Don't fall for funky cost "math"

Opponents of the Hillsborough County transportation referendum have been quoted several times recently on what THEY ESTIMATE the sales surtax will cost them personally. The most recent "estimate" we have seen is $700 per year. This is an outrageous number. How did they come up with it? Well, our best guess is that they took the total amount of revenue expected to be generated each year (about $180 million) and divided it by the total number of households in Hillsborough County (about 454,000). This number still comes up far short of their estimate (less than $400) but that's just the beginning of the trouble with this calculation.

Can you see the problem with their math yet? First of all, not only residents pay sales taxes. Between 15-20% of sales taxes in Hillsborough are paid by non-residents. More importantly, their calculation assumes that everyone in the County spends the same amount of money -- regardless of if you're a family of 1 or 5! This is even more ridiculous given that sales tax in Florida does not apply to food or medicine. So how can we estimate the amount it would cost an average family in Hillsborough County? Luckily for us, this has already been done, and fact-checked! If only our job was always this easy... 

The Hillsborough County MPO estimates - using IRS tax tables that track the amount of sales tax paid by families of different sizes and incomes levels in each state - that a family of average size earning the average income in Hillsborough County would pay about $12 per month ($144 per year). Our friends at Politifact did an excellent job of breaking down the calculation already. An individual making an average income would pay an additional $85 per year or $7 per month.

So using this independently validated method, how realistic is this $700 per year estimate? According to the IRS tax tables, even a family of more than 7 making over $200,000 per year would pay LESS THAN HALF the amount estimated by opponents.

Don't let bogus numbers and funky math scare you into thinking this referendum will bankrupt you, because the facts say it won't.

Heroically Yours,

Mobility Mike and Commuter Carly

Check the FACTS:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040sca.pdf
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2010/jun/18/hillsborough-area-rapid-transit-hart/brochure-estimates-financial-impact-hillsborough-t/

More of the same...

Brian Blair began circulating a press release this week that made many bold claims about Hillsborough's countywide transportation plan--most of them without any factual evidence or grounding in reality. These are all claims we've heard before, but lets run through them again to be sure:

When it comes to light rail, it's the same old arguments: not enough people ride it, it won't reduce congestion, it's failed everywhere, and so on. We've heard it all before, but one thing hasn't changed: the FACTS! We've already shown how high-quality transit limits the number of cars on the road and reduces the amount residents choose to drive and last time we checked, systems that consistently blow ridership projections out of the water aren't typically referred to as failures.

The illusion that all transportation should pay for itself has come back again as well, and the assertion remains absurd. If Mr. Blair had done his homework, he would know that even highways are more heavily subsidized than transit. So why is Blair complaining that transit will (gasp!) receive subsidies? At least bus and rail recoup some money with rider fares. Perhaps he would like to make ALL roads toll-roads?

What about the economy? Every dollar we spend brings $4-$6 in private investment. The tax will attract billions of dollars in investment into our economy, contrary to Blair's claim that the tax will hurt the economy.

We did see one new claim here, that somehow finding a funding source for our transportation needs would cause tax hikes on property and gas. This is by far the most far-out claim we have heard yet, given that approving the referendum should prevent these increases, not cause them.

While we've enjoyed the opportunity to review our earlier rulings, we hope that residents aren't confused by this persistent misinformation.

Heroically Yours,

Mobility Mike and Commuter Carly

Don't let the critics fool you: if you're worried about gas and property taxes you should be FOR the referendum, not against it

The newest rumor circulating about Countywide Transportation is that by approving the referendum, we will see higher gas and property taxes.

This bogus claim is scaring residents into believing that the referendum will set off a cascade of tax increases that no one can afford. The threat of a 5 cent increase in the gas tax has materialized seemingly out of thin air, and those touting this claim offer no facts to back it up. The only rationalization provided for why the referendum would lead to gas and property tax increases is that the sales surtax would not cover the cost of the full project. This is simply not true.

Let's take a look at the facts. HART, the MPO, and the Transportation Taskforce spent years devising a plan based on the projected revenue from the 1% sales surtax, and it will cover the FULL plan. This includes the more than $700 million in road projects, doubling the bus fleet to expand frequency and service area, and the full 46 miles of light rail.

