Wednesday, June 18, 2014

What Plans for Transit? Our Transportation Funding Crisis is Roads

This will be Part 1 about what direction HART, our local transit agency, may be going.

A HART Board Strategic Planning Workshop was held last Monday, June 9.  The Eye was there. The purpose of the workshop was to discuss the strategic direction of HART and to get an update from the County Administrator on the Hillsborough County Transportation and Economic Development Policy Leadership Group. The update from the County Administrator will be covered in a subsequent post.

HART spends about $66 million a year to currently run the bus service. You will find their 10 year Transportation Development Plan (TDP) here.  The TDP is required to be updated each year. HART's ridership increased between 2010 and 2012 but the increase appears to now be flatlining. Why? We don't know. Perhaps with the uptick in our local economy, with our unemployment rate down and more people are working, they can afford a car and are driving.

HART currently receives approximately $30 million a year in county property taxes, which have been inching up since the housing bubble burst. About 20% of the revenue comes from their fare box recovery and the rest from federal transit formula funds and state/federal grants.

As HART's TDP reflects, their Status Quo plan does increase service hours and is currently funded. There will be a need for some increased funding in a few years, even with the Status Quo plan, as buses will need replacing.

HART's Vision Plan, which is not currently funded, was discussed at this meeting. This plan includes building out additional cost-effective Metro Rapid Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) services, increasing some express services and local circulators. The Vision Plan has been vetted and approved by HART if funding was available. It would require $400 million in capital to implement and $110-150 million a year to operate. The Vision Plan would double HART's existing bus service in the county and about double the operating costs. It was noted that the much more costly Greenlight Pinellas plan will only improve bus service by 65% in Pinellas. The Vision plan could probably be locally funded with a short term tax increase without using federal dollars that have strings attached and increase the cost. As we previously posted, the Highway Trust Fund is bankrupt and we're almost $18 Trillion in debt.

Interim HART CEO Katherine Eagan said HART has saturated their current market and HART should move into new markets of potential riders, address different parts of the county that have different needs and be more customer focused.

So how do they do that? With the big, bold Super Sized plan that goes beyond the Vision Plan to target new markets of "choice" riders.

Where did this Super Sized plan come from? What I gleaned from the HART board discussion was Eagan was working on some of this with County Administrator Mike Merrill and Board Member Dr. Polzin.  Dr. Polzin, for transparency, stated he was working with the County on behalf of CUTR (Center for Urban Transportation Research at USF) where Dr. Polzin works.

The Super Sized plan had never been brought before the entire HART board before. This was the first time all the board members heard about it. This plan that has not been vetted by HART would require capital costs of at least a Billion dollars and will cost approximately $330 million a year to operate. It appears this plan would implement the gold standard BRT in dedicated lanes which cost at least $20-25 million a mile which would create a permanent transit corridor.  It was unclear if these bus lanes would be managed bus toll lanes, added as additional capacity and shared with users who choose to pay a toll, or strictly dedicated bus lanes.  Due to this plan's large capital cost, it would require large amounts of federal funds to implement.

While the Transportation Policy Leadership Group has not agreed on a plan yet, County Administrator Mike Merrill stated at the last Transportation Policy Leadership Group meeting in May, that we need to reach out to a new population of riders and entice them in various ways. He said that we need an integrated system that ties a new Bus Rapid Transit System to a new managed bus system and to rail, and that we're going to need a lot of federal dollars. Merrill's comments sounded much like the new Super Sized plan discussed at this HART board workshop.

Several board members asked that HART staff provide a comparison or menu of each of these plans, the Status Quo, Vision plan and Super Sized plan that includes cost estimates for each. I was glad to hear it stated that the cost component part must be included as part of the community outreach to help determine what taxpayers are actually willing to pay for.  What is the cost benefit of these various plans?

There was much discussion about the plans but both Commissioner Sharpe and Murman stated they wanted to "go big and bold" with the Super Sized plan.

Let's step back and ask where is the actual transportation funding crisis?  It's with our roads.  The county has been neglecting our roads for years which has created this mess of F-rated roads.


F-rated Deficient Roads in Hillsborough
Next year there is only between $5-9 million for roads. Our local gas tax only fills our pot holes. The real transportation funding crisis is we have no money to maintain and improve our roads and this crisis must be addressed.

The Transportation Leadership Policy group is also looking at road improvements as even buses need our roads. Before we consider a Super Sized transit plan, let's see the big bold plan for roads since 98% of us use them everyday.  

And no "enticement" is needed.

Monday, June 9, 2014

Eliminate the Highway Trust Fund and Empower the States

Saturday's Tribune had a commentary courtesy of the Washington Post, No road work ahead, that states:
The federal Highway Trust Fund is set to run out of money this summer. Without a fix, federally backed transportation projects all over the country — not just highways — would be in danger of severe disruption or cancellation.
Yes, the Highway Trust Fund is running out of money - soon.  The Highway Trust Fund was funded exclusively through our federal gas taxes, user fees, until 2008 when Congress began transferring monies from the General Fund to cover deficits in the Highway Trust Fund. This allowed spending to continue (with borrowed dollars) and basically kick the systemic problems of the Highway Trust Fund deficit spending down the road.  

How did we get here? CATO Institute provides a Dept. of Transportation Timeline of Growth from 1787 - 2009. 

