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