May 2011 | 1

Stimulus Spending on Infrastucture in FloridaAn Examination of more than $1 Billion in Transportation Expenditures and the Lessons Learned

Collins Center Special Report | May 2011

By Robert T. Dunphy

2 | May 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABOUT THIS REPORT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThanks the Foundation to Promote an Open Society, in partnership

with the Open Society Institute, for providing the resources with which to conduct this study. The author would like to thank the Collins Center for Public Policy staff, especially Leda Perez, Ph.D, for her helpful comments and guidance throughout the researching and writing of this report.

In addition, thanks to the following individuals for their insights:

Southeast Florida – Carla Coleman, ULI; Joe Giulietti, SF RTA; Carlos Goa, Miami-Dade MPO; Greg Stuart, Broward MPO; Stacy Miller , FDOT District 6; Linda Glass-Johnson, FDOT District 4; Lynn Fain, Miami-Dade Transit.

Central Florida – Shelly Lauten, Myregion.org; Jim Sellen, ULI Orlando leader; George Lovett , FDOT District 7; Alex Trauten, METROPLAN Orlando; Phil Laurien, ECFRPC.

Tampa Bay ― Stuart Rogel, Tampa Bay Partnership; Brian Blanchard, FDOT District 7; Bob Clifford, Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority; Scott Collister , FDOT district 7; Steve Seibert, Collins Center for Public Policy.

Jacksonville― Rob Palmer, RPA Group/ ULI District Council; Jeff Sheffield, North Florida TPO ; Brad Thoburn, Jacksonville transit; William Killingsworth, city of Jacksonville; James Ben-nett , FDOT District 2; Florida DOT, Tallahassee, Kathy Neill, David Lee.

Florida Gov. LeRoy Collins’ legacy of uncompromising integrity in government and business continues at the Collins Center for Public Policy. Established in 1988 by distinguished Floridians who envisioned the need for an independent entity to find impartial solutions to controversial problems, the Collins Center is known as a think tank with muddy boots. With offices in Miami, Tallahassee, and Tampa Bay, our mission is to find smart

solutions to important issues facing the people of Florida and the nation. We are independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit and passionately committed to lasting results.

This study is an independent analysis of stimulus spending on transpor-tation infrastructure for Florida’s largest metropolitan regions. It explores the rationale for these investments, with a special focus on how they ad-dress regional development goals and consider disadvantaged communi-ties in their planning and spending.

THE AUTHORRobert Dunphy is a consultant special-

izing in sustainable transportation solutions and the politics of growth. He is also an instructor in the graduate real estate pro-gram at Georgetown University. Mr. Dunphy established the transportation research program at the Urban Land Institute, where he served as a senior resident fellow. He is also an emeritus fellow of the Transporta-tion Research Board. His research interests include smart growth and transportation strategies, transit oriented development, suburban centers, and parking. He serves on the University of California Transportation Center Advisory Committee and the University of Minnesota’s Transportation and Land Use Journal advisory board.

THE COLLINS CENTER

About this Report ...................................................................... 2

About the Collins Center for Public Policy ................................ 2

Acknowledgements ................................................................... 2

About the Author ....................................................................... 2

Executive Summary ................................................................... 3

Introduction ............................................................................... 4

Well-Positioned to Spend................................................. 4

“Shovel-Ready” Limitations ............................................. 5

Stimulus Spending in Florida’s Major Regions .......................... 6

Florida DOT Highway Projects ......................................... 7

MPOs Partner with Others ............................................... 8

Transit Decisions Mostly Local ......................................... 8

Stimulus Spending by Region ................................................... 9

Road Priorities ................................................................ 10

Transit Priorities .............................................................. 11

Shifting Emphasis .......................................................... 12

Rethinking Regional Growth .......................................... 13

Lessons Learned ..................................................................... 14

Conclusion .............................................................................. 18

Appendix Table ........................................................................ 18

Data Sources ........................................................................... 19

Footnotes ................................................................................ 19

Cover photo: A toll road connecting Interstate 4 to the Selmon Expressway in Tampa is partially funded with $105 million in federal stimulus money. Photo courtesy of the Tampa Tribune.

May 2011 | 3

ARRA Spending by Region and Type of Agency Responsible (Millions)

Central Florida South Florida Tampa Bay Jacksonville Total

DOT 27.6 256.7 177.8 129.5 591.6

MPO 42.5 107.5 49.2 23.8 223.0

Transit 31.5 169.5 44.5 20.3 265.8

Total 101.6 533.7 271.5 173.6 1080.4

ExECUTIvE SUMMARy

Of the $1.7 billion received by Florida through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) transportation stimulus package, $1.1 billion accounted for spending in Florida’s major metropolitan regions in South Florida, Tampa Bay, Central Florida and Jacksonville, with the remaining $600 million spent elsewhere. Projects were divided among the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT), local transit operators and the state’s regional Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). The Florida DOT oversaw $592 million in stimulus spending while local transit agencies oversaw $266 million and MPOs another $223 million. About $534 million went to the South Florida region, about $272 million to the Tampa Bay area, roughly $174 million to Jacksonville and nearly $102 million to Central Florida.

By examining these funding decisions and reviewing long-range transportation plans, we can make some key observations:

n Florida’s practice of maintaining its infrastructure made it possible to use most of its stimulus funding for new projects, rather than repairs to existing infrastructure.

n By completing project development through planning, design and, in some cases, land acquisition while awaiting stimulus funds, the Florida DOT was able to begin construction quickly when the funding did arrive.

n Metropolitan Planning Organizations are often too limited in authority and geography to have a regional impact.

n Florida DOT District officials offer the best regional perspective in most instances.

n Integrating land-use decisions with transportation plans is critical because transportation affects growth patterns.

n Although numerous agencies have been charged with serving the transportation disadvantaged, these agencies are widely dispersed and are not serving their intended communities to the degree possible.