The federal gas tax was implemented in 1956 under President Eisenhower to fund roads, highways and bridges and to specifically build out our Interstate system.  Gas taxes are a "user fee" paid for by those who use our roads. The federal gas tax today, which has been in place since 1993, is 18.4 cents per gallon for gas and 24.4 cents per gallon for diesel. The tax was originally set to expire in 1972 but instead has been extended ever since and it's scope greatly expanded well beyond the Interstate system and roads. 

In 1983 Congress created the Mass Transit account within the Highway Trust Fund. This act began the diversion of our road user fees, federal gas taxes, to mass transit. This enabled greater expanded siphoning of our federal gas taxes to rail and bus transit, ferry boats, bike paths, sidewalks and recreational trails.  Today our federal gas taxes are expanded beyond even those activities and includes air quality mitigation, historic resources, environmental goals and other ancillary purposes.
Today HTF allocations fund much more than just highways 
At the same time the scope for the use of our federal gas taxes was being greatly expanded, vehicles continued to become more fuel efficient and vehicles fueled by other types of energy began to be introduced:  hybrids, electric, natural gas, etc.  As CAFE standards increase fuel efficiency and the public uses more non-gasoline powered vehicles, the funding problem gets worse. The circular logic of heavily subsidizing mass transit and other ancillary activities through dwindling vehicle user fees eventually becomes unsustainable and reality hits.  

Have you heard of earmarks?  The first earmarks EVER, which began the use and abuse of earmarks, was in the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1982. That bill included 10 earmarks for funding transportation projects in certain Congressional districts. Ironically, that same year, 1982, then President Reagan proposed ending the federal gas tax and federal highway funding. Congress refused to support Reagan's proposal because apparently they did not want to give up their power and control over this huge pot of tax dollars. The House Transportation Committee, who oversees the Highway Trust Fund, is the largest committee in the House. That's a lot of power, influence and control.

President Reagan vetoed a transportation bill in 1987 because it had too many earmarks - 151.  Earmarks continued to grow and grow as Congress continued earmarking pork barrel projects for their home districts. Transportation funding became the poster child for earmark pork projects.  The last long term 5 year Transportation bill passed by Congress in 2005 had a record breaking 6,371 earmarks in it.  This pork laden bill brought public outrage with the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" earmark for Alaska. The "Bridge to Nowhere" earmark became a national symbol of Congressional porkmania wasteful spending.

Earmarks were banned in 2010 when the Republicans took control of the House.  But the Fed system is such a mess we now have "orphaned earmarks" according to this USA Today article in 2011:
During the past 20 years, orphan earmarks reduced the amount of money that states would have received in federal highway funding by about $7.5 billion, USA TODAY found. That's $7.5 billion that states could have used to replace obsolete bridges, repair aging roads and bring jobs to rural areas.
It's 3 years later in 2014 and Rep. James Lankford (R-OK) introduced a bill last month, HR4715, and we're not making this up, called the Orphan Earmarks Act, "to rescind and remove idle earmarks for Department of Transportation (DOT) projects, some of which were approved more than 20 years ago." 
Lankford’s bill would void earmarked funds in DOT accounts with 90 percent or more of the original dollar amount left unobligated after ten fiscal years. The bill also requires DOT to submit a report each year detailing which projects were funded through earmarked dollars and which funds remain available for funding at the end of the fiscal year. Additionally, it provides flexibility to DOT to ensure projects slated to begin in the immediate future can still take place.
Isn't that the least we could do in this funding crisis?  Clean up the orphaned earmark funds!

The rubber is hitting the road with our current Highway Trust Fund situation. According to this CBO testimony on the Status of the Highway Trust Fund presented to Congress last July:

  • The current status of the Highway Trust Fund is unsustainable.  Starting in fiscal year 2015, the trust fund will have insufficient resources to meet all of its obligations, resulting in steadily accumulating shortfalls.
  • Since 2008, the Congress has avoided such shortfalls by transferring $41 BILLION from the General Fund of the Treasury to the Highway Trust Fund.  The Congress has enacted an additional transfer of $12.6 BILLION that is to be included in 2014.  If lawmakers choose to continue authorizing such transfers, they would have to transfer an additional $15 BILLION and increasing amounts in subsequent years to prevent future shortfalls, if spending was maintained at the 2013 level, as adjusted for inflation.
  • Lawmakers could also address the projected annual shortfalls by substantially reducing spending for transportation surface programs, by boosting revenues, or by adopting some combination of the two approaches.  Bringing the trust fund into balance in 2015 would require entirely eliminating the authority in that year to obligate funds (projected to be about $51 BILLION), raising the taxes on motor fuels by about 10 cents per gallon, or undertaking some combination of those approaches.

CBO HTF projected shortfalls
This is not a pretty picture as we must maintain our existing infrastructure and our gas tax revenue is declining.  So what do we do?  Doing nothing will only create a bigger mess to dig out from. The easiest thing to do is keep spending and continue bailing out the Highway Trust Fund with General Funds. That truly shoots user fees and user pays out the door. We could raise the tax. According to The Hill, a bill has been submitted to almost double our federal gas tax and it's been endorsed by the US Chamber of Commerce:
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) is introducing legislation that would nearly double the 18.4-cents-per-gallon federal gas tax that is traditionally used to pay for federal transportation projects.

Blumenauer's bill would increase the gas tax by 15 cents, matching a proposal that was included in the 2011 Simpson-Bowles budget reform recommendations.

