Mass-transit referendum in Hillsborough County (Tampa), Florida

[BrainGlutton]

This is a local vote on a local project, but on a topic of national interest. This November, Hillsborough County voters will -- at last, after several thwarted attempts in earlier years to get something like this on the ballot -- get a chance to vote on a one-cent local sales tax to fund several transportation-infrastructure projects, including a light rail system. Also road upgrades and improved bus service, but the light rail is the sexiest part, as these things go, and is getting the most attention. Amtrak already stops here, of course. But at present, the only local rail transit in Hillsborough County is the TECO Line Streetcar, which runs from the downtown Convention Center to Ybor City -- a nice thing for tourists, but it gets no cars off the road.

This comes not long after the Florida High Speed Rail project was finally (after its own numerous setbacks) approved and funded. The first leg, to open in 2015, will run from Tampa to Orlando -- they're planning a big intermodal station in downtown Tampa. Which makes the idea of local light rail timely.

The main organization in favor of the transit tax is Moving Hillsborough Forward. Impressive short video clip on the welcome page. Map of the proposed light-rail system here.

The main organization against is No Tax for Tracks. The website includes purported debunkings of "Ten Transit Myths." What I find most telling of the underlying world-view, however, is this blurb from the welcome page:

The No Tax For Tracks campaign aspires to preserve the American Dream by opposing the anti-suburban polices implied by so called “Smart Growth.” By opposing so called “Smart Growth” the No Tax For Tracks campaign endeavors to preserve the higher quality of life implied by affordable housing, as well promote the higher standard of living made possible when adequate roads reduce congestion and thus improve economic growth.

Ermm . . . guys . . . "suburbia" != "The American Dream." I can understand practical objections to rail transit, it costs too much, not enough people will ride it, etc., all debatable but all sound arguments. But objection on what appears to be ideological grounds, that I do not understand. Yet there seems to be a lot of opposition on ideological grounds -- see Randal O'Toole. Apparently all Libertarians and libertarian-leaning conservatives seem to feel obliged to oppose rail transit and transit-oriented development and New Urbanism in general, as somehow un-American -- as if it were all some kind of encroachment on Liberty, or as if by living in your own detached tract house with a back yard you are doing something to preserve America's Pioneer Spirit. Well, it isn't and you ain't. And it's not as if anyone were talking about bulldozing suburbia anyway. It will still be there after the light rail lines are built, won't it? But there's no good reason why we need any more of it than we have now. (Actually, I expect most suburbs will be abandoned in your lifetime -- but that will be because the cheap imported petroleum on which they depend will run out, not because of any anti-suburban government policy.)

Anyway: If you were a Hillsborough County voter (bonus points if you are one), would you vote for or against this, and why?

[BrainGlutton]

County government page on the referendum.

The referendum has become an issue in a Republican County Commission primary (the incumbent is for it, the challenger is agin it).

[Chronos]

So, let me get this straight: Good roads lead to thriving, all-American suburban communities, so we should invest in roads... Unless they're made out of steel instead of asphalt, in which case we should vehemently oppose them.

Rail is just one more way to connect the suburbs with the metropolis, and the only way that I know of that can be independent of fossil fuels. It'll help the suburbs, not hurt them.

[foolsguinea]

What Chronos said.

I would add that cars add inefficiency & use more energy not so much because of the energy of moving the car but because the space required to park it, which could otherwise be green space or commercial space. Rail lines don't require parking lots larger than the destination at every destination.

[Muffin]

Light rail is the saviour of suburbia, for it makes both detached-housing and commuting more affordable for more people.

[Chronos]

Light rail is the saviour of suburbia, for it makes both detached-housing and commuting more affordable for more people.

Therein, I suspect, lies the problem. If suburbia becomes more affordable, then undesirable people will be able to move out to the suburbs.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Therein, I suspect, lies the problem. If suburbia becomes more affordable, then undesirable people will be able to move out to the suburbs.

