ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION IN PINELLAS COUNTY Enhancing community spaces through transportation policy.

Emily Fasnacht

Florida Gulf Coast University

Fall 2014

1

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

Florida has experienced massive population growth over the past thirty years.

Many are drawn to the state’s beautiful beaches, warm weather, and low taxes (Morel

2013). However, Florida’s infrastructure has struggled to keep pace with the influx of

new residents; particularly in relation to transportation infrastructure. Beyond new

residents, Florida also welcomes millions of tourists to the Sunshine State every year

that require transportation to and from amusement parks, hotels, restaurants, and

cultural landmarks (Visit Florida 2013). The stress impacting the state’s transportation

infrastructure has led some larger regions to consider creative, alternative options for

residents and tourists alike to get around.

Pinellas County has a long history of public transportation options including bus

service, passenger rail, and trail systems. This paper will discuss the history of these

transportation options as well as evaluate them in their current context and in the

context of future development. Research will include a thorough, multidisciplinary

approach accessing periodicals, peer-reviewed journal articles, and government reports

to shape a perspective of what the future of Pinellas County’s transportation may look

like and suggestions for improvement. The final goal of the paper is to develop a

feasible active transportation comprehensive plan through culture, behavior, social

norms, public policy, program planning, special funds, and revenue sources. It will

also show how Pinellas County’s transportation system has evolved and the many

2

challenges it must overcome for transportation alternatives to be viable options in the

eyes of residents.

NARRATIVE

Passenger Rail

One of the greatest impacts on Pinellas County’s growth was the introduction of

the railroad. From 1887 to 1984, residents had the option of taking a passenger train

service between Tampa, Clearwater, and St. Petersburg as well as throughout central

and southern Florida (The Pinellas County Planning Department 2008). The Orange

Belt Railroad, as it was then called, was extended into Pinellas County thanks to Peter

Demens, a Russian immigrant who named St. Petersburg after his hometown (St.

Petersburg, Russia) (The Pinellas County Planning Department 2008). The Orange Belt

brought development into Pinellas County in the form of tourists and residents who

were attracted to the opportunities in the region and the mild, tropical climate (The

Pinellas County Planning Department 2008). The citrus industry also benefited from

the railroad by allowing growers to transport their products to new markets by land

rather than the traditional shipping by sea (The Pinellas County Planning Department

2008). The 1980s witnessed the end of passenger train service in the County (The

Pinellas County Planning Department 2008). The railroad was no longer profitable or

cost effective to operate due to competition with the automobile and the swelling of

government spending on roads and highways that began with the Roosevelt

3

administration (The Pinellas County Planning Department 2008). The railroad

infrastructure became overgrown or was replaced with public trails to be used

recreationally.

In the beginning of 2010, the White House released a report based on research

conducted by the U.S. Department of Transportation detailing a High-Speed Intercity

Passenger Rail Program (referred to as the SunRail) with $1.25 billion appropriated to

initiate the building of tracks between Tampa and Orlando (US Department of

Transportation 2010). According to the report,

Grants from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) will go

toward the creation of a new high-speed rail corridor that connects Tampa Bay,

Orlando, Miami and other communities in central and south Florida. This region

has experienced significant population growth in recent decades, as well as

increases in the volume of visitors, leading to strains on area roadways and

airports. Currently, the region is almost entirely reliant on automobiles for

transportation between these metro areas, which together have a population of

over 10 million people and account for two of the nation’s 20 largest metro areas.

The new high-speed rail service will provide an attractive and competitive

transportation alternative for residents and visitors in the area. It is estimated

that these investments in high-speed rail will create thousands of jobs throughout

Florida, which has one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation. (US

Department of Transportation 2010)

This massive transportation project was designed to alleviate vehicle congestion on

roadways, improve the transport of people between major metros in Florida, and

promote the tourism industry already flourishing in the state. However, the newly

appointed governor, whose campaign platform was based on Tea Party ideologies, was

not convinced of the benefits of a transportation alternative in Florida. The SunRail

4

project was not a new concept for Governor Scott as he was briefed on many occasions

about the status of its progress and feedback from the public (Florida Department of

Transportation 2011). His sudden rejection of the appropriated federal funds only

months before the scheduled groundbreaking of the rail led many supporters of the

project to believe that he was committing ‘political maneuvering’ (Clemons and McBeth

2009). Scott’s argument for turning down the project was based on perceived overrun

costs and the belief that the benefits of building the SunRail would not outweigh the

costs of maintaining it (Zink 2011). Essentially, he believed it was not a solid

investment in Florida’s future (Zink 2011).

