Dysfunction or Deception: Road Diets & 60 Foot Buses on Gulf Blvd

Since Greenlight Pinellas failed in 2014 and Go Hillsborough failed in 2016, FDOT in Tampa Bay has been doling out millions and millions for more transit studies like it's Christmas candy.

For the moment at least, the strategy has changed to pursuing individual transit projects instead of going after some massive grand transit plan that have consistently failed in Tampa Bay. Pursuing individual projects enables projects to proceed more stealthily under the radar of public scrutiny.

It is all about getting a pot of federal transit money - at a time when transit ridership is declining, vehicle ownership is increasing, vehicle miles travelled is increasing, innovation is disrupting traditional transit and less than 2% use transit in Tampa Bay.

Only government can be so out of touch with reality. This is why the transportation issue in Tampa Bay has become so dysfunctional.

The transit project in this new scheme that is the furthest along is PSTA's Central Avenue BRT (CA BRT) in Pinellas County. This is the catalyst of the catalyst project. It is in the federal funding spigot pipeline and has been rated by the FTA. It appears this project got this far with little public scrutiny and probably not enough transparency.

We'll start shining a bright light on what the CA BRT project is and the process used to further it.

Do not forget that PSTA was caught in 2014 abusing federal transit security funds by using those funds on advertising for Greenlight Pinellas. Due to this deception, PSTA was forced to hand back $345K dollars to the Feds. Wonder if the FTA knows that?

PSTA submitted their Federal Small Starts application for the Central Avenue BRT to the FTA  September 7, 2017. Small Starts projects must have a total estimated capital cost of $300 million or less and must be seeking less than $100 million from the feds.

The name Central Avenue BRT (CA BRT) is a misnomer because the route actually runs on First Avenue North and South. The existing Central Avenue trolley route continues business as usual.

The CA BRT is a 22 mile long route from downtown St. Petersburg to the Don Cesar at St. Pete Beach. To meet the federal qualification that greater than 50% of the route must use a dedicated lane, this project uses a road diet that takes away 13 miles of general purpose lanes along First Avenue North, First Avenue South and Pasadena Avenue in Pinellas County.

PSTA CA BRT 22 mile route from downtown St. Pete to the Don Cesar

According to the Small Starts Application submitted to the FTA in September 2017 (emphasis mine):

Along the entire length of 1st Avenue North and 1st Avenue South, and along Pasadena Avenue from Central Avenue to Huffman Way, one general purpose lane will be converted to a Business Access and Transit (BAT) lane that will be used by only buses and turning vehicles. Along 1st Avenue North, the BAT lane will run on the left side of the road with island stations for boarding on the right. Along 1st Avenue South, the alignment runs on the left side of the road in a BAT lane with island stations for boarding on the right between Pasadena Avenue and 20th Street. East of 20th Street, the alignment transitions to right side running. Along Pasadena Avenue, the BAT lane will run on the right side of the road. In total, the BAT lanes will comprise 13 miles of the 22-mile alignment.

While First Avenues North and South are local roads, Pasadena Avenue aka 66th Street is a State Road. Pinellas County has responsibility over their local roads. Why is FDOT allowing a road diet  taking out a general purpose lane of traffic on a state road? When the Corey Causeway draw bridge is open, traffic gets backed up for quite some way and can take a long time to clear.  Imagine the bigger traffic backup mess created when the Corey Causeway draw bridge goes up and traffic is even worse because a general lane of traffic leading to it has been taken out.

Qualifying for federal funds requires committed local funding for both capital and a long term funding source for operating and maintenance costs. According to PSTA's CA BRT Financial Plan submitted to the FTA (page 5), the capital cost of the CA BRT is estimated at $41.36 million (in 2019 dollars) and PSTA is asking for $20.36 million (49.2%) from the Feds. The chart below is included in PSTA's submittal to the FTA last September.

PSTA CA BRT capital funding plan provided to FTA

Page 6 of the Financial Plan states:

The City is currently in negotiations with PSTA regarding financial support of the BRT project for both capital and operations.

What is so striking is the City of St. Pete Beach has never taken any action, has never voted on or approved to "plan" or "commit" $1.5 million to the capital costs or provide operational funding for the CA BRT. PSTA went to the St. Pete Beach city council in October 2016 requesting financial support for the project but no action was taken by the council. PSTA has never gone back to St. Pete Beach since October 2016. There is no evidence of ongoing negotiations between PSTA and St. Pete Beach.

This is no small mistake so why did PSTA include such misleading information in their September 2017 Small Starts application submittal to the FTA? Is PSTA being deceptive again? This question deserves an answer - especially in light of what PSTA did pursuing Greenlight.

The CA BRT project will put 60 foot buses with four stops and no bus bays on the narrow congested Gulf Blvd. This service is in addition to the existing Jolly Trolley that runs along Gulf Blvd and the Central Ave Trolley. 

PSTA 60 foot bus on narrow, congested Gulf Blvd
with 4 stops & no bus bays in addition to Jolly Trolley

The project will also eliminate 231 parking spaces in St. Petersburg.

The documentation PSTA submitted to the FTA in September 2017 for this project stated it had gone through an extensive public involvement process. The Eye has attempted to get information regarding such extensive effort and the data captured from it from PSTA. To date, we have only received this list of public involvement events.

PSTA's list of CA BRT public involvement events

Is this considered "extensive" outreach?

Of the 39 events attended by 462 attendees, most were meetings with elected officials,  the bureaucracy and special interests.

Where are the sign in sheets and the data captured from the meetings? Were surveys done? If so, where's the data captured from those surveys? Do all the residents and businesses along the route know about this project and its impact?  What were all the communication vehicles PSTA used to inform the public and capture feedback, emails, newsletters, letters, social media, from their website, etc.? Where is the information captured from that communication?

All the data and information captured from public involvement are public records The information should be either accessible by the public or easily accessible to provide to anyone who requests it.