It's not just the suburbs. I went to Georgetown University and learned a bit of local history: When the Washington Metro was built, the residents of Georgetown (an upscale historic neighborhood with lots of 19th-Century row houses) opposed and prevented a stop being included anywhere near their neighborhood. (The nearest ones are Dupont Circle and Foggy Bottom-GWU.)

[Really Not All That Bright]

Personally, I think it's going to fail on simple ridership considerations. The number of people who commute between the bay area and Orlando is pretty miniscule.

Now, it's awesome for me, because I can start drinking at Buccaneer games and the UCF-USF derby, if that ever gets back on the schedule, but I can't think of many people who'll be using it on a regular basis.

[Alienhand]

I'm a Hillsborough resident (for anyone looking at a map, I live in Lutz and work in Town 'n' Country). I'm currently sitting squarely on the fence -- even have one testicle on each side. Tampa's transportation system, particularly mass transit, is pitiful and needs improvement but I'm unsure if this is the right plan.

The Tampa area needs a long term transportation plan with mass transit. I'm well aware of the benefits to everyone of mass transit even if someone doesn't use it directly. I haven't fully thought it out yet to give a real answer to why either way (I will before Nov). But as it stands, this plan seems a little too "If you build it, they will come" for me. I may end up voting for the tax increase anyways just because getting a plan started, whether implemented exactly as is or greatly altered, is better than nothing.




As for the Tampa-Orlando rail project, I fail to see where the ridership is going to come from.

[Robot Arm]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

But at present, the only local rail transit in Hillsborough County is the TECO Line Streetcar, which runs from the downtown Convention Center to Ybor City -- a nice thing for tourists, but it gets no cars off the road.

There were transit proposals being floated and debated during the time I lived in Seattle. Rush hour traffic was terrible (probably still is). I still remember one town-hall sort of TV debate. They were taking comments from the audience, and one person said that all the various options were being pitched to the voters with the promise that they would unclog the freeways and everyone could drive to their offices in no time.

Which is ridiculous, of course. Somebody has to actually ride the thing. Judge it by how well it serves the people who use it. It should be better to be on the train laughing at the gridlocked cars than the other way around. If the designers and voters start thinking like that, then it might be worth doing.

[New Deal Democrat]

I like cities and alternatives to automobile transportation. Unfortunately, many cities have high crime rates. If you look at this website
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/fl/tampa/crime/
you will see that Tampa, FL has a crime index of 2. That means that it is safer than 2% of cities.

It is possible to reduce urban crime. Since the 1970s New York has gone from being one of the most frightening cities in the United States to one of the safest big cities. Indeed, it has a crime index of 33. Nevertheless, until cities can find effective means to reduce the crime rate, most Americans will prefer living in suburbs, and they will try to keep urban residents out.

According to FBI, Uniform Crime Reports from 1980 to 2008 the crime rate in the United States declined from 5,950 per 100,000 to 3,6677.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Crime, and particularly urban crime, is not a hopeless problem, but it is a serious problem, and one should consider it when analyzing opposition to efforts to encourage more people to live in cities.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Personally, I think it's going to fail on simple ridership considerations. The number of people who commute between the bay area and Orlando is pretty miniscule.

The stretch of I-4 between Tampa and Orlando is always pretty busy, I can tell you, at practically all hours of the day. Somebody wants to get from here to there.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Alienhand

I'm a Hillsborough resident (for anyone looking at a map, I live in Lutz and work in Town 'n' Country). I'm currently sitting squarely on the fence -- even have one testicle on each side. Tampa's transportation system, particularly mass transit, is pitiful and needs improvement but I'm unsure if this is the right plan.

How would you change it?