Besides the appropriated federal funds that were set aside for the SunRail

project, a consortium of businesses and local leaders had agreed on investing in and

subsidizing the remaining costs (Florida Department of Transportation 2011). Any

costs that overran those provided by the federal government, businesses, and investors

would be the responsibility of local communities and the state (Florida Department of

Transportation 2011). The potential growth and economic gains associated with a

passenger rail alternative in Pinellas County are endless. In order to improve the

quality of life for residents and tourists in the region, it is essential that citizens and

leaders carefully examine the benefits of investing in alternative transportation

infrastructure such as rail.

5

Bus Service

Public transportation in the form of bus service began in Pinellas County in 1926

with the St. Petersburg Municipal Transit System which provided transportation to

residents in and around the city of St. Petersburg (The Pinellas County Planning

Department 2008). The public transit system serving the central and northern portions

of the County was created by the state legislature in 1970, originally called the Central

Pinellas Transit Authority (CPTA) (The Pinellas County Planning Department 2008).

The CPTA began operations in 1973, but was unified with the St. Petersburg system in

1983 which established the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) (The Pinellas

County Planning Department 2008).

PSTA is funded through a special revenue fund as a district which taxes property

owners through ad valorem taxes (State of Florida 1983). It runs 40 bus routes with 203

transit vehicles serving 45,864 residents daily (PSTA 2014). According to its website,

PSTA’s budget consists of federal and state grants (18%), passenger fares (23%),

advertising revenue (6%), and ad valorem taxes (53%) (PSTA 2014). PSTA’s special act

limits the amount of millage taxed on ad valorem taxes to three quarters of a mill (State

of Florida 1983) which has restricted PSTA’s ability to provide quality transportation

service to the residents and visitors of Pinellas County. Due to limited funding and

increasing demand, PSTA proposed a one cent sales tax to replace the current ad

valorem tax which would increase PSTA’s revenue from $34 million per year to $120 -

6

$130 million per year (Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority 2013). PSTA’s proposal,

Greenlight Pinellas, involved increasing bus service within the County, increasing

regional connections, and the construction of a light rail system connecting St.

Petersburg and Clearwater (Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority 2013).

The Greenlight Pinellas plan was not formulated in isolation. PSTA engaged

thousands of current bus riders, business and community leaders, and residents

through four years of discourse hosting hundreds of meetings and events to represent

and incorporate the residents’ and communities’ interests (Pinellas Suncoast Transit

Authority 2013). PSTA dedicated considerable resources to educating voters on the

potential for the plan.

In the meantime, an opposition group against the Greenlight Pinellas plan, No

Tax for Tracks, sprouted. Its positions on public transit and government programs in

general are rooted in Tea Party ideologies. No Tax for Tracks organizer, Barb Haselden,

argued that Greenlight Pinellas is extravagant government spending, that it hurts the

poor and middle class, that it’s based on false premises and empty promises, and that

it’s a $100 million tax increase (No Tax for Tracks 2014). No Tax for Tracks’ claims are

not based in facts. The poor and middle class would benefit more from improved

transportation options since they are usually the individuals who rely on public transit

the most. It has been noted by scholars that the scarcity of transportation options for

the urban poor (which are disproportionately minorities) results in minimal access to

7

good jobs, essential services such as medical care, and quality shopping establishments

(Dombroski 2005). This lack of transportation also, “isolates low-income communities

from more prosperous areas in other parts of the city and beyond” (Dombroski 2005).

In regards to the tax, the one cent sales tax increase is not equivalent to a $100 million

tax increase. The revenue generated from the sales tax would likely increase PSTA’s

budget by $100 million which is an increase in revenue, not a $100 million tax increase.

The lack of understanding between the disparate definitions of tax and revenue by the

No Tax for Tracks organization is startling. Furthermore, one third of Pinellas County’s

sales tax is paid by tourists and is not applied to essential products such as food,

medicine, or housing (Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority 2013). As a radical political

group, No Tax for Tracks uses language such as extravagant public spending; and false

premises and empty promises to encourage distrust in public agencies such as PSTA

through propaganda promulgation. They also incite fear in residents through their

dissemination of misinformation. The one fact that No Tax for Tracks gets correct is

that a one cent sales tax increase would make Pinellas County’s sales tax the highest in

the state (No Tax for Tracks 2014) albeit by one half percent.