We have talked to people in Pinellas County who are unaware of the project and certainly do not know about the road diets and putting 60 foot buses on Gulf Blvd.

We can bet most, including those most directly impacted, those who live in St. Pete Beach and probably those who live in S. Pasadena, do not know about this project or what it is doing.

It is time they do.

More to come about this project and PSTA.

Stay tuned!

Sales Tax Hike For New Regional Transit Authority Will Be YUUGGE!

The Tampa Bay rail cartel is back, with their media accomplices attached.

And this time it is for regional power and regional taxing. 

Regional power requires regional taxes

Our skepticism of the $1.3 million taxpayer funded Go Hillsborough campaign was right on. We speculated it would end up with another unnecessary sales tax hike that included costly rail and it did.

The AEComm report, paid for by Hillsborough County in 2014, clearly stated Hillsborough does not have the transit ridership, the densities or the cost per trip requirements to meet the federal criteria to receive federal funds for fixed guideways. This is why the report was hidden and whitewashed by the County and by our local media because AEComm recommended (highlight is mine):

Initial transit investment should be in a travel corridor with the potential to generate very high transit ridership at a very low start-up cost to improve the project’s cost effectiveness and increasing the probability of obtaining federal funding support.

The prospect of a network of managed lanes within the Tampa Bay region provides an extremely attractive opportunity to provide high quality, higher speed Rapid Bus or Enhanced Bus on managed lane services to address regional travel and longer distance commuting markets. (aka FDOT's TBX project that has been delayed and Phase 1 funded by gas taxes we already pay)

Hillsborough County should approach making transit investments cautiously and prudently.

Even after voters soundly defeated the rail tax in 2010 and after the AEComm report, Go Hillsborough ignored the will of the voters and proposed another 30 year sales tax hike to pay for costly rail and fixed guideways. Why? Because some politicos, entrenched bureaucrats and special interests eyeing another big pot of tax dollars wanted it.

Even after Greenlight Pinellas was soundly defeated in 2014 and Go Hillsborough dumped last year, they are at it again with the $1.5 million taxpayer funded Regional Premium Transit Campaign currently underway. This time it is Go Hillsborough/Greenlight Pinellas on steroids - a regionalized campaign effort to sell another YUUGGE sales tax hike and this time it will be regional. 

And the new regional transit authority board will be run by almost all electeds  - another mismanaged PSTA on steroids…

How do we know this latest effort is about higher taxes in Tampa Bay? 

Because Jacobs Engineering, the same consultant who did Greenlight Pinellas and was a subcontractor to Parsons Brinckerhoff on Go Hillsborough, told us in their presentation responding to the RFP to get the campaign work. Their presentation slide below reflects their arrogant attitude - we are just too stupid for not wanting to raise our taxes to pay for boondoggles. This slide insults our intelligence and should have disqualified Jacobs.

Slide from Jacobs Engineering RFP presentation 

How else do we know?

Because it will take massive regional taxing to fund the regional transit projects we expect to pop out of this latest campaign - the CSX corridor and other costly rail/fixed guideway projects.

Jacobs' website for the regional transit campaign is here which clearly states the federal FTA is the primary audience. Information about their evaluation plan found here clearly states the need for local financial commitment. The map below that reflects projects Jacobs says they are considering is full of rail projects.

Projects Jacobs is considering includes
lots of rail projects 

With federal money for transit projects drying up, we seriously doubt our state legislators will allow another SunRail disaster to occur. The state way over paid for CSX tracks in Central Florida and the local municipalities still do not have a committed long term funding source. We doubt the state will pick up the big tab to cover what federal grants were previously covering.

That is why special interests Tampa Bay Partnership created Latvala's bill who hastily filed it before the session started. It forces taxpayers to fund another transit agency in Tampa Bay. This new regional transit authority will enable regional power an arms length away from voters and taxpayers, and provide the trigger for regional taxing. 

Latvala's bill must be stopped because regional transit authorities are how most, if not all, of the rail boondoggles across the country were pushed through. These regional transit authorities, especially over time, become powerful, arrogant and wasteful. Regional transit authorities empower deep pocketed special interests who then launch massive multi-million dollar campaigns for higher taxes. These regional entities often end up reeking of cronyism and corruption - a post for another day. 

A recent TBBJ article also confirms the Regional Premium Transit campaign is ignoring the will of the voters who have consistently rejected rail boondoggles. A subscription is required to access the article online so we included the entire article below (highlight mine).

Transit engineers to announce priority Tampa Bay corridors this week

The engineering firm responsible for targeting Tampa Bay area transit priorities as part of a state-funded process will announce this week five corridors it has identified as top attractors for federal funding. The announcement will serve as the first major step toward identifying a regional transit solution and pave the way for the next step, which is determining the mode of transit that will work best 

Transit in the Tampa Bay region has been so far left behind that a group of top-level CEOs came together with $50,000 each to recreate the Tampa Bay Partnership with a sole emphasis on transit improvements. 

The Florida Department of Transportation is funding the regional transit feasibility study through the Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority, aimed at honing transit across municipal boundaries rather than a piecemeal approach by county. Experts will evaluate more than 60 transit plans, most of which were never brought to fruition, to establish priorities. 

“The Tampa Bay area hasn’t been very good at that,” said Scott Pringle, a group director with Jacobs Engineering, the company conducting the transit study.
The announcement is likely to include connections between Tampa and St. Petersburg.  

One of the studies Jacobs Engineering (NYSE: JEC) employees are looking at is the 2014 Greenlight Pinellas plan that would have created a passenger rail line connecting downtown St. Pete, mid-Pinellas County in the Carillon area and downtown Clearwater. Voters rejected the one-penny sales tax increase to fund the measure. While the corridor will be a key step in improving transit throughout the region, identifying a mode is likely to be more controversial. Transit critics have historically blasted the idea of light rail projects as being too costly and outdated. 

