John Zolna

Local Politics and the Proposed Mass-transit System

Cars idling, air conditioners blasting, music blaring, and drivers ready to go, but traffic is at a halt. At a stoplight? No, just the daily rush-hour traffic in the Tampa Bay area. It is a common problem that faces many urban centers; too many vehicles and not enough roadway. Currently, a few local politicians are trying to figure out solutions to this problem. According to some estimates, it would cost nearly two billion dollars to fix the current interstate roadway situation (Hanson,2). Unfortunately that amount, assuming federal funding is not increased (and not decreased), would take about 20 years to accumulate. Even if that amount could be raised, is that really the best solution? Many environmentalists and urban planners would probably argue no. Hillsborough county is growing at a rapid rate. With thousands of new residents relocating to the region every year, Hillsborough could amass a population of 1,144,600 by 2015 according to government census predictions (Web cite #1, 4/18). It is necessary, then, to formulate a plan that will accommodate this statistic. Simply expanding our current transportation solutions will have catastrophic effects on the environment. More pollution-producing vehicles and land monopolizing roadways would only relieve the human users of this system, the strain on the environment would eventually be too great, leaving us with an entirely new set of problems.

Upon analysis, the solution seems to be simple: reduce the number of vehicles in use. This task, however, will prove difficult as a majority of residents have become accustomed to driving their own vehicles. The County Commissioners of Hillsborough County, along with a slew of other government and special interest agencies are currently undergoing a mobility study and proposal that might help elevate this problem.

It is acknowledged that our current transportation system has significantly affected our society as a whole and this region of the country in particular. It has allowed us to become more mobile than ever, unfortunately claiming air quality and open land spaces as a price. This is why the Hillsborough Planning Commission is advocating a plan to improve the mass-transit system here in Tampa. Currently, HARTline (the local bus fleet) carries 28,000 passengers per day(Web cite #2, 4/10). Simply expanding this operation, however, would prove inadequate in meeting the needs of Tampa's growing population. Thus, the commission has proposed a light-rail train system to serve the Tampa area. The system would run along existing freight tracks and use either diesel self-propelled rail cars or electric cars receiving power from overhead cables. The initial span of the system would only cover about 70 miles, depending mostly on feeder buses to get passengers from their residences to the local stations.

Key supporters of the proposal on the Board of Commissioners include Ed Turanchik and Dottie Berger. Despite their allegiances to opposite parties (Turanchik is a Democrat and Berger a Republican), they seem to have put aside their differences to bring this proposal to Tampa. Turanchik, more than Berger, is actively promoting the plan, al though many in Tampa Bay have yet to hear of the possible rail-system. Turanchik has been making public appearances and doing interviews for the past year, touting the benefits of the transit plan. Often quoted as claiming the cost could be as low as $350 million, Commissioner Turanchik cites successful examples of cities that built similar systems like Portland and Atlanta. Claiming that because the system already has a foundation (the CSX tracks), it can be built more efficiently and cheaper than others around the country.

Despite all the praise for the system, there is no assurance that it will even make it past the board vote to a public referendum. As of 1998, there appears to be a majority for approval, though only Berger and Turanchik seem willing to commit before any final proposal and estimate can be made. Time seems to be the critical factor, since even a vote before the end of the century is not certain. The make-up of the board at the time of the vote will be the key in determining its passage. Berger has almost completed her tenure on the board, and because of term limits, she may not be eligible to retain her position. But she seems to be looking for a way around this technicality by moving from her district 4 east Hillsborough seat to run in a countywide district. If this happens, she will be pitted against state Senator Pat Frank in the next election. The campaign will probably not be a friendly one, as Frank can easily attack Berger's less than conservative spending habits.

Most notably, Berger has advocated the increased sales tax to build Malcolm Glazer a football stadium, supported Bob Thomas (her former boss) in closing Crystal Springs to the public, and has also sided with Tampa General Hospital's president Bruce Seigel in a recommendation to close or sell the public hospital. This unpopular measures, together with her arrogant demeanor on televised board meetings, make it uncertain whether Berger can return to the county commission.