A viable transportation improvement plan that was developed over four years

with inclusion of all stakeholders has become a political target for Tea Party ideologues

who consider any government project that does not benefit them directly a threat to

8

their freedom. It is likely that political obstacles involving public improvement projects

and Tea Partiers will continue into the near future.

Trails

In 1980, Pinellas County’s home rule charter was approved which enabled the

County government to submit matters of local interest directly to the voters without

asking the state legislature for permission (The Pinellas County Planning Department

2008). The County government did just that in 1989 when it requested from voters a

one penny sales tax (Penny for Pinellas) to fund infrastructure projects such as road

improvements, jail facilities, parks, environmental lands, and the Pinellas Trail (The

Pinellas County Planning Department 2008). The Pinellas Trail was created with the

abandoned railroad track infrastructure from the former passenger rail that was

disassembled in 1984 (The Pinellas County Planning Department 2008). The now 47-

mile long linear park connects communities from North to South Pinellas for

recreational activities and/or alternative transportation facilities.

The success of the Pinellas Trail has led to other trail projects across the Tampa

Bay region and the state including Florida’s Office of Recreation and Parks’ Coast to

Coast Connector project linking communities between St. Petersburg and Titusville

allowing residents and visitors to explore Central Florida by bicycle or foot (Florida

Department of Environmental Protection 2013). According to the Coast to Coast

Connector literature, the economic impact of and public demand for trails are

9

significant (Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2013). The literature cites

the case of Dunedin where “private business occupancy rates increased from 30% to

nearly 100% following the establishment of the Pinellas Trail” (Florida Department of

Environmental Protection 2013). Ecological, social, and economic benefits are derived

from trails. They help to maintain the health of ecosystems and provide a network for

residents to access significant community hubs and public recreational facilities.

Besides the evident benefits inherent in trails as recreational amenities, the

inclusion of them as a feasible transportation alternative enhances healthy lifestyles and

reduces vehicle emissions. Jayajit Chakraborty’s study on the environmental and health

impacts of air pollution caused by high traffic roadways found that neighborhoods

characterized by low home ownership and higher proportions of African Americans

and Hispanics were disproportionately affected by the air pollutants and subsequent

medical conditions caused by heavy exposure to car emissions (Chakraborty 2009).

Increasing the use of trails as a realistic transportation alternative would reduce vehicle

emissions and improve the health of those using the trail and those enduring the

chronic medical conditions associated with air pollution. Furthermore, trails as a

transportation alternative removes the discrimination inherent in the geospatial context

of high traffic roadways and minority neighborhoods.

It has been suggested that active commuting (walking or biking) may be the

solution to the current obesity epidemic in North America (Shephard 2008). Obesity in

10

the United States contributes to millions of dollars in medical costs and hospital bills for

conditions that could have been prevented by even minimal exercise routines

(Shephard 2008). Promoting active commuting through community trails and bicycle

friendly routes could save taxpayers billions in healthcare costs and improve the quality

of life for citizens within the County and across the country. Active commuting is

another alternative whose benefits are evident, but is avoided in favor of a personal

vehicle. Deciphering why residents choose to drive rather than walk or bike will

support future alternative transportation efforts.

ANALYSIS

Ideology of Political Extremism

Many terms have been coined to describe a growing trend of minimal

governance attitudes over responsible governance in general. Some refer to this

movement as the Tea Party or the Patriot movement (Potok 2012) whereas others refer

to it by the names of the wealthiest who back its beliefs, the Koch brothers (Graves

2014). Regardless of what it’s called, the ideology behind the beliefs is the same: less is

more in terms of government power and authority. This ideology is what drives the

enthusiasm behind the No Tax for Tracks supporters and other far-right radical political

groups.

The Patriot movement first emerged in 1994 as a response to violent government

repression of dissident groups such as with Waco, Texas, along with anger at gun

11

control and the Democratic Clinton Administration (Potok 2012). The movement

peaked in 1996, a year after the Oklahoma City bombing, and again in 2008 just as the

economy went south with the subprime collapse and as Barack Obama appeared on the

political scene as the Democratic nominee and, ultimately, the president-elect (Potok

2012). The movement tends to rise and fall with variations in perceived threats to

freedom and rights. The Southern Poverty Law Center has noted that these perceived

threats are directly associated with Democratic Presidential Administrations (see Figure

1) (Potok 2012).