Here are some more facts about the relationship between the referendum and taxes. If we DON'T vote FOR countywide transportation, you can be sure that Hillsborough County residents will have to come up with funding for building and expanding roads through another revenue source. How can we be sure? Because without the revenue that would be generated by the referendum, Hillsborough County will have a $15 billion shortfall in funding for road projects. Either taxes will have to be raised - property or other taxes - or services will have to be cut significantly to address this shortfall sooner or later, and the longer we wait to address our transportation needs, the more expensive it will be to do so. In an economic downturn, materials, labor, and land are much cheaper, making road expansion and other projects less expensive.

One final point about taxes. In the more urban areas of Hillsborough, it is MORE EXPENSIVE to widen roads than it is to invest in buses or light rail. To meet future traffic demand, I-275 from USF to Downtown Tampa would need to be widened to 14 or 16 lanes (sounds like a nightmare to us, we're lucky superheroes can fly) at a cost of more than $2.2 billion. To build light rail along that same corridor would be less than half the cost ($900 million) to move the same or more people. Why? Because it is CHEAPER to invest in light rail than highways once you exceed 8 lanes.

What does all this mean? It means that investing in a comprehensive transportation system is the FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE choice. It also means that if you are worried about seeing higher gas or property taxes, you should be FOR the referendum, not against it.

Heroically Yours,

Mobility Mike and Commuter Carly

Check the FACTS:
http://www.gohart.org/whytransit/financial_plan.pdf
http://www.hillsboroughcounty.org/transtaskforce/
http://www.mpo2035.org/faqs.html

Myth 8: Transit subsidies exceed automobile subsidies or free market competition and privately operated transit is better

The irony of this argument is that the highway advocates, having driven privately owned, tax paying rail transit out of business with massive subsidies to highway construction, now complain that transit needs subsidies to compete. Free market competition for transportation is a good idea in theory, but in order for it to work in practice, several things would have to happen.

First, transit would have to be compensated retroactively for the unfair advantage that highways have enjoyed since the 1920s that destroyed privately owned transit in the first place. Second, a free market demands a level playing field. In the world of transportation, the field could hardly be more uneven. Some local transit critics have claimed that transit has cannibalized highway funding and now accounts for the majority of federal transportation spending. That could not be further from the truth. The table below shows federal transportation expenditures by mode. By far the greatest amount goes to air travel, but you don’t hear the opponents of transit spending arguing against federal spending on air travel. Spending on highways in 2006 was 23 times greater than spending on transit. Clearly, subsidies for roads far outweigh those for transit.
If we really want transit and cars compete fairly, each should have the same subsidy, or no subsidy at all. In the world as it is, with automobiles receiving heavy subsidies in a myriad of ways, transit, to compete, will have to be subsidized as well.

And that's it! We're done (for now).

Heroically yours,

Mobility Mike and Commuter Carly

Check the facts:
U. S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Government Transportation Financial Statistics 2008, available at http://www.bts.gov/publications/government_transportation_financial_statistics/
Weyrich and Lind, Twelve Anti-Transit Myths: A Conservative Critique The Free Congress Foundation, 2001

Myth 7: Rail transit does not spur economic development

This claim is really ironic, since critics of light rail are always touting the benefits of buses, which have no impact whatsoever on development. A rail line is a fixed, high-value asset. High-value in particular because businesses around stations know they can count on the increased pedestrian activity around the stations for retail, and for easy, reliable access for employees. A developer can invest in a new office building near a rail transit line knowing that twenty years from now, the rail line will still be there providing transit service.

In city after city, we have seen this effect. Charlotte experienced $1.87 billion in investment and development along their light rail corridor, which opened in November 2007. In Phoenix, $5.9 billion in private development and $1.5 billion in (non-rail) public development has been generated along the METRO line since 2001. Light rail does stimulate economic development, and as our economy continues to struggle, we could use this boost now more than ever.