4 | May 2011

INTRODUCTION

Well-positioned to spend

Congress passed the federal stimulus program in 2009 to help the nation recover from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. It helped stimulate the stagnant construction industry by addressing needed infrastructure reinvestment. Stimulus grants to Florida for transportation accounted for $1.7 billion in high-way and transit funding:

n $1.347 billion for 680 highway and bridge projects.

n $316 million for 173 transit projects.

n $55 million for 22 airport grants.

Florida’s largest metropolitan areas received $762 million in highway funds, 57 percent of the total highway spending, and $266 million for transit, about 84 percent of the stimulus money dedicated to transit. Roughly half of the $55 million in Federal Aviation Administration airport stimulus funds went to Tampa International and Orlando International.

The stimulus funding in 2009 was welcomed by cash-starved transportation agencies in Florida. An October 2008 review of funding needs in Florida’s metropolitan areas by the University of South Florida’s Center for Urban Transportation Research estimated a statewide 20–year funding shortfall of $62.5 billion, or $3.1 billion per year.1 In addition, Florida’s DOT reduced its 5-year work program by $10 billion. A clear advantage for Florida is that it carefully maintained its transportation facili-ties and was better positioned than other states to spend stimulus

money on new projects. “We have no bridges falling down,” said Bob Clifford, executive director of the Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority. Unlike other states, Florida is required by statute to maintain bridges and roads in top condition. Federal Highway statistics show that two-thirds of Florida’s interstates are rated in the best condition, compared to only one-third of the nation’s interstates as a whole.2 Additionally, the rate of deficient bridges in Florida is half that of the national average.3

May 2011 | 5

INTRODUCTION

To be eligible for stimulus funding, new projects needed to be “shovel ready.” That meant all necessary environmental permits had to be in place, land acquisition completed, and all other agreements executed. James Bennett, the Urban Transportation Development Manager for FDOT District 2, which covers Jack-sonville, said that despite being perennially strapped for funding, “we took steps in advance for right of way, environmental and land acquisition, and took steps to have designers update ‘on-the-shelf plans’ and apply for permits. It was a calculated risk of ex-pending planning budgets if funding for construction did not be-come available, but also a risk if we had not updated plans.” Such planning in the face of financial difficulties prepared District 2 to use the stimulus funding to advance many major road projects. By contrast, many other states had fewer “shovel ready” projects. For transit, however, expansion projects in the state were not as advanced, leaving transit agencies to fund short-term operational improvements rather than major capital projects.

A central theme of the federal stimulus concept is reinvest-ing in the future, but this took a back seat to the need to get the

money into the economy quickly. Structural reforms in federal funding, such as selecting projects with national impacts, were delayed so that the money could be delivered expeditiously. As a result, the federal stimulus allocated funding to state transporta-tion agencies and local transit agencies as separate accounts to be spent on available projects, rather than funding high-value projects that mixed highway and transit funds. The need for rapid project development tended to favor smaller, less controversial, lower-impact road and transit projects rather than larger, more complex developments that could have greater impact on serving travel and shaping development.

This limitation was apparent across the nation, where much of the funding went to short-term improvements rather than long-term investments, according to a study by the federal Govern-ment Accountability Office. The study shows states spent half of the highway funds for pavement improvement, and just 9 percent for new roads and bridges. Similar results were found for transit spending, with 88 percent going to maintain operations, not investments for the long term.4

“Shovel Ready” Limitations

6 | May 2011

Stimulus spending in Florida’s major regionsThe Florida experience differs significantly from those of

other states. A 2009 study by the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity at Ohio State University found one-fourth of the money for highways in Florida was allocated for highway preservation efforts, while three-fourths was spent for new road construction.5 Similarly, Florida DOT data finds that for the estimated $1.1 billion that Florida committed to the major regions, about three times more was spent on major road projects (most of which expanded capacity) than on preservation.

As described in the case studies outlined later in this report, most of these projects are for a range of capacity expansion, increased technology and expanded services such as managed lanes. Although this approach required more time to put in place, bringing criticism of slow implementation, it holds the promise of greater long-term value for the projects. Because there were few major transit expansion projects “on the shelf,” it appears transit stimulus funding focused more on acquiring more buses and improving facilities and equipment than on advancing major new projects.

As previously mentioned, the stimulus program restricted the types of transportation projects that could move forward. It was therefore necessary to establish criteria and responsibility for project selection. Transportation plans are conceived as address-ing many objectives: relieving congestion, promoting economic development, and serving regional growth while protecting the economy and the disadvantaged. However, the short-term com-mitments – half of the funding needed to be committed in 120 days – of the stimulus program allowed little flexibility in proj-ects not already vetted. A total of $1.3 billion in highway funds was distributed to Florida DOT by the Federal Highway Admin-istration. For areas over 200,000 in population, 30 percent of the funding went to projects selected selected by the regional MPOs. The remaining 70 percent of the funding went to the Florida DOT under a statewide flexible funding program, in which FDOT selected projects with input from the 26 MPOs. For the regions studied here, the DOT took the lead role in selecting $592 mil-lion in major highway projects, the MPOs selected $223 million in other road and pedestrian projects and $266 million in transit funding was delegated to local transit authorities.

May 2011 | 7

Florida DOT’s highway projects

STIMULUS SPENDING IN FLORIDA’S MAJOR REGIONS

The DOT chose those projects which:

n Had been deferred by the state.

n Were tied to concurrency where development is being held up (transportation concurrency is required by the state growth management law).6

n Had the potential to generate revenues and jobs.

n Were geographically balanced.

n Provided congestion relief.

n Were located in economically distressed areas (a new requirement, although almost of the state fell into this federal definition).

n Could be completed in 3 years (priority criteria per federal ARRA legislation).