Figure 1: The Patriot Movement

12

The less is more government concept has become so established that it is directly

impacting programs that are designed to positively affect communities as a whole, such

as Greenlight Pinellas.

The No Tax for Tracks political organization is one of the groups who reinforce

patriot-type discourse. Their propaganda utilizes the language of political extremism to

spread fear of government overreach and corruption in every aspect of public affairs

including transportation. Some authors argue that this political extremism on the right

has developed over decades of conservative leaders failing to follow through on

conservative promises related to government taxing and spending (Gerson and Wehner

2014). Gerson and Wehner suggest that “Particularly among libertarians and some of

those conservatives who identify with the Tea Party movement, government overreach

has found its mirror image in fierce anti-government fervor” [emphasis retained]

(Gerson and Wehner 2014). Since the 1980s, each wave of conservative leadership has

begun with bold rhetoric about cutting government, rolling back regulations, and

shrinking the welfare state, but each has ended with the government having grown

considerably bigger (Glastris 2012). One author argues that this failure of the GOP to

shrink government when it has power is precisely what motivates the anger of the Tea

Party base – a force that still exhibits an amazing ability to lead the Republican Party by

the nose (Glastris 2012).

13

Many Tea Party ideologues promote the concept of getting back to what the

founding fathers intended the nation to be. However, researchers suggest that the

Constitution and the founding fathers did not simply create limits on government; they

created a strong if bounded central government (Gerson and Wehner 2014). James

Madison, Alexander Hamilton, James Wilson, George Washington, and the other

constitutionalists all acknowledged the necessity for a national government that would

have the ability to adapt as necessary to meet citizens’ needs as those needs were

expressed through representative government (Gerson and Wehner 2014). Unlike the

founding fathers’ view of government, Tea Partiers hold a rhetorical zeal and

indiscipline in which every reference to government is negative, disparaging, and

denigrating (Gerson and Wehner 2014). Overcoming the impacts of government having

a bad reputation is proving to be incredibly difficult and restricts public administrators’

and officials’ ability to perform their roles effectively.

This can be seen in the politically charged atmosphere of PSTA where public

administrators find themselves defending program plans and policies against No Tax

for Tracks supporters who consistently accuse the agency’s officials of misconduct and

inefficiency. The value of administrative ethics is lost in the disparaging discourse.

Administrative ethics, however, are essential to public administration. As one scholar

explained, “public administrators are not only active participants in the functional

processes of governance (rather than programmed automata), but are morally obligated

14

actors as well” (Rohr, The Study of Ethics in the P.A. Curriculum 1976). They are

therefore expected to serve the public interest while simultaneously accepting criticism

for perceived misconduct that may or may not be valid. This precarious position

reflects the idea that public administrators “should see themselves as men and women

who ‘run a Constitution’” (Rohr and Chandler, Civil Servants and Second-Class

Citizens 1984) with the public interest at heart to the greatest extent possible.

The most infamous Tea Partiers are likely the Koch brothers whose unimaginable

wealth from the oil industry makes them powerful players in politics. It has been noted

by an author on the Koch brothers that “You’d have to spend $113.4 million a day,

every day for an entire year, to spend down the net worth of just one of the infamous

Koch brothers, Charles and David” (Graves 2014). The Koch brothers hold strong

beliefs opposing the civil rights movement, particularly since their father, Fred, was on

the national council of the John Birch Society (Graves 2014). Charles is an exceptionally

strong proponent of the Libertarian Party espousing the view that government’s only

proper role is to police any interference with the free market – an ideology that

inherently rejects child labor laws, minimum wages, safety rules, the protection of

union rights, and more (Graves 2014). Although these values seem fundamentally

unpatriotic, the Koch brothers find ways to manipulate the conversation so their views

appear sensible. One way they accomplish this is through think tanks and research

foundations funded solely or largely by them to come to the conclusions they wish to

15

see (Graves 2014). Some of the private organizations funded by Koch money include

the Cato Institute, the Libertarian Review, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Americans for

Prosperity, and the Reason Foundation (Graves 2014). These institutions then funnel

money and the Koch ideology through political avenues targeted at the public in an

effort to gain complete hegemony (Graves 2014). The Tea Party, some Libertarians, and

self-proclaimed Patriots subscribe to this hegemony as can be seen in the No Tax for

Tracks literature. Unfortunately, a well-developed transportation improvement plan

has succumbed to the detrimental ideology of the anti-government movement.