Pringle rejects the notion that rail is an outdated means of moving people. “A lot of steel wheel solutions move a lot of people really fast,” Pringle said. “So if that’s what your corridor needs then it makes sense.” 

Engineers will study the makeup of the targeted transit corridor next to establish patterns like how many people travel portions of it and how often. That can help planners decide where to put stops and how frequently to service routes.
Solutions could range anywhere from increasing bus service to using autonomous vehicles. 

Knowing where transit service would work best could also increase the odds of receiving federal funding by showing the chosen transit mode will help connect people who don’t own cars to job centers. Pringle said that’s like “extra credit” for attracting federal dollars. 

While transit planners are quick to celebrate the study as a major step toward increasing regional transit options, there will always be the question of funding. 

Those who have worked for years to block transit spending often decry it as a waste of money, a notion Pringle and other transit supporters reject.
“It’s a critical part of our infrastructure to grow jobs and attract people,” Pringle said. “There aren’t really roadways that pay for themselves either.”

Scott Pringle is out of touch with reality. Costly rail is outdated except for the densest population areas like NYC. Tampa Bay does not have the densities for rail and the AEComm report that Hillsborough County tried to bury in 2014 confirmed that. Our roads are very highly utilized assets used by 98% of us everyday. Highly utilized assets reduces the cost per trip that increases the value of its use.

With getting federal money for new transit projects anytime soon becoming a pipe dream, what is their Plan B? State and local funding…..

That's why regional taxing will be required to fund the costly transit projects we speculate again will pop out of this latest taxpayer funded transit campaign.

And the regional taxing is gonna be YUUGGE!

—————————————————————————————————
Help stop the regional power grab that will trigger regional taxing. Contact state
legislators to voice opposition to HB1243 and SB1672
General Accountability Committee 
Community Affairs Committee
State Representatives (find your state rep)
State Senators (find your state senator)
Speaker Corcoran
Governor Scott

Crossposted with permission from Jim Bleyer, Tampa Bay Beat

Experts: Transportation Sales Tax Funds a Road to Nowhere

Promoting local sales tax increases for transit projects will always be a losing struggle in Florida, a group of transportation strategists agreed this week.

They attributed voter mistrust of government as the insurmountable barrier to referendum-based tax hikes. That unequivocal assessment were expressed at a funding symposium during the 2016 Transportation Summit at St. Pete Beach.

It puts an exclamation point on the word “no,” the message voters in Pinellas and Hillsborough counties have emphatically delivered to their local governments three times in the past six years. The most recent fail occurred in April and June when Hillsborough commissioners voted against even putting a sales tax increase on the ballot after a grass roots uproar.

The fear and misinformation tactics used by proponents, including the far less than unbiased Tampa Bay Times, were contemptible.

It’s bad news for not only the tax-addicted Times but also for the cabal of politicos in Pinellas and Hillsborough counties whose narrow vision cannot see beyond the use of regressive sales taxes to pay off their corporate sponsors. In Pinellas, County Commissioner Ken Welch leads the sales tax charge. In Hillsborough, County Commissioner Ken Hagan and Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn are the prime movers.

All know the agony of defeat: Hillsborough voters soundly rejected a mass transit proposal in 2010 that would have boosted the sales tax hy 58-42 percent. The Greenlight Pinellas tax increase for transit, promoted by all the usual suspects, got thrashed, 62-38.

The symposium experts said such sales tax increases will forever be DOA in the best of circumstamces. Both Greenlight Pinellas and Go Hillsborough were tainted by shady dealings involving bureaucratic functionaries: Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority CEO Brad Miller and Hillsborough County Administrator Mike Merrill.

The centerpiece of both transit plans was a light rail system that would have paid off bond attorneys, wealthy land barons, realtors, engineering firms, and other entrenched business interests.

Neighboring counties haven’t been suckers so far. Polk County voters smothered a sales tax for roads 72-28 percent in 2014. The mettle of Manatee County voters will be tested in November when they will be asked to extend a half-cent schools sales tax and implement an “infrastructure” tax for the same amount.

The roundtable discussion was moderated by Ed Regan, senior vice president of CDM Smith, a multinational engineering and construction firm. The Tampa Bay Times was aware of the symposium and whether it was staffed or not, no article has appeared in the Times digital edition 30 hours after the event.

The summit was hosted by Floridians for Better Transportation in partnership with the Transportation and Expressway Authority Membership of Florida. One of the corporate sponsors was Parsons Brinckerhoff, the multinational engineering firm that stood to eventually haul in as much as a quarter billion dollars if Go Hillsborough passed.

Watch out Pinellas County here comes the next let's build a train initiative - Forward Pinellas.

Sort of like Go Hillsborough but with a much cooler Logo.

St. Petersburg, Fl
Opinion by: E. Eugene Webb PhD
Author: In Search of Robin

One of the ways government attempts to get around those pesky citizens who don’t agree with something the government wants to do is call it something else and float the idea again. They call that “re-branding.”

We often call that putting lipstick on a pig, but re-branding is much more millennial.

WALLA - Forward Pinellas a 2014 Florida legislative action that combined the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and the Pinellas Planning Council.

From the Pinellas Forward “branding website”: “The role of transportation and land development in Pinellas County took on increased importance with passage of a special act of the Florida Legislature in 2014 unifying a 13-member governing board of local elected officials with responsibility for countywide transportation and land use planning.” 

You can read more in saintpetersblog by Anne Lindberg: Metropolitan Planning Organization, Pinellas Planning Council are now Forward Pinellas.

If you check closely you will find the 13 elected officials who make up Pinellas Forward are, for the most part, the same folks that brought you GreenLight Pinellas. There doesn't appear to be any serious citizen representation on this new transportation redevelopment (read that light rail) task force.

So if the mission has not changed, the players have not substantially changed, and the citizenry has no significant input just what should we expect to change?

Nothing.