The projects studied here were selected primarily because they were ready to go, they had been deferred in the past and they

were geographically balanced. The federal emphasis on economi-cally distressed areas seemed to have had little impact in Florida, because most of the state meets the federal definition of “disad-vantaged.” While congestion relief was also important, most of the major projects had been designed many years ago for that purpose.

Major Florida DOT stimulus projects Project Cost (Millions)

Description ARRA Funds Total

Widen S.R. 50 to six lanes in Winter Garden in Orange County $18.5 $28.4

Widen S.R. 434 (Maitland Blvd.) to six lanes in Seminole County $4.7 $5.5

Widen Hoagland Blvd. and reconstruct 1.1 miles in Osceola County $4.5 $7.1

Implement electronic tolling on a section of Florida’s Turnpike $22.0 $22.0

Convert I-95 car pool lanes to managed lanes in Miami and Broward County $104.6 $127.6

Widen Interchange of S.R. 826/S.R. 836 in Miami $89.2 $648.2

Widen Dixie Highway (S.R.811), Broward and Palm Beach counties $40.9 $48.4

Toll road connection between the I-4 and Selmon Expressway in Tampa $105.0 $507.9

Reconstruct U.S. 19 into an urban freeway in Pinellas County $48.3 $141.7

Widen U.S. 41 (S.R. 45) to four lanes in Pasco County $14.7 $17.0

Widen U.S. 301 in Sarasota $9.7 $10.7

Construct S.R. 9B, a new four-lane highway in Duval County $76.1 $82.2

Widen S.R. 212 (Beach Blvd.) in Duval County to six lanes $15.2 $17.0

Construct S.R. 23 overpass in Clay County $8.4 $10.2

Widen S.R. 200 (A1A) to four lanes in Nassau County $29.8 $34.0

TOTAL MAJOR PROJECTS $591.6 $1,707.9

In three of these projects, the stimulus funds supported much larger projects. The total cost of the S.R. 826/836 interchange in Miami was $648 million. The toll road connecting I-4 and the Selmon Expressway in Tampa was part of a partnership with a pri-vate consortium with a total cost of $508 million. The U.S. 19 project in Clearwater was part of a total state project costing $142 million. In these projects, federal funds leveraged more than $1 billion in state and private dollars.

The FDOT selected larger projects that benefited regions. For the regions studied in this report, 15 projects accounted for about $592 million in project value.

8 | May 2011

Urban Area Population Area in Square Miles

Population density per square mile

Avg. daily miles driven per capita

Public transit share of commuting

Miami 5,431,000 1,499 3,623 24 3.5%

Tampa/St. Petersburg 2,326,000 1,072 2,170 27 1.2%

Sarasota 673,000 455 1,479 25 .7%

Orlando 1,414,000 716 1,975 31 1.8%

Jacksonville 1,052,000 696 1,512 31 1.2%

MPOS Partner with Others

Transit decisions mostly local

ComparisonsThe chart below shows population estimates and travel indicators for major areas in Florida.

Federal stimulus spending for local transit projects in the major regions amounted to $266 million, about half as much as spent on the Florida DOT’s major road projects. Almost two-thirds ($170 million) of the $266 million was spent in South Florida. About one of every four stimulus dollars spent in the major regions went to transit, from a low of 12 percent of overall stimulus spending in Jacksonville, to almost a third in both the Central and South

Florida regions, and 16 percent in the Tampa Bay region. Because existing transit service is heavily oriented toward the larger cit-ies and low-income travelers, this share represents the principal stimulus commitment to disadvantaged travelers.

Transit funding decisions were made at the local level. This resulted in separate funding distributions to each transit agency and did not allow for a more strategic investment plan, such as a greater emphasis on regional projects like the I-95 Express in Miami-Broward. It also means that disadvantaged communities may have also lost out as a result of some of these strictly local funding decisions. A study of MPO plans by the Center for Urban Transportation Research in Tampa found that transit improve-ments are determined based on revenues available, rather than estimating needs first and then finding a way to pay for them. The transit projects, unlike the highway spending, did not include any significant new capital investments, a consequence of the require-ment to spend the stimulus money quickly, which is difficult with transit projects because of their complexity.

Florida has 26 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), more than any other state. When selecting projects to fund with stimulus money, the larger MPOs turned to smaller entities within individual counties and cities. For example, the Miami-Dade MPO (one of three representing the Miami urbanized area) sub-allocated its funds by population among its cities and counties and let those government entities select the projects. In the Tampa-St. Petersburg portion of the upper Tampa Bay region, represented by three MPOs, each of them – Hillsborough County MPO, Pinellas County MPO, and Pasco County MPO – partnered with FDOT to jointly fund a regionally significant project in their county.

This sort of metropolitan transportation planning divides regions as opposed to uniting them. Economies, labor markets and housing markets function at the regional level; geographical boundaries pose no barrier to commerce, commuting, home buy-ing, shopping or other connections. Yet, as the previous examples illustrate, metropolitan transportation planning in many Florida regions is dispersed among county-level agencies, rather than a single organization. At the same time, local plans tend to focus on local traffic and transit concerns, without addressing the larger regional concern. It is essential that there be a component of transportation planning that provides the road and transit links to serve entire regions.

STIMULUS SPENDING IN FLORIDA’S MAJOR REGIONS

May 2011 | 9

Pensacola

Panama City

Tallahassee

Apalachicola

Jacksonville

St. Augustine

Lake City

Gainesville

Ocala Daytona Beach

OrlandoOrlando

MelbourneLakelandClearwater TampaTampa

St. Petersburg

Bradenton

Port Charoltte

Ft. Myers

Naples

West Palm Beach

Boca RatonDeerfield BeachPompano BeachFort LauderdaleHollywood

Miami BeachMiamiMiami

MarathonKey West

Jacksonville

Stimulus spending by region

Central Florida – The $102 million of federal stimulus funding in the Orlando region is the smallest among the regions studied and the most balanced, with roughly equal amounts for highway expansion, road rehabilitation, and transit. There are only three major road projects, two of which would not be clas-sified as major in other regions. Each appear to be important in advancing an ambitious longer-term transportation plan that sup-ports a new vision for development in Central Florida, one with the potential to be more sustainable, more productive, and more attractive to future residents. The region’s proposed new SunRail commuter rail project is a first step to major transit improve-ments, although it did not receive stimulus funds, a consequence of not being “shovel ready.” (A review of the project by the Governor may eliminate or delay the projected to start). While not part of the stimulus project, another federal program is being used to expand Orlando’s downtown circulator transit to serve a minority community, the Parramore district, part of a broader revitalization project there.