Car Culture

No technology has influenced American culture in such an intrinsic manner as

the car has. Songs have been written about automobiles as objects of lust, symbols of

liberation and power, and the center of the youth movement’s sexual universe (Lezotte

2013). This was apparent in the post-World War II era where prosperity and the

growing economy suggested to many that the American dream was possible and the

symbol of that dream was often a new automobile (Lezotte 2013). Capital improvement

and infrastructure projects became rooted in moving vehicles from one place to another

(Winston 1991). Suburban sprawl meant that having a vehicle was essential to

commuting to and from places of employment as well as shopping, entertainment, and

casual visits. Lacking ownership of a vehicle became a considerable impediment to

16

accessing good jobs, shops, and neighborhoods. It was the car becoming an essential

item that catapulted it into the center feature of American culture.

Owning a personal vehicle is certainly essential in Pinellas County where

bicyclists and pedestrians are killed on a daily basis and most of the buses only run

between the hours of nine and five (Tampa Bay Metropolitan Planning Organization

2012). Without a personal vehicle, residents have much difficulty in accessing a variety

of places of employment, grocery stores, and health services. The continued expansion

of roadways such as U.S. 19 reflects the continued support for transportation by

automobile over alternative options (Tampa Bay Metropolitan Planning Organization

2012).

Although local communities often favor public spaces (such as parks and trails,

see Figure 2) over roadway projects, state and federal transportation projects continue

to focus on the movement of vehicles. According to the Government Finance Officers

Association (GFOA), “A government should identify broad goals based on its

assessment of the community it serves and its operating environment” (National

Advisory Council on State and Local Budgeting 1998). At the federal and state levels,

officials avoid appropriating funds for projects supporting active or alternative

transportation essentially disregarding the needs and goals of the communities served.

Public budgeting that invests in unsustainable infrastructure results in less

accountability and goes against generally accepted budgeting practices for public

17

Figure 2: Behavior Predictors Show Tampa Bay Residents are Active

agencies. Holding state and federal transportation agencies accountable for the

overwhelming spending on roadways may impact policy to the point of transformation.

Of course, the organizational culture within these agencies will likely resist any change

as a threat to the status quo. Furthermore, organizational culture in massive

bureaucracies such as state and federal transportation departments can become

extremely inflexible. As one author explains, “government bureaucracies inevitably

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

Poor/Fair Health Status

No Exercise

Reported Obesity

Tampa/St. Pete/Clearwater

Orlando/Kissimmee

Florida

Nationwide Median

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. SMART: BRFSS City and County Data, Quick View Charts

18

move toward rigidity and hierarchical constraints” (Rainey 2010) which makes

adapting to changing public needs more difficult.

Being a symbol of prosperity in the United States, the car has significantly

influenced transportation infrastructure as well as funding and support for

transportation alternatives. Most federal transportation dollars go to road and highway

construction, reconstruction, and safety features (Winston 1991). Millions of Americans

enjoy the convenience of traveling throughout the continental United States via

interstate highways, but highways can also be viewed as an impairment to travel.

Multilane roads create divisions within cities and increase the difficulties one must

overcome to travel without an automobile (Dombroski 2005). Car-centered

transportation policies overlook the fundamental truth that not every person does (or

should) own a vehicle. Those who do not drive, whether due to voluntary, disability, or

monetary reasons, are extremely limited in their capacity to move freely. The right to

travel, although not explicitly granted in the Constitution, is considered to be a basic

right necessary to secure personal liberty (Dombroski 2005). The American car culture

encourages independence while simultaneously limiting who is afforded this

independence.

Car-centered development has also evolved the growth of urban spaces. After

suburban sprawl came the need for parking lots for the many commuters traveling

from the outskirts of town into the city (Ladd 2009). These parking lots, often spread

19

over an expanded green space, take up valuable real estate that could be used more as a

public benefit rather than as impervious land. Transportation policies encouraged cars

and highways, which destroy public space, at the expense of mass transit, which

nourishes it (Ladd 2009). Pinellas County is the most densely populated county in

Florida (The Pinellas County Planning Department 2008), partly due to the extensive

transportation infrastructure which has limited the amount of real estate available for

green spaces and public parks. This vehicle-centered development continues to impact

the County through surface water contamination, air pollution, and car accidents

(Tampa Bay Metropolitan Planning Organization 2012).