They do have a nice new logo, which I am sure you helped pay for, and a noncommittal mission statement: “Forward Pinellas will provide leadership to align resources and plans that help to achieve a compelling vision for Pinellas County, our individual communities and our region.”

Does anyone have any idea what the hell that means?

Let me take a stab at a literal translation: We are going to package up light rail along with some toss-a-ways like road improvement, and a few new buses and try to shame you folks into a sales tax to finance it.

Sort of like Go Hillsborough but with a much cooler Logo.

I am sure that all the folks at Pinellas Forward are waiting with baited breath to see how the second run at getting a sales tax referendum past the Hillsborough County Commission goes.

If it bombs a second-time  look for Forward Pinellas to steal quietly into the background for a while but should the Go Hillsborough machine get the sales tax on the ballot the next hurdle will be the election, and the folks in Hillsborough County should send yet another resounding message with a NO vote.

Then it will time for the Metropolitan planning organization/Pinellas Planning Council/Forward Pinellas to take a serious look at reality.

Sooner or later, it will become clear that these groups of elected officials, the big developers and light rail lobbyists do not a transportation planning organization make.

E-mail Doc at mail to: dr.gwebb@yahoo.com or send me a Facebook (Gene Webb) Friend request. Please comment below, and be sure to share on Facebook.

See Doc's Photo Gallery at Bay Post Photos.

Disclosures:

Contributor: Bob Gualtieri for Pinellas County Sheriff

Tribune calls for a "Plan B" - No Questions Asked

We posted here yesterday about the Tampa Tribune article targeting citizens who had alternative ideas about how to fund our roads and transportation without another 30 year huge sales tax hike. The Tribune was so concerned about who spoke to who about the transportation issue when we've been advocating for the commissioners to consider a Plan B for a long time.

Ironically the Tribune's own editorial today Give cities transportation keys basically admits the crony Go Hillsborough county sales tax hike proposal will fail. So guess what they did? The Tribune editorialized for their Plan B - allow the City of Tampa to hold their own municipal referendum for a transportation sales tax hike.

A simple measure would defuse much of the conflict over local transportation tax proposals that frequently pit suburban areas against urban ones.

…the state should allow municipalities to hold a referendum on a transportation sales tax.

While the Tribune calls this a simple measure, the Eye reports today that may actually be ill-conceived:  City Transportation Tax is a Bad Idea

Will the county be protected from backstopping any city transportation boondoggles gone awry? 

Will this result in more transportation bureaucracy in Tampa, which now must coordinate with HART, MPO, TBARTA, TED/PLG, TMLA, THEA, planning commissions, FDOT, just to name a few?

The Tribune states the 2010 rail referendum passed in the city of Tampa. We'll clarify that statement. The 2010 rail referendum passed in the urban precincts of the city of Tampa mainly along where the rail corridors were planned.

2010 rail referendum vote results by Precinct

The Tribune conveniently left out that Greenlight Pinellas failed last year countywide in Pinellas and in St. Petersburg too.

Where's the Tribune reporters when you need them?

The Tribune can publish their Plan B and no one questions who the Tribune spoke to about their idea.

But others bring forth a Plan B and the Tribune is compelled to target them.

The Death of Go Hillsborough

The impact of WTSP's Noah Pranksy's ongoing reporting on Go Hillsborough, is still rumbling throughout Tampa Bay like 20 straight days of thunderstorms in July.

• Hillsborough County Commission Chair Sandy Murman proposed lobbying reform
• Former Connect Tampa Bay co-founder and President, Brian Willis, Democrat running for County Commission, got some free publicity, said he had a better plan
• Tampa City Council votes to suspend their part of the contract.
• Tampa City Council also wants to review lobbying rules
• Hillsborough County Administrator asks Sheriff David Gee to investigate Go Hillsborough
• Hillsborough County Commissioner Kevin Beckner's motion to audit the Go Hillsborough process passed the BOCC unanimously
• The Tribune's Joe Henderson wrote Go Hillsborough could hit a stop sign
• The Tribune and Times, as if choreographed by a well connected PR firm, both editorialize on putting the investigation behind Go Hillsborough quickly
• SaintPetersBlog Mitch Perry weighs in, asking if the Hillsborough County transportation tax is DOA
• The Times relishes in the schadenfreude of Go Hillsborough in a Greenlight Pinellas remembrance
• La Gaceta's Patrck Mantiega wrote "This transportation tax, from the start, has just been a vehicle for Beth Leytham and her associates to pad their pockets."
• The Tribune's Salinero attempts to explain it away
• Many other leaders have been quoted in the media voicing concerns, eager to get things cleared up, and move on.

Regardless how the audit, investigation, lobbying reforms, hand wringing, etc. turns out, Go Hillsborough is toast. Done. Fini.

But no one has really caught why Go Hillsborough is dead.

Off the tracks.. and dead!

Sure, as Henderson wrote, 

If the review finds no violations occurred, as Merrill has insisted is the case, opponents will scream it’s a whitewash and business as usual. Even if commissioners went ahead with the referendum, imagine trying to convince a skeptical public that this isn’t an inside job where taxpayers get handed the bill.

True that. With good reason.

We agree with with Mitch Perry as well:

This proposed tax was always going to be a tough sell in a county that overall doesn’t seem to believe it needs to pay more for improved transportation. Now it’ll be even tougher.

True that too.

Yet they are all missing the reality that Go Hillsborough is forever tainted by their own doing, and the real downstream impacts. They can't recover from all the mistakes, lack of transparency, and insider dealings.

They could have learned from the mistakes of the 2010 referendum, but they didn't.

They could have learned from the mistakes of Greenlight Pinellas, but they didn't.

They could have heeded the AECOM study, which we the Hillsborough County taxpayers paid for, but they didn't.

They could have awarded the contract in an open and transparent process, but they didn't.

They could have not hired a crony leader of the rail cartel, Parsons Brinkerhoff, but they didn't.

They could have separated themselves earlier from an insider/PR/lobbyist/advisor/friend who always seems to get the business her way, but they didn't.