Jacksonville – Four major road projects will add capacity to the east, northwest, west, and south of downtown, while the transit improvements are focused on the existing service area. The new road projects account for six times the investment in transit, which is the lowest share of the major regions surveyed, a consequence not of local choices but rather of federal funding formulas. All of these major projects add capacity in suburban areas beyond the core central area. While seemingly expanding growth potential, they were planned long ago and do not serve areas where development is limited by Florida’s concurrency regulations – one of the criteria used statewide for project selec-tion. “They address existing congestion, and the projects would have been in the five-year Transportation Improvement Program, which includes all approved development,” according to Laurie Kettrell, transportation planning services manager with the city of Jacksonville. Their Transportation Planning Organization, the metropolitan planning organization for the region, acknowledges that the current regional transportation plan has the underlying goal of supporting existing trends in development, which consist primarily of developing the suburban fringe, with little atten-tion given to reinvesting in urban communities. More ambitious growth initiatives are in their infancy.

Tampa Bay – The federal stimulus program in the Tampa Bay region has been concentrated into a few large highway develop-ment projects, an array of transit projects scattered among transit

agencies and road, bridge, and pedestrian/bicycle rehabilitation projects. It occurred concurrently with the region’s evolution to a broader regional view of growth. The three highway develop-ment projects represent critical projects for the jurisdictions and the region as a whole, as well as important statewide connections. They would appear to advance the “connected region” concept of a 2035 long-range transportation plan and contribute to the region’s new vision for sustainable development. The Tampa project also helps solve a problem of truck traffic in an inner-city neighborhood, a beneficial byproduct of this major envestment. The transit projects reinforce existing transit in each of the seven agencies. However, the “shovel ready” rules and the local focus of the seven agencies probably prevented any broader strategy of transit investment. During this period, one major transit initiative failed at the ballot box in Hillsborough Cªounty.

South Florida – Stimulus funding helped some critical highway improvements, while the transit and local road projects were distributed in a less strategic fashion, a consequence of the dispersed nature of transportation planning and lack of an overall regional institution, with the exception of the Florida DOT, whose own districts are actually divided among the three central counties. The big projects should yield long-term benefits to the region, well beyond the short-term jobs that were the primary rationale for this federal program.

10 | May 2011

Road PrioritiesJacksonville – The Florida DOT District’s funding was suf-

ficient for three major projects, but low bids on those projects meant a fourth could be funded. The major project priorities, while established by the Florida DOT, were ones that were also among the top priority projects for the Transportation Planning Organization. The TPO was able to use the distribution of local funding to make sure that “all counties were treated well,” ac-cording to Jeff Sheffield, the TPO’s executive director. These major projects add capacity in four suburban areas with growth potential. “The intention was not to create sprawl,” Sheffield said. “They address existing congestion.”

Central Florida – The Florida DOT worked closely with Metroplan Orlando, but had the lead in setting the road-widening projects through its district office and the central office in Tallahassee. These projects were on important corridors sched-uled for improvements. Unlike other regions, the MPO’s board established an equity criterion for distribution of local project funds according to the population of the three member counties. Because the MPO traditionally emphasizes capacity projects to improve regional traffic and serve growth, many resurfacing projects were not included in the MPO plans, although assur-ances were made to incorporate those projects into long-range transportation improvement programs in order to comply with the stimulus requirements.

Tampa Bay – The decision-making process was divided among the Florida DOT, responsible for big-ticket items worth $178 million, the MPOs and their authority over $49 million in highway resurfacing and pedestrian/bike improvements, and the local transit agencies and their priorities for spending $45 million. Each of the MPOs in the Tampa sub-area partnered with FDOT to jointly fund a regionally significant project in their counties. Hillsborough County agreed to jointly fund the I-4/Selmon Ex-pressway Connector , which was 100 percent designed but stalled for lack of funding. The U.S. 19 project is the key arterial serving Pinellas County and its major cities, and continues a series of im-provements along this important state road corridor. U.S. 41 (S.R. 45) improvements had been continually deferred because of fund-ing cutbacks, so the Pasco County MPO identified this project as a top priority and spent its entire stimulus funding on it.

South Florida – Responsibility for $257 million for five major highway projects rested with the Florida DOT, Districts 6 and 4, and accounted for 70 percent of the combined highway spending in this region. The projects selected represent critical regional needs, especially important given the dispersed nature of met-ropolitan planning into three different MPOs. The S.R. 826/836 (Palmetto/Dolphin freeways) interchange reconstruction will improve a link near the regional core, affecting travel throughout South Florida, and done in partnership with the Miami-Dade Ex-pressway authority, helping leverage an additional $500 million in project costs on top of the $89 million in ARRA funding. Two projects, known as 95 Express Phase ll, will improve regional

travel to downtown Miami and other cities along the north-south spine, and the tolls will also help fund enhanced transit service. This project crosses between the two Florida DOT districts, and it will become part of a larger managed-lane network. The Dixie Highway improvement connects Broward and Palm Beach coun-ties. Finally, the all-electronic toll facility on Florida’s Turnpike implements an “open road tolling” concept, which eliminates the delay and congestion from collecting tolls.