If Frank were to win, her conservative nature would almost assure her dissent in the mass-transit plan. She would then join Commissioners Jan Platt and Chris Hart in voting against the current plan, totaling three of the seven votes. This could pose a public relations problem for Turanchik, if a close majority fights the proposal. Hart's return, however, is not assured either. He will, most likely, face opposition from the Turanchik camp. When asked if he would find someone to run against his transit-opponent, Turanchik denied it but said "If Hart is going to crawl in the gutter, maybe I should find someone to run" (Weekly Planet #47, 14). The proposed transit system is not the only issue these two officials find themselves on opposite sides of, however, as being the largest public project undergone in Hillsborough county, it is a big one.

Though there seems to be resistance to the project on the Board of Commissioners, the most public opposition comes from local non-political groups. Critics, however, believe that the public is being mislead, citing specific examples. Much of the support for the project is being drummed up by claims of successful mass-transit systems elsewhere. Tampa, however, is unlike many urban cities because it lacks a strong central business district and any area of real population density. There is no argument that Tampa, as its population increases, will become denser in its urban infrastructure. But many wonder just how dense it would become since Hillsborough lacks any real land development strategy to curb suburban sprawl.

Suburban sprawl and low density is a problem for the proposal of a mass transit system. In order to draw on an adequate population base, the system would have to connect all areas of the county as well as Hillsborough and Pinellas. But then, the increase in the sytem's size may make its cost unfeasible. Thus, Tampa cannot fairly be compared to other cities like Portland and Atlanta. Besides possessing less than half of either city's population, our needs for a transit system would differ. In Portland, for example, the system is designed to move people from outside the center, to downtown and thus concentrates a majority of the transit traffic in that region. Tampa, however, has only about 28,000 jobs downtown, though three times as many people work in the Westshore area, and almost as many near the I-75 corridor (Web cite #1, 4/18). With no single major destination, a system must be implemented that will accommodate all the user's needs.

Another major problem arises in the prediction of readership itself. Will people really use the system? Obviously people without their own transportation would use the system, but this group is already served by HARTline (albeit poorly). In order to form a successful light-rail system, people will have to want to use it. Would people be willing to give up the freedom of their own vehicles to help the environment? A study of the success of mass transit systems would lead one to conclude no. Despite the relative success of some transit systems in Dallas or San Diego, substantial use of mass transit can only be found in cities that developed it before the widespread use of the automobile. Attracting ridership is difficult, as can be seen in Miami. Often not mentioned by Hillsborough politicians, the metrorail system built in the early 1980's has proved a dismal failure. Despite its relative convenience, residents of Dade county (which is not densely concentrated like Hillsborough) have opted to use their own forms of transportation, leaving the $1.5 billion project running far below capacity. Thus the theory of 'if you build it, they will come' does not hold true when it comes to mass transportation. The ability to independently transport ourselves from one place to another has become ingrained into our modern lifestyle and will not initially be given up at a sacrifice of mobility. Though it is plausible that many area residents would take advantage of the system on occasion, like to get to the airport or a Bucs game, commuter use may not be as successful.

It should, then, be examined on how Hillsborough can get the ridership it needs to make the system viable. One suggestion would be to eliminate the tax breaks for travel expenses incurred in getting to work, or perhaps stopping government subsidies of the auto industry. This, however, may not be drastic enough. It is reported that almost 30% of Florida's drivers do not have the legally required insurance (Hanson,26). These motorists pose a possible threat to other drivers who follow the law and are insured. The solution may be to force this group into riding the system through tougher enforcement of the insurance requirement. With a viable alternative to driving, there would be no reason for citizens to drive without insurance. By shifting this number of people to public transportation, a foundation for ridership can be formed. In order for this strategy to work, however, an increased commitment to enforcing this law by local police would be needed. Though opponents would argue this option cruel and oppressive, driving without insurance is against the law and creating a mass-transit system with encouragement to use it would be more helpful than harmful in supplying them with a lawful alternative.

With the success of mass-transit resting on public support, it is alarming to learn that most area residents are completely unaware of the project. Coverage of this topic has been sporadic and unspecific. Last spring's showing of a possible diesel-powered rail vehicle in Westchase did capture some notoriety, though specific information was only minimally offered. Two of Tampa's local newspapers, the Tampa Tribune and the Weekly Planet, have done a series of stories about the issue, both seeming to take opposite sides in the issue.

