Gilbert B Norman wrote:For the record, I am not opposed to the AAF initiative, I am just skeptical of its financial viability
What is the test of "financial viability" for a building's elevators and escalators considered as a separate business? Or what is the "financial viability" of a building's parking garage or atrium? Or of a grassy plaza in front of a downtown skyscraper?
Silly question, right? Similarly it is absurd to separate Brightline out as a line-item, when, in reality, it is part of an integrated real estate development project that spans three downtowns.
Or at least allow that Fortress/FEC may have "gifted" all the capital costs to Brightline, and may be making only minimal demands as far as fares-covering-ops are concerned (Fortress might have deemed that it was worth it to donate all ROW, Stations,
and Rolling Stock as part its real business of turning empty lots in bad neighborhoods into premium, central, skyscrapers)..Between its use by FEC and as an "access amenity" for Tri-Rail, how much of the ROW needs to be allocated to BL and counted against its viability? Maybe Fortress has reckoned that it was all given away free to BL.
Parking garages charge money, which may or may not be a "market rate", but do they return 100% of their capital costs? Demanding shareholders want to know!...not. Really, a building owner typically happy that the garage cover its operating costs because the garage structure itself is never valued apart from they way it makes the whole building economically viable. Or, when unable to charge, some places
give away structured parking
absolutely free, and clearly lose money on the parking. Does that mean it was a bad idea to build the parking or that the parking is "not viable"...does it mean the garage was a mistake or should be shut down? You see that's an absurd question to ask in isolation, even for a large, expensive piece of infrastructure like a multi-level parking garage, right?
Elevators and Escalators are treated by many as a fun and free ride (even though Disney includes low speed rides, both vertical and horizontal in the price of admission). Kids love 'em!
Elevator spotters make videos of their rides and rate their experience. Does the fact that some people ride the elevators for fun and free undercut the business case that they're adding value--boosting the value of the building they're installed in? It does not. Here again, it would be absurd to isolate a building system and then ask if it were "economically viable"
Or when a big developer makes
improvements to the surrounding neighborhood with a public atrium, donating a park, or assuming the costs of local landscaping, sanitation, and security, do we isolate those and demand that they be "economically viable"? Never.
So stop tearing out Brightline as a line-item from what is CLEARLY an integrated real estate development SYSTEM.
1) The
STATIONS function like a park or plaza...an amenity to be enjoyed by tenants, enhance a feeling of neighborhood and safety, and to build visitorship and foot traffic. It is an amenity, a landmark, a distinctive place-making, brand-building set of vertical and horizontal slabs, no different than any other central amenity that developments might choose. We don't demand that a courtyard fountain show "viability" so stop demanding it of the station areas. Fortress could validly chose to give away its station's incremental costs "for free" to its neighbors and rail operators, and it wouldn't be for us to judge.
2) The
TRACKS & SIGNALS function like a parking garage or dedicated access road...allowing "bring your own vehicle" access to both the owner and visitors (Tri-Rail, we hope) who will "visit" the property with their vehicle and increase its perceived convenience and accessibility. We don't separately demand "viability" of parking garages or entrance roads, so stop demanding it of the rails--Fortress likely hasn't.
3) The
ROLLING STOCK functions like elevators, escalators, or proprietary "campus shuttles" do Their job is to move people whose primary value is as tenants or visitors. We don't demand that the elevators in a 100 story-tall building be "economically viable" (though sometimes the ones to the "Skydeck" are able to charge tourists, everybody else just flashes a badge to use all the others). So don't demand that the Brightline rolling operation do much more than an elevator or campus shuttle would--Fortress likely hasn't.
This obsession with tearing out the circulatory system, ripping it from the rest of the body, and saying "hmmm...I bet this isn't viable" is absurd and has got to stop.