The legislation would result in drivers paying an extra 33.4 cents per gallon on their purchases, in addition to state taxes.
The Oregon lawmaker is scheduled to appear with representatives from the AFL-CIO's Transportation Trades Department, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Labors International Union of North America, the American Society of Civil Engineers, Reconnecting America and the American Public Transportation Association.
Blumenauer's bill would also index the federal gas tax to an inflation index. Indexing the gas tax would conveniently enable it to go up, up and up without having to hold future Congressional reps accountable. The organizations Blumenauer was appearing with to tout this bill looks like the typical organizations who support tax increases because it will benefit "them".

Even Senator Barbara Boxer who chairs the Senate Transportation Committee said at a legislative briefing in February, "I don't see support for raising the gas tax".  She's right.  A Gallop poll taken last year found two-thirds of Americans opposed a gas tax hike even it went toward infrastructure improvements.  

A big problem today is that taxpayers do not trust how the federal government is spending our current gas tax dollars so why should we give them more to waste or spend on pet projects. Taxpayers are wiser today as we witness our exploding federal debt approach $18 TRILLION. That is unsustainable.

But we have a transportation funding problem so is there a better solution? Yes! There are bills in the House and Senate that would do what President Reagan wanted to do in 1982 - kill the federal gas tax.  In an article, Death to the Gas Tax at Reason.com these bills (HR 3486 and S1702) would "kill the gas tax and remove Washington from transportation policy":
Last November, Graves introduced the Transportation Empowerment Act, which was cosponsored through Senate legislation by Republican Mike Lee. By drastically reducing the tax, it would enable states to manage their own transportation policies, improving a process that has become massively inefficient under federal oversight. 
“It's rather silly,” Graves told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, that “taxpayers pay taxes at the pump that go to the federal government, [which] then tells our state how it must spend the money,” even though it doesn't “give you all the money you submitted.”
Graves' bill would reduce the tax over five years to 3.7 cents/gallon, which could produce around $7 billion, and that money would be sent to states through block grants with few regulatory strings attached. States could then make up the difference by raising their own gas taxes.
The Transportation Empowerment Act (TEA) would empower states to pursue their own unique transportation solutions because the states know better what their transportation needs are. The TEA bill would help reduce duplicity, overhead, costly federal strings and regulations and a costly federal bureaucracy. TEA would help stop the current perversion to pursue the most expensive transportation solutions because federal tax dollars are somehow "free".  Reason states:
...Federal Highway Administration that largely duplicates the responsibilities of state DOTs. Every federally-funded transportation project, for example, is subject to Davis-Bacon laws that mandate the payment of local prevailing wages. An executive order from President Obama in 2009 requires federal projects of over $25 million to use Project Labor Agreements, which discourage open bidding in favor of unionized collective bargaining.

Other regulations require redundant environmental reviews and over-demanding construction standards. Former FHWA head Robert Farris has estimated that, altogether, federal regulations increase project costs by 30 percent.

Federal oversight also encourages construction of projects that make little economic sense. Before the ban in 2010, large chunks of gas tax revenue went for earmarks. Although Republicans have extended the earmark ban, there's no guarantee that it will be safe if Democrats reoccupy the House.

...infrastructure becomes most pragmatic when funded by those who actually use it. This is in contrast, writes Nicole Gelinas in City Journal, to the impression of “free money” that localities get when receiving federal grants from taxpayers nationwide.
There is no "free" lunch or "free" money. Due to the chaotic financial mess the Feds have made in DC, the states are not waiting for DC. The states are figuring out themselves how to pay for their own infrastructure needs. Transportation expert Ken Orski was on a recent panel hosted by the Heritage Foundation at a Capital Hill briefing for Congressional staff regarding the Highway bill and posted some of his remarks at the Heartland Institute.
...individual states, far from standing idly by, are responding to the fiscal uncertainties in Washington by stepping up and augmenting their transportation budgets. 
...governors, state legislatures and local governments are taking aggressive steps to make themselves fiscally more independent. They are increasing fuel taxes, passing local bond referenda, financing costly construction projects with long-term credit, and entering into investment partnerships with the private sector.
As for the states, greater fiscal independence will help them gain a substantially enhanced role in transportation and more freedom and flexibility to manage their transportation programs on their own terms and free of burdensome federal oversight.
From porkbarrel spending to expanding the Highway Trust Fund's scope way beyond its ability to pay to orphaned earmarks that sit idle in the Dept. of Transportation coffers, the Feds have turned the Highway Trust Fund into a big funding mess. Congress cannot fix it. The way out is the TEA bills. Let's get the Feds out of the way, stop sending our gas tax dollars to be siphoned through the DC waste filter and empower the states to be responsible for their own transportation policies and funding. 

Florida has always been a federal gas tax donor state sending DC far more than what they doled back to us. Where was the outrage from our elected officials about this, at any level of government, especially as Florida's population was growing exponentially? We heard from some of them loudly when President Obama wanted to "throw" federal debt dollars at Florida for a costly High Speed Rail between Orlando and Tampa.  We certainly did not hear that kind of response and outrage that Florida, a leading tourist destination of the world, should be keeping our own gas tax dollars to improve our roads.  Have you ever been to West Virginia to see the huge highways former Senator Byrd built with our road money?
Gas Tax Donor States
Transportation policy should promote mobility and not be based on politics. The closer our transportation solutions get to "user pays" the better. That is the fairest way to pay. 

Transit needs its own funding source, including riders paying a more market priced fare, so vehicle user fees are not subsidizing transit. Our gas taxes should be used as originally implemented - to pay for our roads, highway and bridges. Even doing that, over time those dollars will dwindle and new funding sources must be found. States are the innovative incubators where reform occurs first and as previously stated, are already taking a lead in how to fund their own transportation projects.