Heroically yours,

Mobility Mike and Commuter Carly

Check the facts:
Cambridge Systematics, “Economic Impact of HART: Existing and Future Expansions,” Final Report, July 2010
Weyrich and Lind, Twelve Anti-Transit Myths: A Conservative Critique The Free Congress Foundation, 2001

Myth 6: Rail transit can only serve city centers, but most new jobs are in the suburbs

Rail can and does serve suburbs effectively. This is possible because while some job growth is occurring in the suburbs, it’s not spread out evenly across the map. Instead, this suburban growth is concentrated in specific areas in corridors. In Hillsborough, for example, most growth is along Bruce B. Downs in New Tampa or along SR 60 in Brandon (which is why lines are planned for both of these areas). These high growth corridors can be served effectively by rail.

Portland, Oregon, offers an example. Instead of building a planned freeway to serve the growth in the suburban corridor to the west of the city, it built Westside MAX, an extension of the Light Rail System. Passenger Transport reported on September 25, 2000, Westside MAX's two-year anniversary, that daily ridership on Westside MAX exceeded the 25,200 rides estimated for 2005 after only 17 months of operation and reached 28,200 weekday rides a few months later.

A single Light Rail line can only serve a limited area, but a complete system like the one planned for Hillsborough County that connects major residential areas, including the suburbs, to major employment centers can and will work effectively.

Check the facts:
Weyrich and Lind, Twelve Anti-Transit Myths: A Conservative Critique The Free Congress Foundation, 2001

So far so good, two more to go!

Heroically yours,

Mobility Mike and Commuter Carly

Myth 5: Light rail has been a failure everywhere. The estimated costs always prove too low, and the ridership projections are always too high

When communities throughout the country started re-investing in light rail in the 1980’s, some ridership and cost projections were badly off, because planners had no recent experience on which to base these projections. With time and experience, estimates for light rail ridership and costs have gotten more accurate, with ridership often underestimated, and costs and sometimes construction time overestimated. Light rail critics ignore the progress that has been made and continue citing outdated numbers. So does light rail fail “everywhere?” Let’s look at some examples (data from Weyrich and Lind, 2001 unless otherwise cited):

• In Phoenix, AZ, when their light rail opened in 2001, it was projected to attract 26,000 riders per day, but the number was closer to 33,000 per day (Litman, 2010).
• Salt Lake City's TRAX light rail system began service December 4, 1999 – a year ahead of schedule and under budget. Projected weekday ridership was 14,000 people. Actual weekday ridership early in 2000 ranged from 18,956 to 19,742. Saturday ridership was even higher, reaching 25,621 four months after opening.
• In Denver, their central corridor, which opened in 1994, was above expected ridership projections. When they extended the original light rail line another 8.7 miles it exceeded ridership expectations by almost 30 percent in the first week.
• In the first two years after Portland, Oregon's Westside MAX Light Rail line opened in 1998, average daily ridership was above 71,000, a level not expected until 2005. Prior to the line’s opening, the forecasts for 2005 were criticized as too optimistic.
• In St. Louis, 17,000 daily riders were projected by the end of the first year. One year later, weekday ridership was 44,414 and average Saturday and Sunday ridership was over 50,500. Both the media and some public officials had criticized the initial projections as being “ludicrously high.”
• The first 11 miles of Dallas's 20-light rail system opened on time and within budget. Initial ridership was projected at 15,000; actual ridership in the first month averaged more than 18,000. In 2001, DART was averaging weekday ridership of 42,000.
• The Charlotte LYNX system, which opened in November of 2007, was projected to carry 9,100 riders per day. Actual daily ridership less than two years later was 14,500 (Cambridge Systematics, 2010).

So, light rail failing everywhere? Not by a long shot. Recent systems have been very successful, blowing ridership projections out of the water.

Check the facts:
Cambridge Systematics, “Economic Impact of HART: Existing and Future Expansions,” Final Report, July 2010
Litman, T., Evaluating rail transit criticism, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2010
Weyrich and Lind, Twelve Anti-Transit Myths: A Conservative Critique The Free Congress Foundation, 2001

Heroically yours,

Mobility Mike and Commuter Carly

Myth 4: Rail transit requires excessive land use densities

This myth is used to scare residents in low density areas into believing that rail is doomed to fail… or that it’s part of a conspiracy to turn their once-beloved neighborhood into the next Manhattan. Rail can connect major activity centers like business districts, airports, campuses, shopping malls, and suburban residential areas. Light rail can function efficiently with densities as low as 25 residents (about 10 housing units) per acre, which can be achieved with a combination of single-family and mid-rise multi-family housing (Pushkarev and Zupan 1997). We have seen this in the success of light rail systems in communities with densities similar to – or lower than – our own. The table below lists the densities of other cities compared to the City of Tampa’s density now, and the projected density for 2035. If the densities here are already comparable to those in other communities with rail, clearly “excessive” densities are not required for success.
Let’s make one more point about density. For those who value their suburban or rural community, the best choice you can make to preserve that community is to support light rail. Rail concentrates growth in the urban center, preventing further growth in rural areas and increased density in suburban areas.