In contrast to the strategic approach of the Florida DOT, the Miami-Dade MPO sub-allocated its $56.2 million funding by a population-based distribution among its 34 cities and unincorpo-rated areas and let these government entities select the projects. This resulted in a large number of relatively small projects. The average resurfacing project in Miami-Dade County had a project cost of a little over $250,000, in contrast to an average of $3 million in Palm Beach County. Broward County considered such an approach, according to Greg Stuart, executive director of the MPO there, with each city getting small amounts that did not add up to much. Instead the MPO decided to make larger investments into fewer projects.

Photo courtesy of the Tampa Tribune

Work began on a road connecting I-4 and the Selmon Expressway in March 2010 and is expected to be completed in 2013.

STIMULUS SPENDING By REGION

May 2011 | 11

Transit PrioritiesTransit agencies tended to report stimulus funding as a single

line item in their budgets. The following analysis was based on reports from agencies, some more accessible than others. Over-all, the stimulus funds appear to have been spent on near-term operational improvements rather than longer-term investments, a consequence of the need to spend the money quickly. Transit investments are often complicated and require a longer lead time.

Jacksonville – The regional transit operator, the Jacksonville Transportation Authority, received $20 million in stimulus funds. The largest items were new buses and improved fare collection equipment, which accounted for about half. The remainder went for a wide range of improvements, including repairs to Jackson-ville’s downtown people mover, facility improvements and some bus service.

Central Florida – Transit received $31.5 million, and it went to the regional transit operator, LYNX, which operates service for the three counties. Over two-thirds of this was spent on vehicle purchases and bus shelter improvements, with the remainder on a variety of smaller items, and $2 million for rural transit service.

Tampa Bay – A total of $45 million in transit funding went to the region, which is served by transit operators for each of the seven counties, although the majority was for Hillsborough Area Rapid Transit in Hillsborough County and the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) in Pinellas County – $15 million each. About half of the funding went for new buses, $5.4 million was used for a GPS tracking system, and the rest for a range of service improvements, facility improvements and passenger ame-

nities. Stimulus grants also went to suburban transit operators. Sarasota and Manatee counties received about $ 5 million apiece, and Pasco got about $1.7 million. Modest amounts went to Citrus and Hernando counties.

South Florida – It received $170 million in transit funding, al-located to the three county transit operators and the South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (SFRTA). The largest share, $75 million, went to Miami Dade Transit, with Broward County Transit and Palm Tran each receiving almost $40 million, and SFRTA receiving $16 million. The money was distributed widely to 28 municipalities in proportion to their populations.

While politically popular, this approach created many small grants, and difficult grant administration for Miami Dade Transit (MDT), which knows the Federal guidelines and regulations, while the smaller municipalities do not. The local governments selected a range of projects, typically bus stop improvements and purchase of trolleys and buses, but MDT was left with the respon-sibility of managing these projects and reporting to the federal agencies, because these smaller agencies were not qualified to handle such project management. Most of the Miami Dade Tran-sit funding was spent on improving and rehabilitating infrastruc-ture for Metrorail and Metromover, $43 million, with $12 million allocated to implementing Bus Rapid Transit on Kendall Drive, a transforming suburban center in South Miami. SFRTA, the only true regional transit agency, offering commuter rail service in South Florida, plans to spend its funds on new locomotives and rail cars to upgrade an aging fleet.

The transportation disadvantaged, according to the Florida Commission for the Trans-portation Disadvantaged, are travelers whose physical or mental disability, income status, or age, make them unable to transport themselves and dependent on others to obtain access to health care, employment, education, shopping, or other life-sustaining activities. They represent a surprisingly large group, as shown in the table below. The Transportation Disadvantaged Commission served 8.9 million one-way trips, at an average cost per trip of $12.90 in Fiscal Year 2007-08. In addition, the Commission reported that other services for the transportation disadvantaged in Florida provided 50.3 million trips to more than 680,000 passengers in the same year, sixty-four percent of these on fixed-route services such as buses and rail systems.

Estimates for different components of the population unable to drive were compiled for the largest urbanized areas in the country, including three in Florida. These are broad-er measures than strictly transportation disadvantaged, and in some cases overlap. However, in aggregate they suggest the relatively high percentage of the population that is unable to drive and dependent on others for transportation –either specialized transportation services or conventional transit service. It is important that metropolitan transportation planning recognize and plan for these populations.1

Transportation DisadvantagedShare of Households in Florida Regions with

some form of transportation limitation

Transportation Limitations

Urbanized Area Percent of Households1

Miami Tampa Orlando

Households without cars 11% 9% 7%

Seniors living alone 11% 11% 7%

Living in poverty 14% 11% 11%

Transportation disabilities 14% 17% 7%

1 Committee on the Role of Public Transportation in Emergency Evacuation, “The Role of Transit in Emergency Evacuation, special report 294”, Transportation Research Board: Washington, D., 2008, Annex 4-1

STIMULUS SPENDING By REGION

12 | May 2011

Shifting EmphasisJacksonville – A disconnect often developed between trans-

portation plans and land use. Projects that added road capacity to support growth often led to more auto-oriented development and increased traffic congestion. The current plan broadens the transportation goals by emphasizing transit. Laurie Kattreh, transportation planning services manager with the city of Jack-sonville, acknowledged that, “today we would not be widening roads, but creating more options for transit and balanced commu-nities where people do not have to drive so much.” In addition, economic development considerations are much more prominent. There is recognition that the impacts of the Port of Jacksonville have benefits to surrounding counties and beyond.

Central Florida – The long-range plan has more emphasis on transit than any previous plan. It shifts the conventional focus from serving ever-expanding suburban fringes to enhanced ser-vice to established areas and urban centers. It calls for expanding the bus fleet, creating bus rapid transit routes, constructing Sun-Rail, a 61-mile North-South commuter rail system, and develop-ing an East-West Light Rail line.