The Tampa Tribune seems to be in support of the proposal, though they have published many resident commentaries reflecting readers' pessimism toward the plan. Residents cite fears of committing to an expensive project that might not benefit the city. One commonly held objection is that Tampa is not urban enough. Without any real center to the city, the number of destinations would produce no highly concentrated routes. Another skeptic points out (Tribune, commentary, 3) that Hillsborough county has been unsuccessful in using HARTline in any beneficial capacity, and there is no guarantee that they will be able to manage the rail system with any real success either. Despite these expressed views, though, a poll was conducted by Balducci and Associates of Tampa, which reflects a different view. Paid for through federal and state grants, the poll surveyed 1,000 area residents by phone over one week in December. The results, published in the Tribune (Tribune, Metro,4) revealed resident support for the project. Nine out of ten residents, according to the poll, said they would support a plan that included a rail system, continued road improvements, expanded bus service, and more sidewalks and bike paths. This number, however, dwindled when it came to paying for the improvements. 73% said they would be willing to pay $25 per household/year for the project, an amount that would likely cover only one of the four improvements. When asked if they would be willing to pay $100 per year-a more realistic figure-the percentage dropped to 64%. The question then needs to be asked, "how much will it actually cost?"

The Weekly Planet, an outspoken opponent of the project claims it will cost far more than the $350 million quoted by Ed Turanchik. An independent analysis of consultant's documents and spread sheets reveals the plan will actually cost around $1.1 billion, not including a critical link between downtown and Westshore (Weekly Planet #49,15). With out revealing this figure, Planet editors dismiss the poll results as inaccurate. To confirm their suspicions, they asked Loyd Pettegrew of USF to critique the survey. Pettegrew confirmed the Planets position, by citing the poll consistently omitted relevant information that the respondents needed to answer questions, and that answer categories were muddled to produce the desired results (Weekly Planet #47, 14). It is also important to note that the high percentage of residents supporting the plan supported the entire suggested solution, not specifically the rail plan. The total package of rail, road improvements, and increased bus routes is in access of $4.1 billion. In fact, in non-published results, the poll ranked rail last in order of importance of possible traffic solutions. Why then, did the Tribune excerpt of the poll not reveal this critical statistic?

According to the Weekly Planet, the Tribune could economically benefit from passage of the rail project (Weekly Planet 49, 15). With ownership of two properties where possible stations could be built, the Tribune stands to make a profit on the increased real estate value. It is noted that the Tribune owned these parcels before the proposal, but suggests this ownership has influenced the coverage of the project. The Tribune offered no response to the accusation, though one was invited by the Weekly Planet, and a search of the Trib's databases revealed no internal comment. Despite this accusation about not revealing all the information about the project, there really is no concrete information to give. Rail promoters, including some commissioners, focus only on the benefits and the possible low costs, while rail opponents focus on the high cost estimates and why Tampa is not ready for such a system.

Though whether or not Tampa needs a rail system is debatable, the cost estimate should not be. It is unclear how costs can range form $350 million to $1 billion. Perhaps the answer lies in those projecting the figures (Lave, 3). Analysts for the Atlanta project, a project often used as a positive comparison with Tampa, estimated its costs at less than half of the actual building cost. The question then arises, are these fluctuating costs simply oversights or intentionally misleading. Charles Lave studies the tactics of planners and consultants revealing that this practice is not uncommon. Consultants, according to Lave, often misrepresent the actual cost and projected ridership in order to insure a proposal's passage. Referred to as the 'bait and switch', planners predict high ridership and low costs and after the plan's approval, slowly adjust the figures. In Los Angeles for example, 54,000 passengers were predicted to use the LA Blue Line, the number needed to justify building it. Then during construction, the figure was adjusted to a more realistic level, a level that originally would not have supported the systems need. Later, consultants again lower the estimate to a guaranteed average, in LA the number was 5,000. Finally when the system opens, and the last estimate's prediction is exceeded, the local papers forecast the success of the train. The LA Times headline read 'Blueline ridership higher than expected' (LA Times, A3), causing the public to falsely believe in the systems success, forgetting the original estimate of 54,000. This, however, is not a practice initiated by all planners, but it clearly reveals how easily the public can be manipulated to serve the interests of politicians and corporate consultants.