Check the facts:
Hillsborough County MPO, http://www.mpo2035.org/faqs.html
Pushkarev and Zupan, Public Transportation & Land Use Policy, A Regional Planning Association Book, Indiana University Press, 1997

Heroically yours,

Mobility Mike and Commuter Carly

Myth 3: Where transit is needed, buses are better than rail because buses are flexible and cost less

For capital costs, this could be true. For example, in HART’s system, 69% of capital expenditures from 2011-2040 will go to light rail, and only 5% will go to buses. Of course, this completely ignores the cost of building and maintaining the roads that buses travel (roads that are also paid for with tax dollars, the money comes from different pockets, but the same pants). However, once light rail is up and running, the track and the train cars are more durable and less expensive to maintain than a fleet of buses and the roads they travel. Again, the HART plan demonstrates this clearly. State of good repair (aka maintenance) for buses accounts for over 7% of the capital budget, while state of good repair for light rail is only 2.5%, almost one third the cost. In part, this is because a rail car can last up to 60 years; a bus can last maybe a quarter of that of that time.

The difference in operating costs is even more dramatic. Buses are significantly more expensive to operate than light rail, and while capital costs are a one-time, up-front investment, operating expenses continue to add up over the lifetime of a system. For Hillsborough’s system, a whopping 82% of the operating budget will go to buses with only 18% going to light rail. The reasons for these differences are many, including the fact that every bus needs one driver, while one driver can pilot a train several cars long. Light rail also runs on electricity, which is cheaper than gasoline (and also means they can someday be powered by cleaner energy sources like wind and solar).

We need these buses, but it’s important to note the irony here. The critics disfavor rail systems stating that they don’t cover their operating costs with farebox revenue while simultaneously supporting buses that have higher operating costs and a lower farebox recovery (Weyrich and Lind, 2001).

What about the so-called benefit of bus flexibility? Opponents use the term “fixed rail” and criticize rail for having tracks that are to move if “population shifts.” They might as well be talking about “fixed roads,” and it is most certainly more expensive and difficult to relocate a 6+-lane freeway than it is to move some tracks. However, we wouldn’t need to move them. One of the advantages of rail, one that is lost when you rely on buses, is the ability to spur development. This is a key purpose of infrastructure, and is the major reason for it’s positive effect on the local economy.

Bus transit has no effect on development, precisely because it may be here today but could just as easily be gone tomorrow. However, when it comes to rail, investors can count on it being there next week, next year, and next decade. Other communities who have invested in light rail systems have reaped these benefits. Charlotte experienced $1.87 billion in investment and development along their light rail corridor. In Phoenix, $5.9 billion in private development and $1.5 billion in (non-rail) public development has been generated along the METRO line since 2001. A bus-only approach loses these benefits, which are much needed in this down economy.

Check the facts:
Cambridge Systematics, “Economic Impact of HART: Existing and Future Expansions,” Final Report, July 2010
HART Rapid Transit Investment Financial Plan, http://www.gohart.org/whytransit/financial_plan.pdf
Weyrich and Lind, Twelve Anti-Transit Myths: A Conservative Critique The Free Congress Foundation, 2001

3 myths down, 5 to go!

Heroically yours,

Mobility Mike and Commuter Carly

Myth 2: Light rail fails to attract new transit riders to reduce automobile travel and congestion

Here again the critics are wrong. While large cities with transit are certainly still congested, it is illogical to argue they would not be MORE congested without their transit systems. Here are the facts that show how transit can and does relieve congestion:

• In 2007, APTA (American Public Transportation Association) found that if transit were unavailable, more than half of rail passengers would travel by automobile.
• Residents of areas with high quality transit drive 23% less, and residents of areas with high quality public transit and mixed land use drive 43% less than elsewhere in the region (see below). Less driving, of course, means less congestion!
• For a specific example, we can look at St. Louis, where MetroLink (their light rail) carried 14.2 million passengers in 1999. About 60% of MetroLink's riders were commuters that would otherwise have taken the highways. Excluding the roughly 25% who had no car available or did not drive, MetroLink is removing about 12,500 cars from St. Louis's rush hour traffic every day.