[BrainGlutton]

BTW, this plan must be viewed in the context of the Tampa Bay Regional Transportation Authority's long-range plans for the whole eight-county (Citrus, Hernando, Pasco, Pinellas, Hillsborough, Polk, Manatee, Sarasota) area. TBARTA's envisioned Long-Range Regional Network -- pdf map here -- includes a light-rail network across Hillsborough and Pinellas counties; light rail between Bradenton and Sarasota; and rush-hour commuter rail from Tampa all the way to Brooksville, Lakeland, and Bradenton; as well as express bus service and Bus Rapid Transit routes.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

The stretch of I-4 between Tampa and Orlando is always pretty busy, I can tell you, at practically all hours of the day. Somebody wants to get from here to there.

Yes, but that stretch of I-4 doesn't just connect Tampa and Orlando; it connects the east coast with the west. A Tampa-Orlando light rail system isn't going to do much for the people driving to and from Tampa from Jacksonville, Daytona, the Space Coast and so on - or for the people traveling to and from Orlando from Naples, Brooksville, etc.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

I like cities and alternatives to automobile transportation. Unfortunately, many cities have high crime rates. If you look at this website
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/fl/tampa/crime/
you will see that Tampa, FL has a crime index of 2. That means that it is safer than 2% of cities.

That site says Orlando is effectively the most dangerous city in the nation (it got a "1"). I call bullshit.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Yes, but that stretch of I-4 doesn't just connect Tampa and Orlando; it connects the east coast with the west. A Tampa-Orlando light rail system isn't going to do much for the people driving to and from Tampa from Jacksonville, Daytona, the Space Coast and so on - or for the people traveling to and from Orlando from Naples, Brooksville, etc.

Well, Tampa-Orlando is only the first leg. As you'll see here, the next step is to extend HSR to Miami, possibly by way of the Space Coast, possibly not -- two routes are being considered. Once that's done, I expect there will be pressure to extend it north to Jacksonville, and then west to Tallahassee and Pensacola. Then you have the first legs of an East Coast line and a Coast-to-Coast line in place.

Brooksville will eventually have a rail link to Tampa, connecting it to the HSR. I don't know if there are any plans for rail access to Naples. At present, no railroad goes there -- any more; it has a historic railroad depot.

[BrainGlutton]

Here, BTW, is the U.S. High Speed Rail Association's vision for a national HSR network.

[Robot Arm]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Here, BTW, is the U.S. High Speed Rail Association's vision for a national HSR network.

There's a link from that site to a Time magazine article that illustrates my point.

The goal is to create attractive alternatives to long drives and short flights, which would relieve road and air congestion; reduce carbon emissions, highway deaths and dependence on oil from foreign thugs or the blackened Gulf; create jobs; jump-start a new domestic manufacturing industry; and improve the competitiveness and convenience of the U.S. economy.

Beneficial though they are, people need to stop focusing on the side effects. Nobody is going to ride a train in order to make their neighbors' lives better. We're selfish; we will ride a train if it makes our own lives better. First and foremost, it needs to serve the people who use it. The various boosters and proponents need to get people excited about taking the train, not what will happen when everybody else takes the train. If they lose sight of that, they'll wind up creating the biggest white elephant in history.

[Beware of Doug]

I would argue that getting any great number of people excited about taking the train will be the most impossible PR move of the century.

What do people want most in transport? Freedom. And freedom, for almost everyone, equals car. I would think it would take at least a generation without gasoline, or workable alternate fuels, to change thinking on that score.

As for the long-haul routes: no one much likes flying today, but as long as their time is valuable, they'll have to put up with it and they will. The airline lobbyists take every advantage of that. All the anti-rail people have to mention is time and the debate is already half over.

This is just one of those things that will benefit the nation as a whole much more than it will the great run of individuals, and they're going to be very easily manipulated to oppose it.

[Beware of Doug]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Ermm . . . guys . . . "suburbia" != "The American Dream."

Your idealism is touching. The American Dream is whatever the biggest bloc of money says it is. We're too well organized an economy to allow people real choices.

