Friday, February 5, 2010

I attended the public meeting held jointly by the County government and HART last night at Gaither High School. For those of you thinking of attending one of these meetings next week: the first hour is a chance to look over maps and other materials they've provided. Then they have a brief video about transporation issues, that explains why they are asking for a 1% sales tax increase, and how that money will be spent (75% bus and rail; 25% road and trail improvements). After the video they broke us into two groups to learn more about either transit or non-transit issues. I confess I did not stay until the very end! But I did hear about 30 minutes of the discussion group about transit.

Some of the comments from the public were of the predictable "Don't tax me!" variety. And there were the usual attendees who simply want to gripe about a bad intersection near their home, as well as one fellow who announced he was running for county commissioner and then held the floor with a mini-lecture for a very long time.

But one interesting concern, esp. of interest to planners, did come up in the transit discussion. Many of those in attendance live in the new developments off Dale Mabry highway in the north part of Hillsborough County, close to the border with Pasco. The HART planners explained that they made recommendations for transit improvements based on the Hillsborough county Future Land Use Map (FLUM). But much of the volume on the major roads in that area comes from the many new subdivisions built in across the county line in Pasco County-- and yet the Hillsborough County planning doesn't process doesn't fully consider how much new development Pasco County anticipates in the coming years. This strikes me as a structural problem in much of the planning process: although there is some cooperation between municipalities and counties, much of planning still fails to work at a regional level.

5 comments:

  1. Proof I was there (newspaper account):

    http://www.tampabay.com/news/transportation/masstransit/hillsborough-seeks-public-opinion-on-tax-hike-for-mass-transit-roads/1072209

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm surprised that there wasn't more of a turnout since raising taxes is a hot-button issue for many people. I'm not a fan of the woman who said that Tampa is a hick town trying to pretend it's a big city. Clearly she doesn't realize that our metro area is in the top 25 most populous in the US and hasn't been to downtown Tampa in the past couple decades. We all know that building more roads is not the solution, but it worries me that enough of the general public have the same thoughts as Jeanne Gionetti to keep the referendum from passing.

    ReplyDelete
  3. First, I think that the proposed 1% increase in sales tax for a light-rail system is extremely reasonable, and I hope local voters are able to realize that.

    Also, I took a deeper look at the projects outlined in the roads portion of the proposal, and at first I was a bit perplexed. Every single one of them, with the exception of the widening of Bruce B. Downs, essentially involved a significant expansion of traffic capacity on an extremely peripheral roadway. This didn't make much sense to me, since I felt like it would only allow for increasingly dispersed development, adding to the congestion and current traffic headaches on other arterial roads, and accomplishing little to nothing.

    However, after thinking about it some more, I wonder if the roads targeted in the proposal were meant to drum up support for the tax increase in suburban areas of the county that won't be served by the light-rail system, but could benefit from large-scale road improvements? That's the only thing I could come up with, since the road plans just don't really make sense to me within a planning context otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's interesting that you point out that there was a strong opinion against the tax at the meeting. I attended the same meeting held in New Tampa at Freedom High School and had a very different experience.

    I waited to the very end cause I was really curious as to what people had to say. While expecting a lot of fierce opinion against the tax, I was surprised to find the opposite. Each time someone began to talk, I thought, "Oh no, here comes..." But everyone seemed to be in support of it. In fact, they were asking how they could help push it to referendum. One older gentleman naively asked, "I don't understand - why would anyone not want this to go to referendum?"

    Then, there was a discussion as to why there isn't less of an expansion of Bruce B. Downs and instead more transit. It was somewhat of a role reversal where the public was more idealistic than the planners.

    I was really surprised and left with a warm, fuzzy feeling.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Andy, I think you have a point in noting that the non-transit portion of the tax is somewhat of an appeasement to squeeze the tax through, but I believe most of the non-transit funds are going towards maintenance rather than improvements and expansions.

    ReplyDelete