We know the TEA bill is a long shot as too many in Congress do not want to give up their influence and control over large buckets of our tax dollars.  

We are in an election year.  Get your Congressional candidates to agree to sign on and support the Transportation Empowerment Act. 

At some point common sense must prevail.

Friday, June 6, 2014

Walmart protest in Tampa

On Wednesday, June 4, there were several protests staged at Walmart's across the country, including one in Tampa, on East Fletcher Avenue.  EyeOnTampaBay was there.

We estimate that about 30  or so people were protesting.  Some said they were from Walmart, and some appeared they were from labor organizer or activist groups.  Others just looked like they like a good protest. We were not able to determine which organization if any was in charge.



One woman did much of the speaking, and she'd already come from protests earlier in the day in Merritt Island and Orlando before arriving in Tampa.  She spoke of pregnant women's rights, created a group called "Respect the Bump", which helped Walmart recognize that pregnancy is a medical condition.

She also spoke about "a wall" Walmart strikers have created to document their stories and complaints, and what the "Walmart economy" means to them, as well as the larger community.

The Wall of the Walmart economy
Another speaker was a (former?) Walmart employee and striker, although we could not hear him well.

Another young man grabbed the mike and spoke of workers rights, and stated
"Here's the deal. Workers, everything that you have you must take."
Got that?
"The fact is, we have the capacity to not only raise wages, but reduce work hours worldwide."
"I believe you have to fight for every inch...OK, I ran out of ideas. Thanks."
Also,  they announced Chuck did not make it, and could not be found, but he's supposed to go on strike tonight.

Good luck, Chuck!

We also saw a protester we could have sworn we saw and talked to at the Greenlight Pinellas Rally in Largo, FL on May 27, carrying a different sign this time.  They do get around.

Protesters protesting
We were also handed a flyer from the Industrial Workers of the World, which is a union for all workers that fights against bosses and helps organize on the job.  It's not clear if they were organizing this rally or not.  According to Wikepedia,
The IWW promotes the concept of "One Big Union", contends that all workers should be united as a social class and that capitalism and wage labor should be abolished. They are known for the Wobbly Shop model of workplace democracy, in which workers elect their managers and other forms of grassroots democracy (self-management) are implemented. IWW membership does not require that one work in a represented workplace, nor does it exclude membership in another labor union.
If everyone gets to vote on everything, I bet they'll need a lot of meetings.  Not sure that'll make a great place to work.

IWW handout
Several cars, and at least one Walmart truck driver, honked their horns in support while we were there.

Take a look at the video above and see the Walmart protest for yourself.

Thursday, June 5, 2014

Rallies in the Rain and PSTA on the Run

The Eye took a road trip over the Howard Frankland last Tuesday, May 27th, to Pinellas to check out some sign waving events regarding the Greenlight Pinellas referendum.

Luckily for me, the rain was just letting up as I got to the intersection of Belcher Road South and Brian Dairy Road in Largo where the events were taking place.  I pulled in to park and saw NoTaxForTracks Pinellas, the PAC opposing the Greenlight Pinellas referendum, had their signs planted and supporters with signs at 3 of the 4 corners of the large intersection. When I walked over to the intersection I then saw some supporters of the pro-referendum Connect Tampa Bay huddled around a bus bench across the street. The bus bench was not directly at the intersection but a ways down from the intersection.

I brought my camera to capture the fun and caught up with Betsi Burgess, a volunteer with NoTaxForTracks Pinellas, for a quick man on the street interview.



Barbara Haselden, the campaign manager for NoTaxForTracks, was there. I interviewed Barbara to find out why they were at this particular intersection this day.  I also got the latest information on the NoTaxForTracks campaign, including Greenlight Pinellas deciding to run away from having to speak at the same event as NoTaxForTracks that Greenlight had been scheduled to speak at too.



I did note that all the NoTaxForTracks supporters are voters who live in Pinellas.  I did see some supporters of Connect Tampa Bay who live in Hillsborough, and of course cannot vote in Pinellas, but came over to support their cause.  Regardless of that, the NoTaxForTracks supporters out numbered and way out signed the pro Greenlight folks.

NoTaxForTracks PAC raises their own private money to pay for all their own signs and literature.  Many of the Connect Tampa Bay supporters were holding the Greenlight Pinellas signs that taxpayer funded PSTA is handing out. The pro referendum supporters simply have to go to PSTA and pick up as many Greenlight Pinellas signs they want, all at taxpayer expense.  Convenient huh?
Greenlight Pinellas yard signs used to urge SUPPORT FOR Greenlight
paid for by taxpayers
Connect TampaBay had created a Facebook event so I went there that evening to see any comments posted and this was the first comment I found.  I captured the text but this comment must have been deleted as it no longer appears on their page.
I don't want to bust on the people that did show up today, But man we need to take some lessons from this one... if you are going to have a rally for the cause, you need to have some signs ready for the people to use ! thanks Bruce for giving me your sign as you were leaving, but I could have used it an hour earlier, when I showed up there at 5:00, I felt like Newman & Redford in the last scene of Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid !...yes I know that some NTFT people are seeing this, but I got to hand it to them, they came out in force today and much better prepared...WE HAVE TO MATCH THAT EFFORT... WE NEED TO FIGHT RHETORIC ... WITH FACTS ! ! they were packing more baloney than Oscar Meyer out there today.. I know we took a lesson today..But WE WILL LEARN FROM THIS.. and be ready the the next rally...
Below is now the first comment displayed which appears to be a response to the above comment that got deleted.
Comment from Connect Tampa Bay event on Facebook
So we learned something else. Not only do Connect Tampa Bay supporters use taxpayer funded Greenlight Pinellas yard signs to urge SUPPORT FOR the referendum, they also pick up as many Greenlight Pinellas taxpayer funded pamphlets they can to distribute.  How easy is that when someone else (the taxpayer) gets to pick up the tab? 