I can understand practical objections to rail transit, it costs too much, not enough people will ride it, etc., all debatable but all sound arguments. But objection on what appears to be ideological grounds, that I do not understand. Yet there seems to be a lot of opposition on ideological grounds -- see Randal O'Toole. Apparently all Libertarians and libertarian-leaning conservatives seem to feel obliged to oppose rail transit and transit-oriented development and New Urbanism in general, as somehow un-American -- as if it were all some kind of encroachment on Liberty, or as if by living in your own detached tract house with a back yard you are doing something to preserve America's Pioneer Spirit. Well, it isn't and you ain't.

Libertarians know that when people are suburbanized, they see themselves as consumers first and citizens second. That they regard as a healthy force against Big Government, which is what results when people bond in communities and start thinking about the common good and social (pshaw!) responsibility.

And it's not as if anyone were talking about bulldozing suburbia anyway. It will still be there after the light rail lines are built, won't it? But there's no good reason why we need any more of it than we have now.

Yes, there is. Housing starts are a leading economic indicator and thus a good in themselves, because they raise the stock market regardless of whether the homes will ever sell. There's no talk of paying the piper or junky mortgage paper or collapsing investment banks. There's only the current fiscal quarter. That is as close as you'll come to the American Dream.

[cckerberos]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

... and then west to Tallahassee and Pensacola.

Why? Would that achieve anything other than dragging the system down financially?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by cckerberos

Why? Would that achieve anything other than dragging the system down financially?

See post #18.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Beware of Doug

This is just one of those things that will benefit the nation as a whole much more than it will the great run of individuals, and they're going to be very easily manipulated to oppose it.

Manipulated by whom?

[smiling bandit]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

See post #18.

You know that's an utterly inadequate answer. HIgh-fives from HSR boosters is no support. You've been called on similar not-actually-useful-cites before.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by cckerberos

Why? Would that achieve anything other than dragging the system down financially?

Actually, extending it to Tallahassee means it will benefit state legislators. Assuming the system isn't going to be profitable, which it probably isn't, it can't hurt to have a few dozen fans in the state house.

[cckerberos]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

See post #18.

I was asking about that FL extension specifically, but fine.

I live in country with a broad HSR network and like HSR. I want the US to have HSR. I'm an easy sell... but that proposed national HSR network has to be one of the worst ideas I've ever heard put forth seriously. Seattle to Boise HSR? Denver to Kansas City HSR? I don't demand that HSR be profitable (although it can be), but it shouldn't be a money pit either.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Er... what's wrong with those routes? They're major cities, and I assume high speed rail can cover those distances at much lower cost than airlines.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by cckerberos

I was asking about that FL extension specifically, but fine.

I live in country with a broad HSR network and like HSR. I want the US to have HSR. I'm an easy sell... but that proposed national HSR network has to be one of the worst ideas I've ever heard put forth seriously. Seattle to Boise HSR? Denver to Kansas City HSR? I don't demand that HSR be profitable (although it can be), but it shouldn't be a money pit either.

Well, that's just a system as "proposed" by an advocacy group.

Here's the vision in the strategic plan formulated by the Federal Railroad Administration in response to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. You'll see that from Orlando to Jacksonville, and Jacksonville to Pensacola, is "Other Passenger Rail Routes," i.e., non-HSR. I just figure, eventually that will be upgraded to HSR. There are always a lot of drivers on I-10 along that route, and it's the way to Mobile and New Orleans.

[Chronos]

As for the long-haul routes: no one much likes flying today, but as long as their time is valuable, they'll have to put up with it and they will. The airline lobbyists take every advantage of that. All the anti-rail people have to mention is time and the debate is already half over.

There are a lot of routes where high-speed rail would be quicker than flying. Sure, the train itself isn't as fast as a plane, but I've been on plenty of flights where we spent more time taxiing and waiting for a takeoff time than in the air. Plus, of course, rail stations will tend to be more conveniently located than airports. And in the "personal benefit" column, coach on any train I've been on has been more comfortable than coach on any plane I've been on.

Er... what's wrong with those routes? They're major cities...