You get the picture. 

Hillsborough County Commissioners, the transportation Policy Leadership Group, and county Administrator Mike Merrill made a series of decisions.

Each decision was the wrong decision.

Now Go Hillsborough has to live with that legacy.

Will the expected business interests throw the big money at the real campaign? Will the same businesses that got behind Moving Hillsborough Forward in 2010, and Greenlight Pinellas in 2014 get near this thing?

The Tampa Bay Partnership, Downtown Partnership, Chambers of Commerce, Westshore Alliance, real estate developers, land use attorneys, big banks, real estate associations, et al.

Now they won't touch this thing.

If they do, they'll be tainted as well.

Without the corporate money from a multi-million dollar PAC, there will be no campaign, and no corporate support.  

Without that, no Go Hillsborough.

Time to cut our losses.

It gives me no great pleasure to write this, as we have to fix our transportation problems now.  But it is their own doing.

As we've asked before, and now more than ever.

Where is Plan B?

Time to dump Go Hillsborough, and get started on a new plan. We can start now. Work with the current budget, develop quick wins, demonstrate success, and rebuild confidence.

Before we go for the moon shot.

A $9 billion answer?

Today the Tribune published their lead commentary, A $9 billion question, about the proposed Tampa Bay Express project by the Florida DOT, written by Brian C. Willis. There is much to dissect about Willis' commentary.

First of all, Brian C. Willis, is more than "an attorney in Tampa", which is the only information about himself disclosed in the commentary.  Brian Willis has been active in urbanist and transit issues for years in Tampa Bay. He is one of the co-founders and President of local transit activist Connect Tampa Bay. Willis actively supported of Greenlight Pinellas, where he spoke in support of the referendum on numerous occasions, as well as participating in denigrating its opponents. That omission of his personal positions is telling, as he is not some independent minded wise man providing unique insights on transportation issues.

Willis opens with several misleading statements

The Florida Department of Transportation’s $9 billion express lane plan needs further scrutiny before proceeding. There are unanswered questions about the toll lanes’ design, and DOT has not explained why investing $9 billion in a single transportation project is the best use of limited taxpayer resources. Hillsborough County has a diverse population that lives in neighborhoods ranging from rural to urban. DOT should take time to listen to the community and develop plans that reflect the needs of our entire county.

Of course the plans need further scrutiny.  No one has suggested otherwise, and there were in fact two FDOT hosted workshops the week of January 25.  There has been no money budgeted for Tampa Bay Express, nor are the lanes designed. The only concept that exists is the general idea for tolled express lanes shared with express bus routes on Tampa Bay interstates and some rough budgetary estimates. If the plans progress, FDOT will schedule further workshops and other avenues for public comment, as is required by their process.

Reconstruction and widening of southbound I-275 at Himes Avenue (bottom of photo) and Dale Mabry Highway (top).

FDOT is primarily responsible for state roads and bridges, and the interstate highways in Florida. Obviously highways connect to county and city roads, but those roads are the responsibility of the local authorities, not the FDOT.

Willis then suggests South Florida got it wrong

In support of the plan, officials with DOT cite similar toll lanes built in South Florida. As someone who had the misfortune of driving in Miami, I question whether South Florida should serve as a model for Hillsborough County.

The Sun Sentinel recently reported that the South Florida lanes met DOT’s traffic goals only 59 percent of the time during the afternoon rush hour in November and December. To get traffic moving on the express lanes, DOT is now looking to raise the maximum toll in Miami from $10 to $14 — or higher.

...

WLRN, a South Florida television station, recently reported that the Miami express lanes have come under fire because they lack space for disabled vehicles to pull over and because drivers attempt to “dive” out of the express lanes, through upright plastic dividers, and into the untolled lanes of traffic.

WLRN’s report raises questions about whether FDOT’s express lane designs are safe.

As a frequent traveler to South Florida over the years, traffic in South Florida, and Miami in particular, is worse than Tampa Bay. The addition of the Express lanes has improved traffic flow. I regularly drive on I-95 non-express lanes during rush hour. It is never fun, but it has improved in my experience and reduced congestion on the non-express lanes, which at times can flow faster than express lanes. WLRN is correct that the I-95 Express lanes in Miami do have design issues on some segments (I recently listened to some of those reports live on WLRN while in South Florida on I-95). However,  the recently opened I-595 Express reversible 3 lanes in Ft. Lauderdale, similar in concept to the Selmon Express Lanes, are safe and convenient.

It's interesting that Willis ignores the success of the Selmon Express Lanes in his own backyard, built with no taxes or highway funds.

Level of service was upgraded from an "F" to an "A" as commuters are now able to travel at full speed, cutting travel time by as much as 60 minutes per day. The elevated lanes project won the prestigious "2007 IBTTA President's Award: Most Innovative Toll Transportation Project in the World," along with 22 awards for engineering excellence and community-friendly design. This modern solution is a prototype for eliminating urban traffic congestion and reducing green house gases.

No on likes paying tolls, much less up to $14 for tolls. Tampa Bay is not Miami, but the demand is clearly there from the Miami drivers. The express lanes may have become a victim of their own success. The drivers clearly see value in their time and are willing to pay to save time. These drivers are voting every day by paying the tolls, which are used to maintain and fund further road improvements.

Willis further on toll roads

Residents have strongly opposed prior toll projects, like the infamous “Green Swath of Death” beltway, which was proposed for the Tampa Bay area several years ago but never materialized. Many of the toll lanes that did get built in Hillsborough have not provided a long-term solution. I grew up in Carrollwood and remember when the Veterans Expressway opened. It initially offered a quick ride into Westshore. The road is now the site of daily traffic jams.

The "Green Swath of Death" (I thought it was black) may have helped ease congestion in the highest growth areas in east and south Hillsborough County.  Formally known as the Tampa Bay Beltway project, it was killed in 2007, largely since it didn't fit in with the future transportation vision of light rail and express buses throughout Hillsborough County. Where are we now?  