That's what happens when taxpayer funded entities are allowed to use taxpayer funded resources to support a referendum to raise taxes that benefits them.

Just like NoTaxForTracks volunteer Betsi Burgess indicated, this is a David and Goliath battle, and I'll add it's Round 2, but once again NoTaxForTracks proves who the real grassroots activists are on this issue.

Wednesday, June 4, 2014

Increasing electric bills around Tampa Bay

The Tampa Bay Times reports that Tampa Electric may have to raise its rates to comply with the new federal EPA mandates to reduce CO2 emissions.
Tampa Electric customers could see higher electric bills under the proposed federal emission standards for coal-fired power plants, which produced 60 percent of the utility's power in 2013.
The utility already uses several technologies to cut carbon emissions at its coal plants. Still, it expects to have to make changes in its operations that will affect the pocketbooks of its 700,000 customers.
Tampa Electric heritage is in coal-powered electric generation, although they have converted quite a bit over to US produced natural gas in the last few years, they are the most coal dependent electric utility in the state.  Natural gas is cheaper than coal these days, and emits about half the amount of CO2 as coal.
President Barack Obama's administration announced the sweeping new emissions standards Monday to help curb pollutants blamed for climate change. The rules, outlined in a 645-page document, won't go into effect for at least a year. The goal is to cut power plants' carbon emissions by 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030.
Only 645 pages?  What are we paying for up there in DC?

Of course, once the final rules and regulations are passed, state by state, it will explode into the tens of thousands pages.
Florida already has made significant strides toward reducing coal plant emissions.
The Georgetown Climate Center at the Georgetown University Law School in Washington, D.C., notes in its review of Florida's electricity production that the Sunshine State cut its carbon emissions 15 percent between 2005 and 2012. Electricity produced from coal dropped about 40 percent during that period.
How did that happen?  No recent government rules, regulations or Kyoto protocols drove down those reductions in carbon emissions.  It was the free market, new drilling technologies such as horizontal drilling and fracking that freed up the natural gas, and driving fuel prices down, making it an easy, cost effective decision for the power companies to adopt.

Meanwhile, how bad its our air?  It's not, in fact it's pretty good, and continues on an improving trend.  We answered that question last year.

We have more good news on that front.

The Tribune reported Florida must cut its emissions 38 percent, but also
Gov. Rick Scott's office on Monday touted Florida's air quality.
"Thanks to efforts to curb air pollution statewide, Florida air emissions are the lowest on record. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection will review the EPA's proposal and will work to continue to protect Florida's environment," said Scott's spokesman, John Tupps.
Last month, DEP officials said emissions of key industrial pollutants that contribute to the formation of ozone and fine particulate matter continued to decline in the state, and that power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides decreased 83 percent over the last decade.
Closer to home, more good news. Our air is much cleaner that it was a couple of decades ago. The 2013 Hillsborough Environmental Protection Commission annual report also noted dramatic improvements.

Hillsborough EPC 2013 Annual report on air quality
So how much CO2 do we have?  We should know the starting point in Hillsborough if our Tampa Electric is expected to retool much of their power generation to reduce CO2 levels.  Surely the Hillsborough EPC has tracked CO2 over the the years.

If they have measured CO2 it's not available in the EPC's Air Quality technical reports.

This begs the question about how bad things really are, especially given the improvements in air quality over the last few decades.  Just how clean must it be?  Just how much more expensive will it get? Exactly how will we benefit?

The EPA mandate is not a cap on CO2 emissions, although it has elements for potential inter-state cap and trade.  India, China, and other global emerging economies will not penalize their economic growth by restricting CO2 emissions so CO2 will continue to rise globally despite the EPA mandates. This is only a cap on our personal earnings and the U.S. GDP.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has warned these regulations will cost jobs and reduce disposable income.
The impacts of higher energy costs, fewer jobs, and slower economic growth are seen in lower real disposable income per household. … The loss of annual real disposable income over the 2012-30 period will average over $200, with a peak loss of $367 in 2025. This translates into a shortfall in total disposable income for all U.S. households of $586 billion (in real 2012 dollars) over the next 17 year period 2014-30.
Even Democrats are starting to understand their own vulnerability on the EPA mandate.
Democrats running in conservative-leaning states in Appalachia and other energy-producing areas quickly distanced themselves from the draft rule released Monday by the Environmental Protection Agency....
Even in areas less dominated by coal, vulnerable Democrats criticized Mr. Obama for acting without congressional approval to advance his agenda. They sought to do so carefully to avoid alienating the party's base, which generally supports efforts to combat climate change.
They'll need a lot more than "distancing" to save themselves. How about they focus on their constituents jobs and state's economy?

But then again, there's Barbara Boxer.
"Thank goodness the president refuses to be bullied by those who have their heads in the sand, and whose obstruction is leading us off the climate change cliff," said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.).
Head in the sand?  Sounds like she's got her head up her *ss!

We are all California now.