Tampa Bay – Although Hillsborough County voters said no to a local sales tax increase to fund transportation improvements, including light rail, expanded bus service and major road up-

grades, polling shows even opponents of the referendum want the transit improvements, so the challenge is how to pay for them. Communities far away from downtown Tampa are moving ahead, changing local planning regulations to allow increasing densities, pedestrian connections and mixed uses that will support Transit Oriented Development (TOD) once the transit system is actually built.

South Florida –The plans call for a transportation system that emphasizes greater options, reinforces transit and creates places that encourage walking. Even a Florida DOT district secretary has said that building more roads is not the solution, and to many the DOT of the past has been a roads-only agency. The business community sees transit as the spark, so the South Florida Region-al Transportation Authority was created through strong support by the business community, which was able to be a more effec-tive advocate to the legislature than public officials had been. The commuter rail operator called Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority (Tri-Rail) was merged into the South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (SFRTA) in 2003, with a mission to coordinate, develop and implement a viable regional transporta-tion system in South Florida, including the coordination of the existing three transit agencies – Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Transit.

STIMULUS SPENDING By REGION

May 2011 | 13

Rethinking Regional GrowthJacksonville –The projects funded under the stimulus program

are generally consistent with current growth plans. But grow-ing concerns over the unintended consequences of growth led to the convening of a long-term visioning exercise in 2009, Real-ity Check First Coast, at which government, civic, and business leaders looked at growth trends and plans for accommodating the expected doubling of population by 2060 in an area includ-ing seven counties and 27 municipalities. A Region First 2060 group is intended to help develop a growth compact among the participating governments. A new Northeast Florida Regional Transportation Study Commission was initiated to develop a Regional Transportation Authority for the seven counties. Most commission members agreed with the need for economic growth and an expansion of transit. They emphasized the need to protect the agriculture and the environment, in particular the St. Johns River. Finding the right balance was the most common concern. The Transportation Planning Organization introduced an exercise to test an alternative land-use scenario for its impact on transpor-tation projects. It was believed that “the TPO board was ready to explore but not ready to adopt such aggressive planning, so this was an opportunity to plant the seed,” said Jeff Sheffield, execu-tive director. The mood of the public may be ahead of the of-ficials, however. In a survey that asked “what’s the best solution to reducing traffic in north Florida?” there was wide support for improving mass transit (30 percent) and developing communities where people don’t have to drive as much (26 percent), compared to only 28 percent for building new roads.7

Central Florida – The group “Myregion.org” developed a shared community vision for growth in Central Florida. Resi-dents and local leaders identified several principles to guide transportation decisions, including the preservation of open space

and the fostering of distinct, attractive places to live. Noting the impact of the alternative land use identified during the planning process, the MetroPlan Orlando Board developed its 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan.

Tampa Bay – Bob Clifford, executive director of the Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority, said “We cannot continue to sprawl this way. It is unsustainable from an envi-ronmentalist, local governments, and development perspective. This discussion started in transportation and expanded to water, sustainability, and land use under the title ‘One Bay.’” Develop-ment impacts were studied and four potential growth scenarios were created. A 2009 survey found residents soundly rejected the “business as usual” scenario when considering future growth. A plurality of residents support a scenario that focuses on protecting water resources, followed by one that emphasizes compact design along transportation corridors to preserve open space.

South Florida - There is a new organization created to pro-duce a long-range transportation plan for the region, although it focuses primarily on what are considered to be regional links, and lacks implementation. Another group called Southeast Florida 2060 has been established to create a vision for growth, the economy, and the environment within a much broader region, consisting of seven counties along Florida’s Atlantic coast. South Florida is the recipient of a $4 million U.S. Department of Hous-ing and Urban Development Sustainable Communities grant to the South Florida Regional Planning Council which will enable the Planning Council to put in place the regional plan (2060 Southeast Florida Regional Plan for Sustainable Development) and the regional partnerships to advance this agenda.

STIMULUS SPENDING By REGION

14 | May 2011

Lessons learnedAdding a billion dollars in federal funds to Florida’s major

regions with the requirement that it be spent quickly represented a major challenge. This extraordinary circumstance produced stress in what should have been a slow-paced, collaborative and deliberate process. The following thoughts are offered as poten-tial improvements:

Fix it first. Florida takes care of its infrastructure through regular maintenance and timely repairs, despite limited finances. A failure by other states to follow this principle is a rudimentary cause of America’s deteriorating infrastructure. Infrastructure is not “sexy” and calls for maintaining it often fall on deaf ears among officials and a public more interested in building new projects. When political winds change, and there is support for additional funding, having a state highway system in good repair means new funds can go to new projects. An important lesson for Florida, after the stimulus is spent, is to hold to the “fix-it-first” principle – it is a good practice for the long run.

Metropolitan Planning Organizations divide, rather than unite regions. One of the enduring conflicts in transportation policy, as in many other areas of public life, is finding the proper level of governmental action for regional issues. Just as there is tension between the federal government and the states, there is a similar conflict between states and local governments. This issue becomes more complicated because of the interaction between transportation policy and land-use decisions, which are tradition-ally the closely guarded responsibility of local governments. Florida’s experience demonstrates a clear recognition of the need for regional-level action, although the institutions created to do so, the MPOs, are often too limited in authority and geography to have the desired impact. This is especially true in the largest two regions, South Florida and Tampa Bay, where MPOs often function as county-level institutions. The most recent develop-ment has been the Northeast Florida Regional Transportation Study Commission, initiated to develop a Regional Transporta-tion Authority for the Northeast, the only major region not to have one. In the present context, the Florida DOT has the only truly regional perspective, as well as a broader responsibility for travel between Florida’s regions. The selection of infrastructure projects demonstrates how the DOT is able to concentrate on a few, high-impact projects with long-term benefits, while much of the local spending was more widely distributed and directed to smaller projects and maintenance with less of an impact. This may be a short-term expediency, but metropolitan planning needs to emphasize strategic goals for the long run.