(Reproduced from Litman, 2010)

Given these facts, how do the critics explain such claims? They choose their words carefully. “Transit” includes both rail and buses. Buses have little effect on congestion because they generally serve transit-dependent populations who are unable to drive and would not add to congestion in the bus’s absence. Ironically, light rail opponents also advocate for a bus-only approach to public transportation when it is needed (see Myth 3) so maybe they aren’t so concerned about reducing congestion after all.

Check the facts:
Litman, T., Evaluating rail transit criticism, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2010
Ohland, G. and Poticha, S., Street Smart: Streetcars and Cities in the Twenty-First Century, Reconnecting America, 2006

Heroically yours,

Mobility Mike and Commuter Carly

Myth 1: Rail transit is outdated and and ridership is declining

What’s to blame for this myth: outdated numbers that the critics continue to rely on. There was a time when ridership was declining, thanks to government subsidies that favored automobile travel, sprawling development and a lack of available high quality transit. Under these conditions it is not surprising that the percentage of total trips made by transit fell dramatically as automobile trips soared.

However, in recent years there has been a dramatic turnaround, and transit ridership has grown steadily to reach its highest level in five decades (see below). Between 1995 and 2009, the U.S. population grew by 15%, automobile use (in vehicle miles traveled) grew 21%, and transit ridership grew by 31%. We can expect this trend to continue, as an aging population, rising fuel prices, increased urbanization and changing consumer preferences (especially among young professionals) are increasing demand for alternative modes and multi-modal development.

(Source: 2010 APTA Public Transportation Fact Book)

So clearly, if transit was a declining industry, it isn't any more. It’s important to note that one of the most important reasons for the turnaround is the spread of high quality transit to more cities, usually as light or commuter rail. Once people have a chance to experience the best of transit, all they want to hear is when they can get more, and these outdated claims fall on deaf ears.

Heroically yours,

Mobility Mike and Commuter Carly

A fact-flinging showdown? Of course, we accept!!

As a super-duo, we've faced our share of challengers. Chief among these are the nation's most vocal transit opponents, some of whom are in town TONIGHT for a rally hosted by the local opponents of Hillsborough County's transportation referendum. They have come bearing some of the most common anti-transit myths, but as your defenders of transportation truth, we're ready for them! Armed with the facts, we're refuting the top 8 myths we expect to hear at tonight's rally, so stay tuned...

Heroically Yours,

Mobility Mike and Commuter Carly

An incomplete cost analysis is worse than no cost analysis

An opinion piece ran in today's Tribune that threw around a lot of numbers and made a lot of negative claims about transportation investment, particularly about light rail. Now, to start off, we have serious concerns over the phrase "transit tax" (25% goes to roads) and the usual 14% misinformation (see our earlier post). Not only that, but including things like fare box revenue and an existing property tax as part of the so called "transit tax" is a bit of a stretch to say the least.

However, our biggest concern is not with the numbers themselves, but rather the false comparison they make to so-called "alternatives." In his analysis, the author paints a biased picture by ignoring important costs and misrepresenting the cost of doing nothing. Here's what he missed:

1. The author claims buses are a better alternative because they are flexible. But it is precisely because of their flexibility that buses fail to encourage high-density development around stations, forgoing the benefit of the $4-6 of private money that is invested for every $1 spent on fixed transportation like light rail.
2. Buses do need to be part of the solution, but the author misleadingly presents his case as if they are a minor or non-existent part of the plan. In fact, buses will account for 82% of operating costs for the system and 32% of overall referendum spending.
3. He completely ignores the real dollar costs of congestion on our roads. Our drivers already waste over $900 each year sitting in traffic, and these costs will only go up if Hillsborough continues to rely on roads alone.
4. He completely omits the cost of road widenings, including land acquisition and construction costs, which exceed the cost of rail after 8 lanes (see info from the MPO: www.mpo2035.org/faqs.html).
5. He fails to take into account the impact of projected population growth (almost 460,000 new residents in the next 15 years), which will put more pressure on roads.
6. He overlooks the fact that roads generate zero revenue and thus are paid for exclusively with public debt, unless he is proposing we make all of our roads toll roads...
7. He completely ignores the environmental cost of continuing to rely exclusively on automobiles and buses.
8. Finally,he completely overlooks the fact that state and federal funds set aside for transit will be spent for whichever communities qualify for the funding, and future generations will incur that debt regardless, and may as well benefit from it.