Not only will this mandate waste your money, it won't actually do anything for global C02 emissions.
And while making electricity creates 40 percent of the greenhouse gases in the U.S., cutting it as Obama proposes will not come close to meeting the global reduction scientists say is necessary to reverse warming. For one thing, the amount of the U.S. cuts would be replaced more than three times over by projected increases in China alone. (Emphasis mine.)
Where will this lead? Clearly more expensive electric bills. Everything else -- food, goods, cost of living, etc. -- that depend on electric power will increase. Electric utilities will likely convert more power generation to natural gas, which will lead to more fracking. Environmentalists will fight that, so we'll have more anti-fracking activists emerge. If the power conversion is not done right, there is an increasing risk of more brown outs and black outs.  If we're lucky, we'll get to watch some interesting internecine battles between the energy state Democrats and the environmental elitist wing of the party.

Yet global CO2 emissions will continue to rise.

We get to pay for it.  All for nothing.

Tuesday, June 3, 2014

Florida TaxWatch off the rails

As an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit taxpayer research institute & government watchdog for more than one third of a century,it is the mission of Florida TaxWatch to provide the citizens of Florida and public officials with high quality, independent research and analysis of issues related to state and local government taxation, expenditures, policies, and programs.
We support that mission, and have found much of Florida TaxWatch's work good and upholding that mission. But they seemed to overlook a few things in their recent report, The Rise of Commuter Rails in Florida (PDF).

The report "reviews" two commuter rail projects in Florida.  The SunRail, just began operating in Central Florida as of May 1, 2014, and All Aboard Florida, a project in development by Florida East Coast Industries (FECI), running from Miami up the east coast, then over to Orlando.

The research appears to be mostly consisted of lifting a few paragraphs from some press releases from the respective projects.

Regarding SunRail, TaxWatch states
A significant amount of public funds has already been allocated to these projects. In order to share tracks and prevent disruption of freight service, the state agreed to pay $432 million to CSX Corporation for the track upgrades and for terminal costs. The state also agreed to pay $66 million for operating costs and maintenance over the first seven years of service.4 In addition to state funds, public funds were provided by all four counties benefited by the system, and the City of Orlando. The federal government provided 50 percent of the funding of Phase I through a federal transit grant.
TaxWatch  then cites some  projections on jobs, economic growth, such as 17,000 construction and permanent jobs, but don't break it out, or quantify job-years, the most realistic measure for infrastructure development projects.  Also cited from the Chamber of Commerce is another $1.7B of new and planned development along the SunRail lines, with out any critical analysis.

SunRail crashes
What's missing regarding their SunRail analysis that will directly impact Florida taxpayers?

  • All Florida taxpayers are paying to operate and maintain SunRail through 2020.
  • Central Florida municipalities must begin paying the O&M starting in 2021.  Not one municipality in the region currently has a long term funding source.
  • The agreement between the state and CSX that indemnifies CSX from an accident even if CSX is at fault, adding more risk to the Florida taxpayer.
  • Actual recent ridership on SunRail, which, after the free rides, is currently running under 4,000 riders per day.  As a comparison, I-4 in Central Florida runs up to 200,000 vehicles per day.
  • The fact that the $432 million paid to CSX to use 32 miles of track is the highest per mile amount ever paid. Some $13.5 million/mile.
  • The support from John Mica and his arm-twisting to wave federal ridership requirements to get federal funds.  Mica's top campaign contributor?  CSX.
The analysis on All Aboard Florida is also missing some key points.
All Aboard Florida would connect Miami, Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, and Orlando upon completion. This proposed commuter rail system will be the first privately-owned, operated, and maintained passenger rail system in the U.S in 50 years. Developed by Florida East Coast Industries (FECI), this system is intended to connect about 9 million residents along the rail line corridor.
First of all, in a conversations with an AAF representative, AAF is NOT a commuter rail going after the commuter market.  They are targeting the tourist market.  Additionally, South Florida already has Tri-Rail, a commuter rail, which is not mentioned in the report.  We note the state of Florida continues to bail out Tri-Rail at the rate of $15 million per year.
Finally, though South Florida’s newest rail line is privately funded, public money will still be needed for a variety of related projects, including local governments bearing the cost of rail crossing upgrades, and the current state budget includes $10 million to establish quiet zones at certain crossings. Essentially, unfunded mandates require cities and counties to pay for the upgrades needed at approximately 320 grade crossings between Miami-Dade and Brevard counties due to higher safety standards resulting from the increased rail traffic.
There is also no mention of the fact that AAF has applied for between $600M to $1.8B in
Federal Railroad Association loans. We are unsure of the actual loan amounts because they have not been made public. Regardless, AAF is not entirely privately-funded, it looks more like a public-private partnership. Additionally, TaxWatch does mention that there are unfunded mandates for upgraded road crossings and quiet zones that local municipalities must find a way to pay.  What will the municipalities do?  They've already started going to the state for more taxpayer money.

All Aboard Florida planned routes

As we've told All Aboard Florida, they would benefit from more transparency on their plans and funding.

Why is Florida TaxWatch rather soft in their analysis?  Could it be their funding and Board of Directors?  For example, The Walt Disney Company is represented on the Board of Directors, and TaxWatch actually cites a Bloomberg article Governor Rick Scott heeding the urgings of Disney. Coincidentally, Tucker/Hall, a Tampa Bay public relations firm formerly in charge of the Greenlight Pinellas campaign, is also on the BoD.  Additionally, a former Disney executive was recently named co-president and COO of All Aboard Florida.