While this is an obvious inconsistency, there is no easy answer. There are several good examples in Florida of creating organiza-tions to present such a regional view, but these are overlays to ex-isting MPOs, which may find it difficult to give up responsibility. Another option is to acknowledge the importance of the Florida DOT district officials as key regional players, possibly with new functions. The way in which funding is divided, as seen in this

May 2011 | 15

study, might be a simple answer – find the right mix of local/re-gional versus state funds, and let the organizations use their funds to reach the optimum goals.

Link transit investments to corridor development (and re-development). Transit serves two important roles: for those who have no choice; and for those looking for a choice. The first and foremost is that of a social service to “transit dependents,” those lacking the finances or mobility to drive. This service is expen-sive to provide, costing an average of 87 cents per passenger mile in Miami-Dade and Tampa Bay for transit, and fares must be kept low to serve low-income travelers. Revenues for these two transit operators pay only one-fourth of the operating costs. Transit’s second role is to get drivers out of their cars and help reduce congestion for “choice riders,” those with cars as an alternative. This latter function is playing a more important role in all of the major regions studied here, as communities create transit-oriented guidelines for development projects planned around future transit extensions. This strategic role of transit is difficult for agencies that serve a single county and lack a broader regional view of the resources needed to develop a new transit project. Interestingly, the new commuter rail in Orlando will be run not by the local transit agency, which actually does have a regional service area, but by the Florida DOT for the first seven years.

Many urban regions have ambitious transit dreams. Part of that ambition is rooted in a desire to offer options to their residents and part is rooted in a competitive envy toward new transit projects in Denver, Charlotte and Houston and the belief that a similar project may hold the key to becoming a world-class city and region. However, making transit work also requires a recon-sidering of traditional suburban development plans, the same ones responsible for developing much of Florida since World War II. Perhaps even more surprising than the flowering of interest in public transit has been the wave of civic and business initiatives directed toward finding a new development pattern, one that will serve future Floridians better and avoid some of the unwanted consequences of suburban sprawl.

Recognize a broader transportation role in community building. Nine regions have embarked on some form of regional visioning exercise, covering most of the state and virtually all of its population. Such futurist processes are intended to develop a consensus around a range of future goals involving growth, the economy and the environment. Long-range transportation plan-ning requires this same kind of thoughtful deliberation, but has often been treated as merely an exercise in projecting the location of future residents and jobs; little more than inputs to mathemati-cal travel models. Critics denounce such procedures as “predict and provide” extensions of current trends many communities

LESSONS LEARNED

16 | May 2011

would like to change. In this sense, transportation planners have been cast as involuntary allies in perpetrating the status quo.

The oldest of these regional visions, Central Florida’s “How Shall We Grow?” began 10 years ago. Such visions try to reinvent people’s view of the American Dream, which revolves around a family, a car and a house in the suburbs with a conve-nient drive to work. Fueled by evolving demographics and chang-ing preferences on where it is considered “cool” to live, future development visions will move beyond large suburbs that do not serve workforce housing or the economically disadvantaged. Sprawl, the dominant development pattern for the past half cen-tury, was fueled by deliberate government policy decisions, such as the Interstate Highway System and Federal Housing Admin-istration (FHA) mortgages that steered people away from cities. A more holistic approach will expand the need for transportation choices and ensure new transit projects are supported by strong ridership rather than struggling to survive. The One Bay initiative serves such a role for the Tampa Bay area, as does the Southeast Florida 2060 in South Florida and Region First 2060 for Jackson-ville’s First Coast region.

Each of these regions represents a rethinking of Florida’s traditional reliance on the automobile and an expanded future for transit, walking and bicycling. Each region has ambitious transit plans. While the “love affair with the car” may not be over, citi-zen surveys and a growing number of elected officials are taking a more expansive view of travel options.

Integrate services for the transportation disadvantaged. Much of the stimulus spending on transit is scattered among a wide range of local operators faced with cutting services because of declining revenues. Public transit is but the tip of the iceberg when considering the wide range of transportation services devoted to elderly, low income, and persons with disabilities. Serving the disadvantaged might work better by organizing ser-vices around the needs of users, with funding allocated to public transit providers and social service agencies, and possibly even contracted private services.

Because there is a multitude of transit agencies, critical issues like serving the disadvantaged can get scant attention. However, this study identified a few special examples of regional transpor-tation projects that assist the disadvantaged:

LESSONS LEARNED

May 2011 | 17

nThe Pinellas county MPO conducts an environmen-tal justice demographic analysis with maps showing low-income and minority populations. It produces a “State of the System Report” that tracks the perfor-mance of the transportation system and the long-range plan in serving these populations.

nThe Hillsborough County MPO created a Ride Guide brochure with a comprehensive listing of services that may be of use to the transportation disadvantaged.

nThe City of Orlando received a USDOT Tiger grant to assist in a plan that calls for reinvesting in the Parramore community, a low-income neighbor-hood cut off from downtown by the freeway. The plan offers expanded transit services to support the redevelopment and housing assistance.

nThe Jacksonville Transportation Authority is a part-ner of the Northeast Florida Mobility Coalition, a regional cooperative partnership formed to enhance access to transportation for all persons throughout Northeast Florida, serving elderly, disadvantaged, and persons with disabilities. It brings together state agencies and human service agencies, transporta-tion planning organizations, consumers and com-munity transportation coordinators for each of the seven counties of Northeast Florida.

nOne of the benefits of connecting the I-4 and Sel-mon Expressway is that it will eliminate the intru-sion of truck traffic headed for the Port of Tampa through Ybor City near downtown Tampa. Reme-diating such impacts is a concern to port operators nationwide, and this is one example of finding a successful solution.