Boise is only a major city in that it's the biggest city in Idaho, a state not noted for being urban. But it'd only just barely make it onto a list of the top 100 cities in the country. Now, Seattle-Portland-San Francisco-Los Angeles, that'd make a lot more sense.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Boise is only a major city in that it's the biggest city in Idaho, a state not noted for being urban. But it'd only just barely make it onto a list of the top 100 cities in the country. Now, Seattle-Portland-San Francisco-Los Angeles, that'd make a lot more sense.

OK, but if there's going to be a HSR line from Salt Lake City to Seattle, no reason it shouldn't stop at Boise.

[cckerberos]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Er... what's wrong with those routes? They're major cities, and I assume high speed rail can cover those distances at much lower cost than airlines.

I chose them because they're very long routes with more or less nothing along the way. In the case of Denver-Kansas City, the route would be the longest HSR route in the world, the longest by far between stations. HSR is slower than flying but usually makes up for that fact because it's not that much slower when all the other time sinks involved in flying are taken into account. With a route as long as Denver-Kansas City that would no longer be true, which would almost certainly cut down on ridership and increase the fare. Also the maintenance for such a long route would be immense.

I just skimmed this proposal (PDF) which includes what I think are much more reasonable suggestions for HSR links in the US based on economic analysis. It proposes Boston-DC, Los Angeles-San Francisco, and Chicago-Minneapolis-Detroit-St. Louis as "phase 1" links for HSR.

[cckerberos]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

OK, but if there's going to be a HSR line from Salt Lake City to Seattle, no reason it shouldn't stop at Boise.

I guess, but why would there be a Salt Lake City to Seattle HSR line? That's 700 miles! It'd be faster and cheaper to fly.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by cckerberos

I guess, but why would there be a Salt Lake City to Seattle HSR line? That's 700 miles! It'd be faster and cheaper to fly.

Well, that's a very long-term, last-stage addition. Every plan puts first priority on the densest urban corridors. Point being, HSR to Boise is always an afterthought.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I guess that depends on whose definition of HSR we're talking about. At 225 mph, I'll take the train. At 125, not so much.

[appleciders]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

OK, but if there's going to be a HSR line from Salt Lake City to Seattle, no reason it shouldn't stop at Boise.

Man, have you ever been on Amtrak?


It's not just that the train is slow- it's that the train stops for fifteen minutes in Minot, North Dakota, and every other tiny burg on the line. Any hypothetical Seattle-Salt Lake run can't stop everywhere, or else you'll lose the benefits of the high-speed rail. If two trains a day make the run from Seattle to Salt Lake, sure as shooting one of them will be an express, and they might both be. Seattle-Boise service might happen every other day, or twice a week; most long distance train routes will be non-stop, or nearly so.

[Chronos]

And if you wanted to connect Salt Lake City to the high-speed network, it looks to me like it'd make more sense to go along I-80 through Reno to San Francisco, rather than along I-84 to Seattle. Or maybe I-15 to Las Vegas, thence to Los Angeles.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by Chronos

And if you wanted to connect Salt Lake City to the high-speed network, it looks to me like it'd make more sense to go along I-80 through Reno to San Francisco, rather than along I-84 to Seattle. Or maybe I-15 to Las Vegas, thence to Los Angeles.

Looking at that map, though, it looks like the addition of the SLC-Boise-Seattle link is to make SLC a rail hub. Otherwise, somebody who wants to go east from Seattle-Vancouver will have to first go south to Sacramento and then east from there. In other words, the rail going to Boise isn't because anybody wants to go to Boise, it's because people want to go to Seattle.

[Mr. Excellent]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

It's not just the suburbs. I went to Georgetown University and learned a bit of local history: When the Washington Metro was built, the residents of Georgetown (an upscale historic neighborhood with lots of 19th-Century row houses) opposed and prevented a stop being included anywhere near their neighborhood. (The nearest ones are Dupont Circle and Foggy Bottom-GWU.)