It is clear, if nothing else, that placing trust in local politicians will not always produce beneficial results for the public. These public servants are often too eager in promoting projects they individually feel will benefit the city as a whole. Elected officials often forget the Tampa is a relatively small city and its resources are limited. The 'keeping up with the Jones' mentality has led the city of Tampa to undergo a number of ill-advised projects. Examples can be seen downtown with the creation of the Florida Aquarium and the Ice Palace. Both beautifully constructed, their extreme cost, and lack of independent financial support has left more of a burden on taxpayers than any benefit received. Now Hillsborough commissioners want the county to undergo an even larger project, the light-rail system. Again, eager to create something of notoriety for the city, the project seems in full swing. The only hitch will be the need to get the publics approval, and money, through a referendum. It will be important for voters to be well educated on the issue, since the spin put on it by supporters clouds the possible risk involved. Though a mass-transit system has brought benefits to Portland, for example, their recent rejection of expanding the system reveals a possible hindsight observation. A lot of money will be invested in the project, so it is only reasonable for voters to expect accurate accounts of what the project will entail. With limited federal dollars, and a large number of cities competing for them, most of the financing will need to come from the local level.

Money for the project will probably come from a suggested sales tax increase. This was the route taken to build a new football stadium, and is often well received by Florida residents. With a high volume of tourism, residents fell they get to share the tax burden with non-resident visitors. Unfortunately, while tourists are unwittingly forced to help, the area residents are the ones forced to constantly pay. To build the transit system in Atlanta, a temporary two year sales tax was created. This tax is still in effect twenty years later. Other options for raising money do exist, though certain groups will undoubtedly fight their passage. An increase on the gasoline tax would inflict the burden on those who choose not to use the system, perhaps persuading them to take advantage of the train. Another option would be to increase the tax on vehicles, especially sport utility vehicles. This would shift the financing to those who's possessions do the most damage to the environment. Though we all have the right to own a car, this benefit harms our surroundings. With increasing population and, thus an increase in the number of vehicles in the area, a viable alternative must be found.

It is not the goal of this essay to persuade readers to support or reject the proposed mass-transit rail system in Hillsborough county. Obviously the issue comes down to more than just cost, or quality of life. This decision will effect future generations and how they will travel around this city. There is no single correct answer. The implementation of a rail system will cost more than anyone thinks, an unfortunate reality proven in other cities. (No example has been found in which the actual cost was less than the estimate.) Politicians and promoters have attempted to cover up some of the unpleasant realities of building this project. These factors, however, do not support the skeptics position either. In a country that wants to be a democracy, it is necessary to provide citizens with all the relevant information, no matter how unpleasant. They, the same body that elected their officials, have the right to make an educated, balanced, and well informed choice about how their money will be spent. There is no guarantee the right decision will be reached, but that is for history, not us to decide.

References and Further Reading

Brennan, Tom. "Commuter Rail System Gets Nod in Poll". Tampa Tribune. 1/24/1998, p. metro, 4.

Hanson, Paul, "In A Jam". Center for Urban Transportation Research: Tampa. p. 1-2, 26.

Lave, Charles. "Spin Control in the Forecasting Business". LRT News, Vol. 6 #1. Washington D.C. May, 1990, p.3-4

Los Angeles Times, Orange County Edition. "Blue Line Ridership Higher Than Expected" 7/13/1990, p. A22.

Sugg, John. "Herding Pigs". Weekly Planet, Vol. 10, #47. 2/19/1998, p.14.

Sugg, John. "Location, Location, Location". Weekly Planet, Vol. 10 #49. 3/5/1998, p.15.

Tampa Tribune, Final Edition, "Let the Voters Decide Whether to Go by Rail, Bus, or Car". 1/18/1998, p. commentary, 3.

Web Cite #1: http//venus.census.gov/cdrom/lookup_doc.html

Web Cite #2: http://www.scild.com/mobility

Back to Mass Transit in Tampa Main Page