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.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