LESSONS LEARNED

18 | May 2011

The state’s rejection of a high-speed rail line connecting Orlando and Tampa dominated the headlines in Florida in early 2011. Although that project was not part of the stimulus funding examined in this report, it bears mention. Planning for high-speed rail connecting Tampa, Orlando and Miami has been under way for decades and appeared to be nearing reality when President Obama announced a national high-speed rail program. The U.S. Department of Transportation selected Florida’s Orlando to Tampa project as one of the initial segments, agreeing to fund $2.4 bil-lion of the $2.6 billion cost. However, the project was canceled in February 2011 as one of the first actions of incom-ing Governor Rick Scott, who said he was skeptical of ridership projections and concerned that the state would be responsible for cost overruns. The decision infuriated the project’s suporters, including many politicians and business leaders who argued it would create thousands of jobs, help ease highway congestion and provide better access and conectivity between the state’s largest metro areas for millions of residents and tourists. When completed, they said, it would be a boon to the central Florida economy. They complained the governor based his decision on political ideology rather than fact. Furthermore, a study released by the Florida Department of Transportation after the gover-nor’s decision estimated higher ridership and more profitable operations than previously projected. A New York Times story reported that the project suffered from several flaws: Tampa and Orlando are only 84 miles apart, too close to benefit much from the train’s high speed; and, both cities lack good local transit connections. Would riders opt for a train when they would need a car when they arrived at their destination? In a special session called by then-Governor Charlie Crist in 2009, the state Legislature approved the SunRail project, a commuter train designed to at least partial-ly solve that problem and sealing the eventual selection of Florida as one of the initial federal grants. The high-speed rail project appears to be dead, however, at least for the time being. The SunRail project could be in danger, its future depending on potential reconsideration by Scott.

The Rise and Fall of the Orlando to Tampa High Speed Rail Line

ConclusionThis review of the use of federal stimulus funding for transpor-

tation in Florida’s major regions has found significant differences in approaches for the three primary institutions responsible for ur-ban transportation. On one hand, the Florida DOT emphasized a few strategic major highway expansions in each region, while on the other hand the metropolitan transportation organizations and transit agencies emphasized short-term, low-impact rehabilitation and repair projects.

Part of the challenge in Florida has been the pressure to spend the money quickly, making a task that required holistic planning even more difficult. One of the casualties of this has been transit

funding. While the pressure to spend on “shovel ready” projects is partly to blame for diverting resources from transit, Florida also had challenges with integrative planning. Generally speak-ing, institutions of long-range planning in Florida are narrowly focused on their own missions. Instead, what is needed is a broader vision.

The good news is that this broader, sustainable vision is begin-ning to spread throughout the state. It is important for key federal and state officials to help reinforce this more sustainable view of Florida’s future.

May 2011 | 19

1 Jeff Kramer and Alexander Bond, The 2008 Review of Florida’s MPO Long Range Transportation Plans, The Florida Department of Transportation, October 2008

2 FHWA Highway Statistics, 20093 FHWA, Deficient bridges by state highway system, December 20104 GAO report GAO-10-231, Recovery Act: Status of States’ and Localities’ Use of Funds and Efforts to Ensure Accountability, Government Accountability

Office, Washington, D.C., issued on December 10, 20095 Building Opportunity: A Call for Florida to Assure Transparency, Accountability and Equity in the Use of Economic Recovery Funds KIRWAN

INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF RACE AND ETHNICITY, THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, 20096 “Concurrency” is the Florida term for “adequate public facilities controls,” indicating that facilities need not necessarily be in place at the time of project

approval but that they must be scheduled to become available “concurrently” with demand from the proposed development. Intended to promote better planning, it has done the opposite by preventing development in established locations with pedestrian connections, which because of their greater density and urban locations, tend to be located in areas with greater traffic volumes.

7 2008 North Florida Transportation Survey, cited in “Connecting Florida: Transit and Florida’s Economy”, Urban Land Institute, 2010, page 26

Three major sources were used for this research; Florida DOT’s database of stimulus projects; reports from regions, DOT districts and transit agencies; and interviews with experts from the Florida DOT, metropolitan planning and transit officials, and members of the business and civic communities.

Footnotes

Summary of Stimulus spending by county and project type (millions)Type of Stimulus Project

County Add Capacity Road Rehab Bridge Pedestrian and Bike Transit Traffic Control TotalOrange 18.5 12.3 5.4 31.5 67.7Seminole 5.0 9.9 0.8 4.2 19.9Osceola 4.8 9.0 0.2 14.0Total 28.3 31.2 6.2 4.2 31.5 0.2 101.6Miami-Dade 126.0 44.9 4.0 10.2 74.9 22.0 282.0Broward 125.4 0.5 0.5 39.8 166.2Palm Beach 2.6 24.8 2.7 0.8 38.7 69.6TriRail 16.1 16.1Total 254.0 70.2 6.7 11.5 169.5 22.0 533.9Hillsborough 105.0 0.3 15.2 120.5Pinellas 48.3 1.3 15.4 65.0Pasco 18.2 1.2 4.4 23.8Hernando 2.3 6.6 1.1 0.01 10.0Citrus 9.7 0.5 10.2Manatee 6.3 0.7 0.6 4.6 6.1 18.3Sarasota 9.7 4.6 1.4 3.0 4.9 23.6Total 183.5 27.5 2.1 7.7 44.5 6.1 271.4Duval 91.3 9.4 19.4 120.1Clay 10.4 3.8 0.2 14.4St. Johns 1.4 3.3 0.2 0.6 0.9 6.4Nassau 29.8 2.5 0.4 32.7Total 132.9 19.0 0.2 1.2 20.3 173.6All Regions 598.7 147.9 15.2 24.6 265.8 28.3 1080.5

Cen

tral

Sout

hTa

mpa

Bay

Jack

sonv

ille

APPENDIx TABLE

SOURCES

20 | May 2011

For more information contact:

Thomas M. ArthurDirector of Collins News and Information

727-599-9245

Miami | Tampa Bay | Tallahassee www.CollinsCenter.org