawaha/Transporte%20Bus%20Truck%20HIGHWAY/8-11-08048-1.jpg)
"Right idea, wrong motor coach." Okay, I complained about JTA, is everybody happy? http://www.silvereaglebus.com/model15.htm
The Model 15 or 25, Silver Eagle ROCKS! Check out the photo shows!
(http://www.silvereaglebus.com/Eagle%2015%20Greyhound%20Trailways.jpg)
Silver Eagle Model 15.
In defense of JTA, (YES PEOPLE OCK SAID THAT!) I don't think anything misleading, was done. Hell, you and I working on the Skyway could have made the same statements. According to the TU THEY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND, how the stops were counted, and quite possibly, two different JTA guys gave them two different answers. Imagine the headlines, "OCK AND STJR MISLEAD PUBLIC TO THE BUS STOP." You and I are now in the hot seat publically for something that is not our fault. You told them we needed seating for 8 Skyway stations. Then they called me, and asked how many stations total of all route's and I told them 10... (counting Central Station one time for each route). The TU didn't intentionally screw this up either, and I'm sure if the question came up in front of the Council about exact numbers, all it took was ONE person to have spoken with someone using the alternate method and all of hell breaks loose.
Your question of revenue is the same answer too, Cost to Revenue PER Route mile or Highway Mile. 70 bus routes might use the same mile, of the same highway, and stop 1 time each. Your operating cost per mile on this section is high because you are paying for 70 bus routes on that mile, but they only serve ONE STOP. Dismal financial numbers, so the government allows you to count that stop 70 times, for 70 routes, as each route is calculated on it's own merit. Something like this could stem from someone identifying 9 routes to get new shelters, based on demographics of the ad company. We needn't count every stop on all 9 routes, just the actual total number of stops, that way shared stops won't be multi-counted.
This all probably started with the railroads. Imagine Amtrak asking for funds for 100 miles between Jacksonville and Daytona Beach, damn! Nobody mentioned the fact that there are 160 miles of NEW TRACK to build in this same spot. (not real figures)
I can't wait to see what ending is put to this whole thing, LMAO!OCKLAWAHA
I find it interesting that the post questioning why I would not understand the meaning of the T-U article's title is now missing.
Ock, I don't get your point and I don't think you get mine.
You seem fixated on why there are multiple sets of numbers. I don't care. I care that JTA allowed a decision to be made knowing that those making said decision were using the wrong numbers. It's that simple and you have offered no acceptable explanation for that as I see it.
In the end, JTA did wrong and I see no way around that. They should be held accountable and their credibility, whatever there is of it, is in question for the future.
Quote from: stjr on October 31, 2009, 10:50:16 PM
Ock, I don't get your point and I don't think you get mine.
I care that JTA allowed a decision to be made knowing that those making said decision were using the wrong numbers.
That is my point, THERE ARE NO WRONG numbers, just two ways to count and as a result each will needs be, reach a different CORRECT number. OCKLAWAHA
Guys...........this reminds me of math class............one problem, two methods to solve and two correct answers!There is only one simple way that I see to come up with information that is plain and simple............one bus and it own route, total trip length and number of stops on that one route back to starting point. Add number of passengers using that one route, each counting as one,no matter where on that route but if they do not ride back to the start line count them as 1/2 passenger or as 1/2 transfer to another bus. Seems to me that should be something closer to real life. Passengers are accounted for, bus is accounted for, mileage of bus is accounted for. Wheelchairs and bikes could be counted also to indicated disabled riders and biking passengers which shows rider spectrum.........for federal money and state subsidies.......something has to be done to consolidate, streamline or simplify accounting process!
Quote from: Ocklawaha on October 31, 2009, 11:32:47 PM
That is my point, THERE ARE NO WRONG numbers, just two ways to count and as a result each will needs be, reach a different CORRECT number.
Ock, there are WRONG numbers when such numbers are used to misrepresent the basis for a decision. We needed to know how many stops might need shelters and what it actually cost to maintain the average shelter. JTA provided numbers that were useless for providing context in this regard. Thus, the numbers were WRONG and JTA is responsible.
Your endless rehash of the numbers and refusal to admit JTA misled leaders is (1) not reflecting well on your keeping your eye on the ball or (2) shows too much eagerness by you to hitch your wagon to JTA and go down in flames with them. Admission to Folio to further investigate this by JTA's board should provide you with an adequate clue that JTA's behavior doesn't pass the smell test.
Think of it this way: You ask for a flat head screwdriver. JTA gives you a Phillips head knowing you asked for a flat head. Both are screwdrivers. But, you got "screwed" ;) because you had the WRONG screwdriver to complete the task you were attempting. Getting lectured on all the types of screwdrivers doesn't change the fact that JTA knowingly gave you the wrong one.
Like the example, JTA was requested to give appropriate information and didn't. JTA flat out misrepresented the facts and no excuse or any post by you can change that FACT. Lectures on obscure transportation accounting methods aren't relevant to this discussion because that isn't the issue. I am sure JTA appreciates your valiant efforts but they won't cover for their misdeeds.
I hope the above works for you because I can't make it any clearer. ???
Ok, I'll admit I just skimmed all this talk of $73M for "more impactful" projects, the various types of transit miles and journalistic mis-representation. Is the JTA reconsidering doing this? To me that is the question (and if it's clarified further by meeting minutes or an actual conversation with Ava Parker, I apologize for asking it again).
IMHO, if JTA is reconsidering, it is very disappointing and makes clear how once again the weak leadership in NEFL is so easily swayed by pressure from GOB political advocacy groups (JaxPride is so proud the entire city will resemble A1A in Ponte Vedra -- a suburban, vanilla series of homogenous, gated communities).
Some advertising is trash, some advertising is art. Cross your fingers and hope we get more of the latter.
JTA, the posturing occurred, as did the vote -- you can do it, now do it.
Both method's of passenger accounting bite the big one! JTA can hem and haw all they want......they have an agenda which does not include the public! We are just supposed to pay for everything and that is the extent of the public involvement!