Erstwhile Tampa Tribune rail cheerleader Joe Henderson could not resist writing about Florida TaxWatch against the grain report.  Henderson quotes his brother in mass-transit
“That’s interesting, coming from those guys,” Hillsborough County Commissioner and mass-transit advocate Mark Sharpe said. “I think the reality is starting to engage for all of us. People talk about how expensive rail is, but roads aren’t free, either."
Henderson then states
It’s almost impossible around here to engage skeptics of commuter rail. They have decided it will be a massive government boondoggle where the rich will get richer while the public gets fleeced. Because of that, their standard response to rail is to shout “NO” as loudly and often as possible.
Joe, the fact is that neither you nor the rest of the media are doing their job in reporting the facts.  We've just done more original reporting the one hour to write this blog post than you've done in a year in trying to understand the tradeoffs with rail investment that the media refuses to investigate.  Florida TaxWatch's soft report only adds to the skepticism.

If I can connect the dots in a hour, why can't those that are paid do it in the media or Florida TaxWatch do it?

Monday, June 2, 2014

Hostile Takeover of HART

The May Hillsborough County Transportation Policy Leadership Group (PLG) meeting was held last Wednesday and the Eye was there.  The Tampa Bay Times reported Thursday on the major unanimous vote taken by this group: Hillsborough elected officials approve larger transit role for HART.  The Tribune, it appears, never even reported on the PLG meeting at all.

However, Saturday's Tribune included an editorial Revamped HART would give transportation directions on a subject they never even reported on. That certainly is a way to get their own opinion out without allowing readers to read any "objective" reporting on the subject.


So what really happened at that meeting and what is this restructuring really all about?


The Times reported
County Commissioner Mark Sharpe, who has been advocating for transit change for years, called the plan a "HART transplant" on Twitter. The changes will create a far more robust HART capable of running more buses, taking on larger projects and increasing opportunities for transit-oriented development, he said.
We will differ with Commissioner Sharpe.  This restructuring and repurposing of HART is a "hostile takeover" of the existing sovereign HART board. The PLG voted on this restructuring and repurposing with ZERO public input.  NO public comment was available before the PLG voted.  While the HART board knew of the proposal, this vote was done by the PLG before even allowing discussion and public comment be made before the existing HART board. The PLG has not publicly brought forward any plan of their proposed transportation solutions.  Yet they vote on this new restructured HART governance model before anyone, at least in the public, has seen any plan.  Does this behavior reflect a transplant or a hostile takeover to push a plan the PLG knows about but not the public?

Back to the proposed restructuring and repurposing of HART. County Administrator Mike Merrill stated at the meeting this proposal is recommended because it is the "path of least resistance".  Keeping the two gubernatorial appointees helps the "path of least resistance".  However, these two appointees will be outnumbered 10-2 by elected commissioners and mayors so their influence will be totally diluted.

The proposed restructuring re-purposes HART under a new name, Hillsborough Transportation Authority, to serve a broader transportation mission that supposedly will more highly integrate public mass transit and roadways. Merrill must know about a plan that hasn't been made public yet because he stated that there would be an initial thrust for BRT than "evolve" to rail. We're not sure what kind of BRT he meant. We also heard Mayor Buckhorn say that on rail "we're going to get it done".


Therefore the rationale for re-purposing HART is because HART can receive federal tax dollars for transit projects. We get it. The restructured, politicized HART will be sitting in line to feed at the trough of the dwindling federal gas tax bucket.


But that federal gas tax bucket the federal Highway Trust Fund is bankrupt. We have witnessed how well this fund has been managed over the last decades - pork barrel projects, gas taxes diverted to high cost rail projects and other non-road projects and bridges to nowhere.  No surprises the fund is out of money.  The days of getting large federal grants for transit boondoggles may be over.

According to Merrill, the HART board change can be made without any state level approval and HART already has the appointment powers for elected officials to appoint themselves to the HART Board.  What about the re-purposing of HART?  Can the Board simply appoint themselves, dissolve the old board and then change the charter for the new board?  Is that legal?  Does the public have any say?


The current charter that created HART states it's purpose is for "mass transit" facilities and to service the mass transit needs of Hillsborough County.  We highlight the word NEEDS is used, NOT WANTS.  There is no mention of roads, economic development or transit-oriented development.


HART Charter

The new Mission of the restructured, re-purposed HART will include:
  • Advocacy to FDOT and Federal Government
  • Manage construction of major elements supporting a "spine network" in Key Economic Spaces
  • Develop a more comprehensive (emphasis mine) public transit system
  • Manage an Opportunity Fund to take advantage of Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) through Public-Private Partnerships. 
The elected officials are already very busy and have full plates as it is.

I have been to numerous HART board meetings.  I applaud and know the time and effort the existing board members put into their duties to ensure they have all the right information, ask the right questions and deliberate to make the right decision. Our elected officials are extremely busy with the duties they currently have with their elected office, overseeing huge budgets as well as sitting on numerous other boards and agencies.  The county commissioners also make up the entire Environmental Protection Commission (EPC).  Is it even possible to think that they could have the same focus, time and due diligence needed to manage this new expanded mission?  If they cannot provide the same or higher level of focus and attention as the current Board members do to this expanded mission, the elected officials will rely on others - aides or staff which increases the influence and power of unelected and non-appointed bureaucrats.