Nitpick: Rosslyn is closer than Foggy Bottom, I believe.

[Robot Arm]

Originally Posted by Beware of Doug

I would argue that getting any great number of people excited about taking the train will be the most impossible PR move of the century.

"Excited" was a poor choice of words on my part, but I think my point still stands. If the people who develop something like this think their job is to cut carbon emissions and stimulate the manufacturing sector, they'll forget to build something that actually works.

Maybe there's no choice in how they sell it to the public, though. This is up for a vote, and they have to promote as many benefits as they can to as many people as they can. I'd still like to see some emphasis on actually using it; promise people something better than driving their cars.

What do people want most in transport? Freedom.

I've been hearing that for years, and it strikes me as a platitude with no real meaning. I can understand "flexibility" as a motivation for driving (change, plans, stop when you want, stretch your legs), but that's a far cry from "freedom".

Besides which, how about freedom from pumping gas, paying for repairs and maintenance, getting stranded by a flat tire, and finding a place to park. Along with the flexibility, there are burdens involved with driving.

[BrainGlutton]

Getting back to this referendum: There's some concern that Hillsborough Area Rapid Transit has not announced the specific routes/alignments for the first light-rail lines and does not plan to announce them before the election.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Robot Arm

Besides which, how about freedom from pumping gas, paying for repairs and maintenance, getting stranded by a flat tire, and finding a place to park. Along with the flexibility, there are burdens involved with driving.

Not all of which are immediately visible. Air quality, for instance. And, of course, a lot of your tax dollars -- federal, state and local -- go for automobile-related expenses: Building, repairing and maintaining paved streets, roads, highways; putting up signs and signals; cops to patrol for traffic violations; special courts for traffic violations; EMTs and tow trucks to clean up after traffic accidents; examining and licensing every driver; everything government has to do to regulate, or sometimes bail out, the auto industry; and maintenance of the world's most expensive military establishment, the prime unstated mission of which is to make sure America's supply of cheap imported petroleum is never interrupted.

And yet so many think of motoring as an instance of the individual's independence from the state.

[Alienhand]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

How would you change it?

To preface it a little, I don't have an issue with the new shiny sparkly train but with the rest of the plan and partly with the focus on the train.

The first and main issue I have with the proposed plan is that it's basically entirely focused on getting people to downtown. I realize that the experts and local experts in the various necessary fields have looked at the data and that's where they think the needs land. I also realize there is a need to move people downtown. But, if you work anywhere except downtown, taking the bus is not an option. Even if you do work downtown and you need to go somewhere after work, the bus is not an option. That needs to change if anyone except those who absolutely need to are going to use the system. So, for me, it breaks down into an issue of ridership and how many people would actually benefit from the money spent.

Very minor, personal, kinda ranty and not related to my support for the plan: The newer Northwest Transfer Center blows donkey cock. There are no seats in the shade. All the seats are either in the hot boxes or out in the open. It's isolated enough that you can't wander off somewhere to find relief from the heat. Netp@rk, UATC, Yukon and West Tampa transfer centers aren't much better. The proposed stations seem to be on the same plan as Yukon and NWTC. I'd never use the system 9 months a year just because of that.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

County government page on the referendum.

The referendum has become an issue in a Republican County Commission primary (the incumbent is for it, the challenger is agin it).

Aaand pro-transit incumbent Mark Sharpe beats anti- challenger Josh Burgin, 55-45.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Alienhand

To preface it a little, I don't have an issue with the new shiny sparkly train but with the rest of the plan and partly with the focus on the train.

The first and main issue I have with the proposed plan is that it's basically entirely focused on getting people to downtown. I realize that the experts and local experts in the various necessary fields have looked at the data and that's where they think the needs land. I also realize there is a need to move people downtown. But, if you work anywhere except downtown, taking the bus is not an option. Even if you do work downtown and you need to go somewhere after work, the bus is not an option. That needs to change if anyone except those who absolutely need to are going to use the system. So, for me, it breaks down into an issue of ridership and how many people would actually benefit from the money spent.