Not having the "Green Swath of Death" certainly has not inhibited development, which of course has resulted in some of the worse congested roads in the county.

Even with the Veterans, the demand soon exceeded the capacity of the road. Drivers see value in paying the toll, even if they are in slow moving traffic for 5 - 10 minutes, it is still better than the alternative surface routes.

Is Willis suggesting that we should not have the Veterans at all, much less the current improvements well underway, and that would improve transportation in Northwest Hillsborough?

Orlando, much of South Florida and many other larger metropolitan areas rely heavily on toll roads which are highly utilized. Drivers will pay for the convenience and speed. They value the toll roads with their own hard earned dollars.

Willis then transitions his commentary to local bus services, bicyclists, pedestrians and complete streets. Express buses will take advantage of any Express lanes, but bicyclists, pedestrians, and complete streets are completely irrelevant to the Express lanes discussion.

If we wanted to try to reduce the number of people killed while walking or riding a bike, we could design safer “complete” streets.

A recent program by FDOT to reduce deaths and injuries on Fletcher Avenue cost $1.6 million per mile. For a fraction of the cost of the express lanes we could build more complete streets and make our neighborhoods safer.

The jury on "complete streets" is still out. See our report on the Fletcher complete streets project for more information.  Increasing bicycling is a goal I support, but if bikes are too closely intermingled with traffic, we may further increase bicycling injuries and fatalities.

By the way, complete streets include "narrower lanes" and other traffic calming measures, such as reduced speed limits, as is the case on Fletcher.

Willis stated his concern about congestion and traffic of toll roads, yet he is proposing more solutions such as complete streets that are designed to create more congestion for drivers.

Willis then closes with a reference to Greenlight Pinellas which he actively supported, apparently still in denial of Greenlight's overwhelming defeat by the voters in 2014, 62% - 38%.

The Greenlight Pinellas plan would have added 24 miles of light rail and dramatically improved bus service in Pinellas County. Greenlight Pinellas would have cost $2.2 billion to build and operate for 30 years. For a fraction of the cost of the express lanes we could build and operate a light-rail system with an extensive bus network.

Greenlight projected about 18,000 rides (about 9,000 actual riders) a day for $2.2 billion (really over $3.3 billion if you read the fine print).  As a comparison, the active I-275 widening between downtown Tampa and SR-60 has nearly 200,000 vehicles per day and is costing $216.7 million. Which one benefits the most people?

The voters of Pinellas held their "government ... accountable for how taxpayer dollars are spent on transportation", so Willis should be satisfied the voters had their say.

Is Willis's solution to "decades of highway expansion have only led to more gridlock" is more Greenlight?

We have lots of questions about the Tampa Bay Express proposal, and of course our overall transportation strategy. But we need to use more imagination and develop solutions that relieve congestion and improve mobility.

Stuart Rogel Resigns but TBP Charts the Same Course

We have written previously about the Tampa Bay Partnership (TBP). TBP is an eight county organization in the Tampa Bay area that advocates for regionalism. They pushed the state legislature in 2007 to create Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority (TBARTA).  TBARTA has been totally ineffective since they were created and they are redundant and unnecessary.

TBP led the Hillsborough pro-rail effort in 2010.  They were the symbiotic twin of the pro rail PAC, Moving Hillsborough Forward, that raised $1.6 million for the rail initiative. It was defeated soundly 58-42%.

TBP helped created this regional One-Bay vision in 2010 "to create a shared regional vision to plan where future population and employment growth should occur based upon responsible land use, mobility, economic, and environmental sustainability". Some of their recommendations:

One Bay Vision Recommendations

Therefore, it's no wonder that TBP continued to push their rail agenda after the 2010 defeat in Hillsborough. TBP said they learned from their mistakes in 2010 and took the rail issue across the bridge to Pinellas to heavily support Greenlight Pinellas. 

Stuart Rogel, the CEO of the Tampa Bay Partnership became the Treasurer for the pro rail PAC, Yes for Greenlight. Like 2010, TBP provided Administrative support for the pro rail PAC and helped Yes for Greenlight raise over a million dollars in support of the Greenlight rail boondoggle.

TBP also supported Polk County's sales tax transit referendum, My Ride/My Road, but did not seem to play as prominent a role in that referendum. Polk County soundly defeated a half-cent transit sales tax referendum in 2010. This time Polk County's referendum appeared to be a solution looking for a problem. The tactic seemed to be throw in some road money and keep things somewhat under the radar in the hopes the referendum gets passed. We certainly did not see the media attention to Polk's referendum as we did the constant media drumbeat for Greenlight. Polk's referendum also went down in flames 72-28%.

Four transit sales tax referendums (two in Polk and one each in Hillsborough and Pinellas) over the last four years were all overwhelmingly defeated under Stuart Rogel's leadership at TBP. TBP spent much time, resource, money and energy pursuing these sales tax referendums and supporting them. Would that time and energy have been better used on something else, something successful?

What is striking is the very day after the huge Greenlight defeat (62-38%), Stuart Rogel published this commentary, almost defiantly, in the Tampa Bay Times:

At the Tampa Bay Partnership, we support the development of a regional transportation system that will move people and goods throughout the area while connecting with our ports, airports and the rest of the state. And we are committed to this objective now, more than ever. 

The defeats of Greenlight Pinellas in Pinellas County and MyRide/My Roads in Polk County were disappointing for those of us who have worked for years to improve transportation in the Tampa Bay area. The voters have spoken, and we need to learn from and understand their choice.

Never before has such a broad-based regional coalition come together for an endeavor like this. And nothing could be more representative of what the Tampa Bay Partnership strives for every day — uniting Tampa Bay and advocating for our interests as a region.

The voters have spoken numerous times now and they have said NO to the TBP rail/transit agenda.