Commissioner Sharpe made a somewhat snickering remark at Wednesday's meeting about Philip Hale, the HART CEO who took over after the defeat of the 2010 referendum and just recently retired.  However, it was Hale who righted the ship after the 2010 debacle and he had the vision to implement the successful, cost-effective MetroRapid BRT in less than year and under budget. As a result, HART returned millions of tax dollars to the county.  In comparison, cost overruns for rail projects average 45%.


A buzz word around transit is "choice" riders.

First of all what is a choice rider?  According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:

The mass transportation market—its riders and potential riders—comprises two broad groups, captive riders and choice riders. Captive transit riders must rely on mass transit; they do not have an alternative way to travel for some or all of their trips because an automobile is required but none is available or because they cannot drive or cannot afford an automobile. Choice riders use transit if it provides service superior to that of their principal alternative, usually the automobile (emphasis mine). 
To meet the needs of captive riders, broad coverage of the region, the day, and the week is desired. Choice riders are more likely to consider transit for work trips to dense employment centers during peak periods.
Commissioner Murman asked what will it take to get those "choice" riders and get people out of their cars?  The fact is after all the billions have been spent on transit, it's still a small percentage on average 2-5% who use transit. We like our cars. That's why LA County, that has ever transit mode possible, timed ALL their traffic lights - to get more throughput on their existing roads. 

Here's a recent article from the Tampa Bay Business Journal about our local commute times.
The average commute in Hillsborough County takes 26 minutes. It’s three minutes shorter in Pinellas. (Pasco’s average trip to work is a half hour.)
The important question is how much would it cost to provide transit for "choice" riders because our commute times are reasonable, we don't have density, we do have dispersed work centers and we still must provide service to those riders who need public transit because they do not have ANY other alternative.  The recent survey reflects almost 72% do not use public transit at all.
Survey question:  How often do you take public transit?
Perhaps that's why Commissioner Beckner stated that we need a "cultural shift to get the public to take transit".  Really?  Is a build transit and they will come attitude fiscally responsible when the first priority needs to be our roads? 

The apparent goal of a restructured HART is to go after more tax dollars so the new board made up of almost all elected official will be overseeing a new big bucket of tax dollars, including some "Opportunity Fund" for TOD (development around transit stations). Where are those funds coming from?


Our transportation solutions will now be based on political decisions which may not always be in the best interest of the taxpayers who will be paying. A politicized board rather than a sovereign board serves to enable cronyism and corruption. Will we see the deep pocketed Tampa Bay "rail cartel" gain more influence as they pad the pockets of our politicians? Perhaps the Boards new name should be the "incumbent protection board" as we start to watch campaign monies flowing into the politicians wallets. Is that why instead of eliminating the PTC, this group wants to move the PTC under this new board structure?  The PTC's cronyism can fit right in and then they all can share in the benefits from the taxi company donations.

Every survey indicates the highest priority is our roads and that Hillsborough County has a critical funding gap to maintain our existing road infrastructure.  We don't need a restructured, politicized HART to fix our roads.  We need our elected officials to figure out how we close our road funding gap to fix and maintain our roads NOW.


In addition, HART's 10 year Transportation Development Plan, if funded, DOUBLES our bus service in Hillsborough County. We can double our bus service at a fraction of the cost of the Greenlight Pinellas plan costing billions that supposedly will only improve bus service in Pinellas by 65%.  We don't need a restructured, politicized HART board to improve our bus service.

Disney World in Orlando has the third largest bus fleet in the state, behind Miami-Dade and Duval (Jacksonville) counties. They never continued to build out their monorail.  Disney's monorail has not been expanded in more than 30 years, despite the construction of two additional theme parks and more than a dozen new resorts. Why? Financial reasons. It did not take Disney long to figure out that buses are a much more cost-effective, efficient and flexible way to move lots of people. Here is a Working Paper comparison of bus vs rail from the CATO Institute that confirms what Disney figured out.  We were in Las Vegas a few weeks ago. We saw their double decker bus express routes being heavily used up and down the Strip.  We also saw their bankrupt and costly ($654 million for just 4.4 miles—almost $150 million per mile) monorail running empty.  One of our taxi drivers was telling us about their monorail debacle and that taxpayers may have to bail it out.
Las Vegas double decker bus on the Strip
Merrill did mention a 2016 referendum and he stated this new politicized board needs to be in place by the end of this year to get ready for the referendum.  We'll watch that closely. Any future referendum(s) should be single issue initiatives that stand on their own financial merits, expire in 10 years or less so that taxpayers can decide whether the initiative was successful, implemented what was promised and decide to extend it or not.

The warning signal should be this. When the government takes your tax dollars for comprehensive plans and the "something for everyone" strategy, the results end up costing more and getting less than what was promised.


What happens time and time and time again when politicians get large buckets of money to oversee?


It's ironic that the Tribune editorial stated:

Establishing an accountable governing body would be a key step toward winning voters’ confidence
What happened the last time Hillsborough County Commissioners, the accountable governing body, got a new bucket of tax dollars to manage with our Community Investment tax?  They blew it.  They blew out what was supposed to be a 30 year revenue stream in 12 years.

Credibility and trust will be won when our elected representatives have a Transportation plan focused on MOBILITY and our highest priorities:
  • Fixing our roads first, 
  • Improving our bus service in a fiscally responsible, cost effective manner,
  • Getting rid of the PTC and its burdensome regulations, 
  • Leading the way for autonomous vehicles, 
  • Embracing new technology and free market principles to enable the private sector to launch new services 
  • STOP talking about high cost trains.