JTA is getting fed money!

[stjr]

^Ock, have you seen any numbers on what revenue these ads will generate?  Based on the last press I read, JTA has not yet (amazingly) disclosed to anyone what the revenue model is?  How can you be so sure that JTA, especially based on their track record, has a competent plan to accomplish your dreams here?  What if the ad revenue turns out to be minuscule after the expenses top generate it?

And, AGAIN, for me, the issue isn't ads or bus shelters per se, it's potentially forfeiting the protections of our existing sign ordinance.  Playing to the savings of taxpayer dollars that are trivial to what JTA and other governmental entities outlay every year for capital projects including waste on mismanaged projects and unneeded roads is like comparing a fly to an elephant.  The total cost of a bus shelter program, especially spread out over say 5 to 10 years (you don't expect ads to build them all instantly either, do you?) is a proverbial drop of water compared to the flood that flows through JTA's hands every year.

Wherever there is a surface, we can put an ad for $$$.  But, we don't do that everywhere.  For various reasons, we draw boundaries based on trade offs.  And, I for one draw it when it endangers our protection against the proliferation of board signs.

[CS Foltz]

JTA is notorius for cooking their books and producing numbers that jive with what they view as pertinant! Some how I do not think those buffons actually know what the heck they are doing! Shelters should not be contingent upon "Adds" being plastered all over them............don't buy one bus and there is money for shelters, thats all just one less bus a year! Note we are talking about bus's.........not LR/trolley or a system such as that!

[tufsu1]

^Ock, have you seen any numbers on what revenue these ads will generate?  Based on the last press I read, JTA has not yet (amazingly) disclosed to anyone what the revenue model is?  

apparently after all this, you still don't get it.

There is no revenue stream for JTA from the advertising....the deal is a private company builds the shelters and then recoups their investment through advertising.....if the business model doesn't work, then they won't build shelters and you won't have to see those "horrid ads everywhere".

and as for CS's suggestion of buying shelters instead of buses....if the buses are breaking down regularly and/or you want to expand service, then purchasing new ones makes sense....without buses, there are no riders and no need for the shelters!

[stjr]

There is no revenue stream for JTA from the advertising....the deal is a private company builds the shelters and then recoups their investment through advertising.....if the business model doesn't work, then they won't build shelters and you won't have to see those "horrid ads everywhere".

OK, Tufsu.  What type of shelters?  How many will be built and when?  How would this plan compare to one implemented by JTA without private assistance?  Is it a dramatic improvement?  Will the private company only offer to build them on the busiest of streets, or will they build them in less trafficked areas?  Who will maintain them after they are built?  If the private plan is not substantially better than the existing one JTA has followed, what next?  How many shelters should we get sooner than later with ads to justify risking our billboard ordinance?  Seen the answers to any of these questions?

[tufsu1]

from what I recall JTA installs about 20 shelters per year....the hope is that a deal with a private company would be for at least 80 per year...operations and maintenance of those shelters will be provided by the private operator.

[urbanlibertarian]

Ads are beautiful.  Economic activity is beautiful.  Jacksonville was beautiful before the sign ordinance and will remain beautiful if it goes away.

[stjr]

from what I recall JTA installs about 20 shelters per year....the hope is that a deal with a private company would be for at least 80 per year...operations and maintenance of those shelters will be provided by the private operator.

Well, Tufsu, the only "fact" in the above is what JTA currently does (giving you credit for accurate recall) and that a private operator is to maintain the shelters it builds.  The "80" figure is someone's hope.  What is the real number going to be?  And, how about answers to the rest of my questions?  Tufsu, I don't expect you to answer because I don't think JTA has a clue itself.  Clueless, that's how they appear to operate. 

[stjr]

Economic activity is beautiful.

Even if it's criminal or at the expense of unwitting or unwilling others?

[urbanlibertarian]

stjr wrote "Even if it's criminal or at the expense of unwitting or unwilling others?"