Here's how I would do it: Elevated light-rail lines running down the medians of the county's most major highways -- Dale Mabry and Hillsborough to start with -- not so much as because those highways would take riders to high-value ultimate destinations (though the Hillsborough line would reach the airport, and the Dale Mabry line would reach Macdill AFB and the Raymond James Stadium), as to connect with a much finer, slower network of streetcar lines running along the next-most-important roads, which do touch nearly every important destination.

North-south streetcar lines:
Westhore-Interbay-Bayshore
Howard Avenue
Nebraska Avenue (reaches downtown)
50th-56th Street (reaches Temple Terrace USF area)

East-West streetcar lines:
Fletcher Avenue
Gunn Highway - Busch Boulevard - Bullard Parkway
Waters Avenue
MLK Boulevard (reaches the airport)
Columbus Drive (reaches the airport)
Kennedy Boulevard (reaches downtown and the airport)

And, eventually, a light-rail line along Gandy Boulevard, starting at Bayshore and leading to Pinellas County, using the abandoned span of the Gandy Bridge -- the "Friendship Trail Bridge" (now closed even to joggers and fishers) -- as a railbed.

[Chronos]

And, eventually, a light-rail line along Gandy Boulevard, starting at Bayshore and leading to Pinellas County, using the abandoned span of the Gandy Bridge -- the "Friendship Trail Bridge" (now closed even to joggers and fishers) -- as a railbed.

If the bridge is currently considered too structurally unsound even for pedestrians, it'd be more trouble than it's worth to renovate it enough to handle trains. You might as well just tear it down and build a new one.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Chronos

If the bridge is currently considered too structurally unsound even for pedestrians, it'd be more trouble than it's worth to renovate it enough to handle trains. You might as well just tear it down and build a new one.

Cost estimates:

In May 2009, the initial estimates were revised:[15]

* $10 Million to retrofit both ends of the bridge ONLY.
* $15 Million to retrofit the entire structure.
* $17 Million to demolish the bridge ONLY.
* $19 Million to demolish and rebuild the bridge.

<snip>

In April 2010, the fate of the bridge was sealed, as both Hillsborough and Pinellas County Commissions voted to demolish the entire structure. The commissions are still proposing ways to commence demolition and a timetable has not yet been set.[17]

I guess they voted to demolish because they see the thing only as a jogging trail. But retrofitting would be cheap at the price if it could be used as a railbed, and save it for joggers too. Just an idea.

[BrainGlutton]

Well, this is interesting . . . This evening I went to a TBARTA presentation on mass transit in the Tampa Bay Area. And at the end of the presenter's engaging talk, as an oh-by-the-way, he offered everyone a "No On 4" leaflet, saying that the proposed Amendment 4 "would be a killer for mass transit." Amendment 4 will be on the state ballot this November; it would require any change to a local comprehensive land-use plan to be approved by the community's voters. (See this thread. I don't see the connection . . . except that he had been touting mass transit as a boost to local property development -- i.e., developers will locate their projects near a light-rail line or BRT (bus rapid transit) route if they have a choice. Thing is, though, he made it sound like Amendment 4 would mean requiring a public vote on every single building permit, which I'm pretty sure is not the case.

The leaflet says at the bottom: "NAIOP" -- the acronym is not explained -- "COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION - TAMPA BAY CHAPTER"; and below that, "Paid political advertisement. Paid for by the Tampa Bay Regional Coalition." Whatever that is; googling turns up nothing.

[E-Sabbath]

Google Sez:

NAIOP
Trade association for developers, owners and investors in industrial, office and related commercial real estate.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by E-Sabbath

Google Sez:

NAIOP
Trade association for developers, owners and investors in industrial, office and related commercial real estate.

Yeah, I tried that too; but the site I found did not explain the acronym. One would expect an "R" in there somewhere, for "Realtors" or "Real Estate."