Every transportation survey in Hillsborough County, including the one below done by the MPO right after the 2010 defeat, confirms roads are the highest transportation priority in Hillsborough. The only roads Rogel mentions is our interstate highways. What about the rest of our roads? Hillsborough County has thousands of lane miles of roads and we can't fill our potholes.  

MPO Survey after 2010 rail defeat

The broad-based coalition Rogel references included elected officials, taxpayer funded agencies and special interests that would benefit from the tax increase. But the TBP coalition obviously didn't include the voters and the taxpayers.

Then last Wednesday it was reported that Stuart Rogel was resigning. The Tampa Bay Times reported

Rogel, 60, made $458,965 (emphasis mine) in 2012 even as the group's revenues decreased to just over $2 million. In the latest fiscal year ended Sept. 30, the group's revenues had risen to $3.8 million. The partnership, which was created by local business leaders in 1994 to market Tampa Bay as a single metro region, had been on the losing end of a number of recent campaigns, including mass transit initiatives in Pinellas and Polk counties.

The Tribune reported

Rogel said Friday the decision to resign was his own, based on the best interests of his family and the partnership and not on the Greenlight Pinellas failure or on anyone else’s assessment of his performance. 

On the transportation initiative, he said, “We did everything we set out to do. We raised almost $1.2 million in a very difficult market with all the other races.”

Is raising money for bad transportation initiatives what they do? Do TBP's investors think there are better uses of TBP's resources?  

TBP's investors can be found here.  Ten of the twenty-seven $50K donors are taxpayer funded entities, including Hillsborough County and City of Tampa. Nine of the thirty-four $25K donors are taxpayer funded entities, including Hillsborough County Schools and Tampa Hillsborough EDC.  More taxpayer entities contribute at the $10K or $5K levels.

How are those tax dollars spent? What is the return on investment to the taxpayer? Are any of those tax dollars used by TBP to push these referendums to raise our sales tax for projects we don't want or need?

According to this article, concerns citing disappointment with Rogel were made in 2012

Local public relations firm president Bill Carlson told the Tampa Tribune he wonders if the Tampa Bay Partnership has accomplished its goal of creating a brand for the region and building political clout.

After Rogel's recent resignation, he and TBP's Chairman Brian Lamb sat down with the Tampa Bay Times to talk about the transition and TBP's future. The interview was published in the TBT last Friday with a title "Tampa Bay Partnership leaders chart a new course". 

When asked if there's a surplus of economic development organizations with all the Chambers and the EDC, Rogel answered that those organizations play different roles and then stated,

We are the only voice for this region.

That is not true.  We have TBARTA, the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, the MPO Coordinating Chairs, the Tampa Bay Transportation Management Area Leadership Group (TMA), the International Council of the Tampa Bay Region, our Tampa Bay local state legislative delegation and all the Chambers and EDC's. We bet there are more organizations who also provide a voice for the region but certainly TBP is not the only voice for the Tampa Bay region.

The irony, however, is when questioned about any changes to TBP's priorities, Lamb responded

I'll point you to the comments made in our annual meeting. We made it very, very clear we are not changing direction.

We are staying the course in our priorities and there won't be any material deviation.

Tampa Bay Business Journal recently did an online survey asking what TBP should focus on. Only 33% think TBP should continue to focus on issues such as transportation and baseball. Most of the rest who responded think TBP should stick to marketing the region or they think TBP is now irrelevant.

TBBJ survey on what TBT should focus on

Four soundly defeated transit referendums in four years. Instead of charting a new course, it appears TBP leaders are charting the SAME (failed) course. That will only cause their irrelevance to grow.

Respect Voters and the Consent of the Governed

It's been several days since Greenlight Pinellas and the Polk County transit referendum were overwhelmingly defeated and the question of "what's next" is being asked. 

Both in Hillsborough and Pinellas, we keep hearing we're going to be put through a second referendum because the power brokers did not like the first answer they got from voters. Some elected officials and special interests organizations want us to continue down the same path, despite what the voters said. They will tout that it often takes two, sometimes three attempts for "them" to finally ram a boondoggle referendum through.

Look at other cities, "they" say, like Denver, St. Louis, Phoenix where initial initiatives were defeated but subsequent referendums got passed.

This question was raised by LightRailNow blog:  

If rail has previously been rejected by voters, but a new rail measure is subsequently presented for a vote, how long does it take to achieve successful voter approval for rail?

Here's their answer based on looking at 6 such cases since 2000.

Years between Rail Referendum Rejected and
 later referendum Passed

They concluded:  

The process of re-submitting a rail transit measure to a vote may depend not so much on public attitudes but on the determination of sponsoring officials, their responsiveness to public input, and their willingness to re-craft specific project details to more closely conform to public needs and desires.

Sounds like what we see in Hillsborough County with the Transportation Policy Leadership Group and their mercenary force of Parsons Brinckerhoff. 

This is the agenda of try, try again until "they" win. 

According to a Mineta Transportation Institute study of ballot initiatives with rail transit component, success or failure criteria:

• Passing transit initiatives in communities featuring transit agencies of questionable reputations, in those fielding credible opposition, or those lacking a traffic congestion “crisis” is extremely difficult  

• Support for transportation-related tax increases from business community and key elected officials is apparently linked to their close involvement in development of the package 

• Attracting campaign funds in excess of $1 million seems essential to effectively promoting transit initiatives. 

• Importance for community consensus amongst the business, elected and environmental communities  

• Importance of utilizing experienced campaign consultant 

• Specified routes to increase perceptions of individual benefits 

• Threats of tangible service cuts  

• Effectiveness of a region’s predominant newspaper in portraying an initiative in a positive or negative light

Was that the playbook of Greenlight Pinellas and the 2010 rail referendum in Hillsborough?

I would add also those pushing rail consistently regurgitate talking points attempting to create generalized false narratives that factual data do not support. I call that deception.

The Mineta study also pointed out the need to include roads:

Failure to include funds for highway improvements risks alienating transit nonusers, who are typically a majority.