With so many "oversights" we can't help but find this piece to be deliberately misleading to voters who deserve a complete and accurate picture of the cost of this plan AS WELL AS the cost of NOT enacting this plan.

Heroically yours,

Mobility Mike and Commuter Carly

Check the facts:

http://www.mpo2035.org/faqs.html
http://www.gohart.org/whytransit/financial_plan.pdf

Alternatives? Sure... but not better ones

In a recent article in the local media, an opponent of the Transportation Referendum was quoted as saying "We're not saying there isn't a problem, but I believe there are other alternatives out there." What other alternatives could they mean? Alternative technologies? Alternative funding mechanisms? Let's start with technology.

Fortunately, as part of a comprehensive planning effort, all conceivable alternatives are being considered. In fact, this process is even called an Alternatives Analysis, a step in the process of applying for federal matching funds. This process compares a number of different scenarios to determine which option, by the numbers, performs best in terms of ridership, cost, and economic development potential and best meets the needs of the community. Through this process, HART has considered four options within the study corridor: No Build, Enhanced Bus, Bus Rapid Transit, and Light Rail Transit. No Build is essentially a “do nothing” scenario. Enhanced Bus consists of beefing up the existing bus system without creating dedicated lanes or other enhancements that would require significant investment in infrastructure. The Bus Rapid Transit alternative would use bus only but create dedicated lanes, and the Light Rail alternative would, of course, construct light rail. HART is now in the third phase of this process and according to the numbers, light rail appears to be the best option to meet the needs of our community.

Or maybe by alternatives, they were referring to widening roads. In some of the outer portions of Hillsborough County, widening roads is still the most cost effective approach to dealing with growth and congestion. However, in the central city, this is clearly no longer the case. How can we be sure? How else, the facts!

Existing roadways in the urban center are constrained by neighborhoods, right-of-way costs, and environmental restrictions. These constraints are driving the costs of road expansion through the roof. The current construction along I-275 between downtown and Westshore is adding 4 lanes to a short 4 mile segment… at a cost of $696 million. A transit line can carry more people in a 100 ft right of way than a 6-lane highway (which requires a 300 ft right of way), limiting the costs when compared to roads. The segment of I-275 north of downtown, if expanded to 12 lanes, would cost $2.2 billion (or more) and would still be more than 28% over capacity, suggesting it may need to be expanded to 16 lanes (at even greater cost) to accommodate traffic. In comparison, the cost to construct light rail along that same corridor is estimated at $900 million, less than half the cost for a system that can carry the same or more people!

Clearly, a new light rail system and a supercharged supporting bus system are what we need. How about other ways to fund them?

No other funding option currently available to the County can raise nearly as much revenue while at the same time limiting the affect on the taxpayers. This graph from the MPO shows quite clearly that the sales surtax outperforms other options many times over:

What’s the alternative to these options, raising property taxes? We know no one likes that. It’s not even legally possible to raise property taxes high enough to generate this kind of revenue. If it was, the property tax would still have to be raised by more than 3 mills to generate the same amount of revenue! With the sales surtax, 15-20% of the system will be paid for by tourists, limiting the impact on residents.

So, are there other "alternatives?" Of course! But none that are better than the plan we have now, not according to these numbers.

Heroically Yours,

Mobility Mike and Commuter Carly

Check the facts:

http://www.fta.dot.gov/planning/newstarts/planning_environment_2608.html

http://www.gohartaa.org

http://www.mpo2035.org/faqs.html

Reasonably Available and New Revenue, Hillsborough County MPO, http://www.mpo2035.org/downloads/2035%20Tech%20Memos/Reasonably_Avail_and_New_Revenues_FINAL.pdf

Weyrich, Paul M. and Lind, William S. How Transit Benefits People Who Do Not Ride It: A conservative inquiry, Free Congress Foundation, October, 2003

Struggling ridership? Not according to the facts!

