Is a gas tax increase a solution to Jax's funding woes?

[jaxlongtimer]

Here's the Ridership Forecast from the Transit Concept and Alternatives Review for the conversion. Page 32 shows projections including the expansion to Brooklyn.

Marcus, thanks for the link.  This study appears to only address options for the existing Skyway, not expansions.  I just read through it and wasn't impressed.  Lots of mumbo-jumbo, acronyms and smoke and mirrors to make it sound scientific but in the end its clear they are just making a wild-ass guess.  Importantly, if the study doesn't factor in at all JTA's ultimate desire for street level transit expansions, how can they even begin to justify that option?  Is there another study for that?

Using this study, if you assume their numbers are at all credible, the best outcome they came up with is only increasing ridership from 48,882 (2040 "no-build, i.e. no changes to existing system) to 53,619 (2040 "Build 2B" option, i.e. using autonomous vehicles, adding a Brooklyn station and maximizing headways on existing system only - see page 33).  This amounts to 4,737 additional boardings or only a 9.7% increase 25 years out (from 2015 to 2040) if we spend $247+ million today (that's just for the Build 2B option). By the way, this study also assumed  the AV's would be in place by 2022 (not gonna happen!).  Tells you how unrealistic the assumptions and expectations JTA had in September, 2018, only 2.5 years ago.  Imagine how far off they are likely to be going out 10 or more years!

Again, assuming the consultant's projections are even credible, I don't find this increase at all  impressive and certainly not deserving of a very risky $247+ million investment.  Based on the study, we are being asked to spend nearly $53,000 for each incremental boarding!  If you assume each rider makes a round trip, this comes to about $106,000 for each additional rider using their best 2040 estimate.  Add in factoring in the time value of money at 3% interest on $247 million.  That's $7.41 million a year or $1,565/year to finance each additional boarding or over $3,100/year to finance each incremental round-trip rider.

Further, I did not see a sensitivity analysis based on various fare levels that might be charged vs. free presently ( a factor they admit could impact their forecasts).  One would expect factoring any fare assumption at all would cause a drop in their base year ridership numbers that they use to project into the future as well as their future estimates.

Reading all the caveats at the end shows just how speculative these studies are.  Just one example:  They note changes in telecommuting as a caveat.  After COVID, this may surely be a significant modifier for these forecasts.  Add that JTA provided much of the info underlying the various scenarios they "tested" and you can see how easily these studies can be manipulated to get some preconceived outcomes to justify a project.

From the report's conclusion (emphasis added):

Even though these forecasts may be plausible, as always, there are uncertainty associated with ridership forecasts. The main factors influencing the ridership predictions as documented are:

• Uncertainty of population and employment forecasts. STOPS forecasts of future year ridership are based on the Northeast Florida TPO estimates of population and employment in the Jacksonville area. Additionally, development data was obtained from the City of Jacksonville and the DIA. These forecasts depend on the region achieving the forecasted levels of development.
•   Uncertainty of service plan. The project definition described in this report present the expected transit level-of-service. As projects move through the development process from plans to design to implementation, events can occur which may cause significant changes to the project definition. 
•   Other Sources of Uncertainty. The forecasts presented in this report were prepared following FTA requirements that transportation policies are consistent among the runs. This means that key assumptions such as land uses, fare policies, and costs for competing modes be consistent for all scenarios to allow for a meaningful comparison of transit alternatives. FTA also requires project sponsors to use forecasting methods that have been validated to match existing transit market characteristics. Key parameters such as trip rates, auto operating costs, and mode-specific parameters must be the same for model calibration and analysis of each alternative. Experience has shown that adherence to these requirements results in a fair analysis of alternatives and a good chance that the forecasted results will be achieved when projects are implemented.

Nevertheless, it is possible that changes in the nature of commuting (e.g., tele-working), costs of transit or competing modes, nature of land development, or overall levels of transit service can occur over time. These changes can affect the magnitude of the projected demand for transit which are not reflected in the results presented in this report.

[marcuscnelson]

Marcus, thanks for the link.  This study appears to only address options for the existing Skyway, not expansions.  I just read through it and wasn't impressed.  Lots of mumbo-jumbo, acronyms and smoke and mirrors to make it sound scientific but in the end its clear they are just making a wild-ass guess.  Importantly, if the study doesn't factor in at all JTA's ultimate desire for street level transit expansions, how can they even begin to justify that option?  Is there another study for that?

Expansions were studied later, the Ridership Forecast for that is here.

Further, I did not see a sensitivity analysis based on various fare levels that might be charged vs. free presently ( a factor they admit could impact their forecasts).  One would expect factoring any fare assumption at all would cause a drop in their base year ridership numbers that they use to project into the future as well as their future estimates.

I couldn't find anything that indicated an estimated fare. Perhaps that's something the consortium that gets picked will decide.

But when it comes to ridership, I think we have to be frank: this project hasn't really been about that in a long time. Just being at the City Council meeting made that as stunningly clear as it could be. I can hardly recall a moment where anyone brought up the prospect of just how many people would actually use this system as a mode of transport. I think Carlucci asked about whether it could one day take him and his wife to dinner or something.

The bulk of the conversation, and the bulk of the justification for this project, revolves around the aspirations that the U2C will "put Jacksonville on the map," or "turn Jacksonville into a global leader in digital innovation," or "make Jacksonville the Silicon Valley of the east." The lurid fantasies of companies across the nation, the world even, deciding that this project makes us a place worth putting their business. That the kids we teach robotics using these things (I've never heard of teaching kids robotics because of a half-million-dollar car, but what do I know?) will go on to shower our city and its leaders in glory. Hell, Ron Salem even told Nat Ford in front of everyone that this was going to be his legacy, his whole team's legacy, and that he'll be a hero if he gets it to work.

If you want to understand the next few years, you have to understand that. As much as Nat Ford wants to blatantly lie that

I'd be here all day if I listed the countries around the world that are actually, in cities around the world, that are implementing, and they're beyond pilots, and beyond kind of the beginning, they actually have up-and-running systems.

The fact of the matter is that we're going to be the experiment, and they believe that they're going to figure it out, and be rewarded by history for doing so.

[thelakelander]

^Someone should have called him out on that and asked specifically what projects out there (identical to what JTA is proposing) aren't pilots?

[landfall]

I seen a news4jax story on this the other day. They ended up at a gas station somewhere in the city, interviewed one white, a hispanic and two black guys, all middle aged, all pretty blue collar. Only the white guy seemed relatively open to the idea of it and even at that he had next to no trust in the people involved and seemed suspicious that what has been voted for ultimately may not happen or will fail altogether.

All were resoundingly "taxes bad".

You're up against a lot more in this city than just bureaucracy and politics. Some of the residents have such engrained negativity, regardless of their background.

[marcuscnelson]

^ Well at this point, the tax was passed. I'm sure they'll grumble about it, but there's not a whole lot they can still do about it.

^Someone should have called him out on that and asked specifically what projects out there (identical to what JTA is proposing) aren't pilots?

It's hilariously contradictory for JTA to both claim that this is being done elsewhere but also that this is so unique and new that it'll be transformational for us as a city. Of course, it seems Council didn't care much about that.