No, not if it involves violence or coercion.  Voluntary win-win transactions are beautiful.

[stjr]

stjr wrote "Even if it's criminal or at the expense of unwitting or unwilling others?"

No, not if it involves violence or coercion.  Voluntary win-win transactions are beautiful.

I realize you have a different opinion, Urban, but some may consider the forced look at an oversized sign in a public space or in place of seeing something provided by Mother Nature as "involuntary".  Thus, to them, this "economic activity" may not be so "beautiful". 

[urbanlibertarian]

"Though we travel the world over to find the beautiful,  we must carry it with us or we find it not."
Ralph Waldo Emerson

[tufsu1]

The "80" figure is someone's hope.  What is the real number going to be?  And, how about answers to the rest of my questions?  Tufsu, I don't expect you to answer because I don't think JTA has a clue itself.  Clueless, that's how they appear to operate.  [/b]

maybe if people like you didn't oppose the idea on principle alone, JTA could actually put out a RFP...then they could solicit responses stating how many shelters would be installed per year!

[Ocklawaha]

The other day out at JIA, I saw a little sign display out on the sidewalk, maybe 12 feet from the terminal... Is this legal? The sign itself was probably no more then 3'x3' in size, but I think it had 4 sides to it.  If this is okay, then why isn't it okay 100' from the Terminal? 1,000 feet? 1 mile? 10 miles?  I don't think the sign ordinance was created to kill all signs in all parts of the city, just the giant ugly, covers the sunrise type signs that blighted our roads. Even then I'd much rather see an occasional billboard then 20 homeless guys in hot dog suits waving signs in traffic. Or situations like "upscale" Central Florida, where if you don't know where a business is, GOOD LUCK trying to find it behind the berms, landscape and trees... You sure as hell won't find any signs. 

Stjr, I think you violate your own argument saying you only want to protect the sign ordinance but then spin on that same point and say things like "How do we know?" "How many signs?" "How many shelters?" and when TU answered you, you attacked the trust of JTA or the COJ.  If you won't believe them, believe us, these questions have been asked again and again, and the answers are in writing.  The best way to protect that billboard killing ordinance is to permit advertising companies to retain a market by providing a public service and policing the hell out of it. This gives us teeth, and the ability to sit down with various companies and actually parcel out the rights... For that matter, why not put it in the agreement that once signed on for shelters/ad's  XXX company agrees not to file or participate in any legal action or legislation to cause harm to the city's sign ordinance? Perhaps that is the missing idea? Perhaps it's already in the contract.  Let's hope the city doesn't do a winner take all deal, and opens up various locations to various companies, the more feet we hold in the fire the better they'll behave.  I just think your going after the wrong target here, why not join us in working WITH JTA and the COJ to make this the best idea ever?  You do know San Francisco's new shelters are solar powered, have schedules, lighting, trash receptacles, seats, advertising, maps, and WIFI!  WHY NOT??

CS, Buses are on a federal mandate that places the life span at 500,000 miles or 12 years, major rebuilding is as expensive as new equipment in many cases because the product does not have as long a shelf life after the rebuild.  We need new buses and we need at least 6 coaches. Be glad I'm not in charge of transportation over at JTA because I'd be kicking the wall's out:

BUSES: (If OCK did the shopping)


NEW 45' Turbo Transit buses


New 35' Electric Transit buses


6 New Articulated (Hybrid diesel) Transit buses


New Shuttle Bus for Community Bus Service



10 Vintage Buses (electric) for PCT replacements


10 Trolley Buses (electric) for mainline PCT replacements


6 SILVER EAGLE 45' coaches for express bus network

See how easy we got off with JTA?

OCKLAWAHA

[urbanlibertarian]

Yeah, I was wondering why we don't already have large vehicles (trucks, buses, etc.) with diesel electric propulsion like locomotives and submarines have had for many years.

[JaxNative68]

^ big oil