Opponents of the transportation referendum have repeatedly claimed that existing light rail systems are suffering low ridership levels far below those predicted before the systems opened. In a related claim, they have stated that transit ridership is declining throughout the country. These false claims are leading residents to believe that building this system would be a waste.

Mobility Mike and Commuter Carly will not rest until Hillsborough County voters know the truth about facts and stats related to the Transportation Referendum!

Using our super-research skills, we have discovered that in comparable communities such as Charlotte, Salt Lake City, and Phoenix, light rail ridership has significantly exceeded initial projections. In Salt Lake City, ridership on the line serving the University of Utah (a school with 10,000 fewer students than the University of South Florida Tampa campus) is double initial projections. The table below summarizes the projected and actual ridership values for these communities.

System	Projected Ridership	Actual Ridership
Charlotte (11/07)	9,100 per day	14,500 per day (July 2009)
Phoenix (12/08)	26,000 per day	34,809 per day (First year of operation)
Salt Lake City (1999)	41,300 per week	Exceeding by 40%

Nationally, the success story for transit ridership continues. According to the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), transit ridership nearly doubled between 1990 and 2000. In fact, transit ridership has grown faster than highway use. Between 1995 and 2003, trips on public transit in the US increased by 22% while highway use climbed only 18.9%. In 2008, the U.S. experienced record transit ridership despite lower gas prices. These increases were largest for light rail systems, with systems in Baltimore, Minneapolis, Sacramento, New Jersey, Los Angeles, Dallas, Denver, Buffalo, and Memphis all experiencing ridership increases of 13-20%.

Even Hillsborough County has seen increases. HART’s ridership has increased 7% annually since 2003, and last year, HART carried an agency record 13 million riders.

Together, this evidence demonstrates that rather than struggling with ridership, ridership levels are higher than projected and are growing every year.

So... struggling ridership? Not according to these numbers -- not according to the facts!

We will continue to spread the true facts and stats surrounding the Transportation Referendum to Hillsborough County voters! Help us by sharing this post with your friends, family, and co-workers.

Heroically Yours,

-Mobility Mike and Commuter Carly

Check the facts:

http://www.gohart.org/whytransit/economic_impact_of_hart_final_july_2010.pdf

http://www.cfte.org/Building_Communities.pdf

http://passengertransport.apta.com/aptapt/issues/2008-12-15/

http://www.gohart.org/departments/marketing/news/hart_named_best_transit_agency.html

UPDATE: 14% Increase?

UPDATE: Originally, in our relentless pursuit of truth, we informed you that the opponents of the transportation referendum in Hillsborough County were simply misleading voters with their 14% claims. However, we recently learned that this opposition group is claiming not that passing the transportation initiative would increase the sales tax by 14%, but that the referendum would be a "14% increase in the cost of goods and services."

This is beyond misleading -- it is blatantly false. First, there is no sales tax on services, period. Second, as our earlier example shows, the increase in the cost of goods is only 1%, or one penny for each dollar spent. Not only that, but the surtax is not even applied to all goods, since it is not applied to food or medicine!

Mobility Mike and Commuter Carly will not rest while Hillsborough County voters are misled by false information!

14% Tax Increase? We don't think so...

Opponents of the transportation sales surtax referendum in Hillsborough County are claiming the referendum would increase the sales tax by 14%. Because sales tax is measured in 1% increments, this figure is misleading since it may cause residents to believe that if they buy an item, they will pay an additional 14% on their entire purchase when this is certainly not the case. This investment in our community is one percent.

Today, when a parent spends $20 on back to school supplies, they pay $21.40 with the existing sales tax. When the referendum passes, they would pay $21.60, a difference of only 20 cents. Obviously, this is not a 14% increase on the purchase, but rather a one percent increase (or 20 cents on a $20 purchase).

So spread the word, and don't let your friends and family get lost in the spin.

Your defenders of transportation truth,
Mobility Mike and Commuter Carly