In other words, throw some roads in to your rail boondoggle for voter bait to gain support because a majority of people want roads not trains. 

The study concludes that the most important factors for success was "high-profile support from both political leadership and the business communities."
While the high-profile political leaders may change, the Tampa Bay Partnership and the Chambers of Commerce continue spending their time and resources to push "their" rail agenda.

Voters in Hillsborough and Pinellas have soundly said NO once to high cost rail projects. Voters in Polk County have said NO twice to transit related referendums. 

Where is respect for the voters? 

Do our elected officials not believe in the "consent of the governed"? 

Do our elected officials not believe in the intelligence of their own constituents?  

As Florida DOT Secretary recently stated:

“We need to create a framework for private entrepreneurship to lead the way,” argued Florida Department of Transportation Secretary Ananth Prasad during a panel at the ITS World Congress. “Legislation at the state and federal level needs to be loosened up.” 

In many cases, public-private partnerships will have a larger role in financing new transportation projects

We need mobility solutions now, with the highest priority to fund our roads first because 98% of us use them everyday.

Our county commissioners should not continue holding our road funding hostage to push another boondoggle referendum. 

Is it the proper role of government to "transform" or redesign our county using our tax dollars to try to coerce or force us to get out of our cars and use transit?

Let's not go backwards and gamble billions of tax dollars that forces us to be stuck on last century's infrastructure. 

The future is going to bring innovative transportation solutions, options and competitive services we may only dream of today, that could make costly rail systems irrelevant and obsolete tomorrow.

 

The future will include roads and buses need roads, so let's fund them now.

Please respect Voters and the "Consent of the Governed".

The Enemy is Reality: Voters and Taxpayers Fed Up

On Tuesday, five Florida counties soundly rejected sales tax referendums, including the Greenlight Pinellas rail boondoggle and transit related referendums in Polk County and Alachua County. Citrus County and Hernando County had infrastructure related sales tax referendums that were also defeated.

How badly were all these initiatives defeated? They ALL went down in flames.
Greenlight Pinellas - Defeated 62-38%
Polk County - Defeated 72-28%
Alachua County - Defeated 60-40%
Hernando County - Defeated 56-44%
Citrus County - Defeated 75-25%

In addition, a sales tax referendum in Martin County (just north of Palm Beach County) was narrowly defeated by 83 votes and is going to a recount on Saturday, that many expect the defeat to hold.

Here's a picture of how bad Greenlight Pinellas was defeated - 248 of 299 precincts voted NO. Even downtown Clearwater, one of the end points of the light rail, voted No.

Pinellas County votes a whopping NO
to Greenlight Pinellas 62-38%

What do all the overwhelming defeats mean?

Is it a strong indicator of distrust and skepticism voters and taxpayers have today?

Is it a strong indicator that our current elected officials are not spending what they already have wisely, effectively and on our highest priorities? Do voters and taxpayers think government at every level is overreaching and spending our tax dollars on things they shouldn't be?

Most of the referendums were comprehensive, attempting to raise additional revenues for multiple issues. Have voters and taxpayers simply seen too many failed "comprehensive" referendums, where elected officials push the "something for everyone" carrot to get the costly referendums passed, and then they end up over promising and under delivering? Do voters and taxpayers lack the confidence there will be appropriate oversight, discipline and accountability with spending these additional tax revenues, especially when spent on numerous issues rolled into a single tax?

Are voters and taxpayers fed up watching taxpayer funded entities like PSTA spend almost a million dollars of taxpayer monies advocating for a sales tax few will benefit from?  Are voters and taxpayers fed up watching PSTA spend years of their time and resources pushing for Greenlight and higher taxes instead of focusing on their bus service? Are voters and taxpayers simply fed up with taxpayer funded entities using their bully pulpit and our tax dollars with a one-way message advocating against the taxpayer?

Are voters and taxpayers fed up watching the collusion of taxpayer funded entities and special interests groups push higher taxes for projects that benefit the few - them?

Are voters and taxpayers fed up with cronyism and what appears to be a circle of money between elected officials and special interests?

Are voters and taxpayers fed up with being told we must hand over more of our tax dollars in the name of "economic development" that in reality feeds our tax dollars to special interests?  Are voters and taxpayers fed up with being told we have to continually subsidize development?

We already hand lots of our tax dollars every year to entities pushing "economic development".  What success have we gotten in return? What is the actual return on investment as far as economic prosperity and growth from using all these tax dollars? Can anyone measure?

Some of those entities turn around and use the monies they receive to advocate for higher taxes. Is something wrong with this picture?

Are voters and taxpayers fed up watching elected officials and taxpayer funded entities like PSTA ignore and mock those oppose them?

Are voters and taxpayers fed up with lies and deception used to push for higher taxes?

Are voters and taxpayers fed up with those continuing to push referendums requiring federal debt dollars for costly solutions we do not need nor can afford?

Are voters and taxpayers fed up with the continued emphasis on taxpayer funded solutions to all our problems?

Are voters and taxpayers fed up with the lack of common sense, fiscally responsible solutions because someone's beholden to deep-pocketed special interests?

Are voters and taxpayers fed up with the too much one-sided, biased reporting and editorializing by local media favoring these costly referendums?

Are voters and taxpayers fed up with the "powers to be" ignoring "We the People"?

It's somewhat amusing to hear Pinellas County Commissioner Ken Welch, who also chairs the PSTA board, state that he was surprised by the outcome of Greenlight Pinellas.

The $1.2 Million pro rail Greenlight PAC was doing polling because they were paying a polling company according to their campaign finance reporting.  If things were going "their" way, we would have heard about it. They knew Greenlight was going down, they just didn't know how bad.

The opposition to all these referendums was obviously broad and deep.

The enemy is NOT No Tax For Tracks, the Tea Party or anyone else who voted against all these referendums.

The enemy is reality.

The defeats were NO surprise. Just think about the questions above.