Skyway Merits Debated

[CS Foltz]

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!

[thelakelander]

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?

[CS Foltz]

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

[CS Foltz]

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?

[CS Foltz]

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!

[thelakelander]

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?

[CS Foltz]

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!

[CS Foltz]

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!

[Ocklawaha]

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

[CS Foltz]

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!

[stjr]

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.]

[stjr]

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.

What 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.

[stjr]

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

Statement 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!

There 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.

[stjr]

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.   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.

If 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.

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.  

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.

[stjr]

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"?

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.]