The demand for mass transit exists in rural, suburban, and urban areas not only

because not all residents can afford a car but also due to rising fuel costs, expenses

related to auto ownership, and long commuting distances which make driving

unappealing (Majumdar 2010). One study on a park and ride program in Beijing

discovered that citizens driving in highly congested traffic areas preferred utilizing the

park and ride program for comfort and safety (Qin, Guan and Zhang 2012). Also, there

exists a greater preference for public transit among younger people perhaps because of

the environmental awareness of this generation and the considerable financial struggles

faced by many young people today (Majumdar 2010). Demand fluctuations heavily

depend on gasoline prices; but strong demand exists nonetheless (Majumdar 2010).

Even so, many individuals who appreciate public transit still own cars for convenience.

20

It is this preference of owning a personal automobile while actively participating in

public transportation that reflects the integral car culture that we see in the United

States today.

Health

It has been well documented that the United States is currently facing an obesity

epidemic (Shephard 2008). The sedentary population is growing, particularly among

children, which is leading to more negative health conditions which will only worsen

over time (Shephard 2008). Active commuting may be the perfect solution to help

alleviate the health risks associated with a sedentary lifestyle. There is no consensus on

a standard minimum amount of exercise for an individual to remain healthy (Shephard

2008), but we can assume that physical movement in travel is more beneficial to the

cardiovascular and muscular systems than an inactive position in an automobile. There

are two preferred forms of active commuting: walking or biking. These forms can also

be combined with each other and with mass transit for a multi-modal option. For now,

we’ll focus on walking and biking.

Active commuters in the United States face many obstacles. The most

threatening obstacle is the danger to pedestrians and bicyclists from fast-moving motor

traffic (Shephard 2008). Substantial changes in the built environment are needed if

biking and walking are to become widely accepted options for commuting (Shephard

2008). Many cities are already changing transportation infrastructure to make streets

21

more walkable and bike friendly (Gerber and Gibson 2009). Simple adjustments to the

built environment such as the provision of bike lanes, the introduction of traffic calming

devices, the installation of specific traffic signals for bicycles, and dedicated bike paths

(such as the Pinellas Trail) would vastly improve the prospects for active commuting

(Shephard 2008). The Pinellas Trail is a positive feature in Pinellas County, but it is still

only viewed as a recreational space, rather than a commuter space. Engaging the

community in observing the potential for this trail to become a transportation

alternative would greatly increase its use and improvements to facilities lining it.

Another strategy to improve the potential for active commuting is for cities and

counties to construct public shower and changing facilities for commuters to access as

needed. It is clear that active commuting may cause more perspiration than inactive

commuting which may deter some employees who must subscribe to a strict dress code

(Shephard 2008). A simple facility along a trail or pedestrian path would offer

commuters an opportunity to freshen up before beginning their work day and wind

down before beginning their commute home. Employers would also benefit from an

active, healthy workforce so it would be in their interest to offer incentives to those who

choose to make physical activity part of their daily routine (Shephard 2008).

Of course, the attitudes and behavior toward active commuting would also need

to be addressed to truly make an impact on the community. Walking and biking would

need to become appropriate options when determining a commute rather than being

22

relegated to recreational activities only. Developing a strategic plan that incorporates

active transportation physical features (such as bike lanes and pedestrian facilities) as

well as a substantial education outreach campaign would considerably improve the

likelihood of commuters adjusting their habits. Indeed, “The purpose of strategic

planning is…to maintain a favorable balance between an organization and its

environment over the long run” (Poister and Streib 2005) which should be a

fundamental concept to any transportation planning agency. Furthermore, for any

strategic plan to be properly implemented, it must be tied to a budget and revenue

source. The most difficult challenge in establishing active commuting will continue to

be changing the hearts and minds of the community to envision walking and biking as

simply another option in transportation rather than a transportation ‘alternative.’ Also,

one would hope active commuting would not be interpreted as an attack on personal

freedoms.

Transitioning to Shared Spaces

Only recently has the concept of pedestrians as a priority begun to sprout in

urban areas. Previously, land use plans, transportation infrastructure, and community

development had been centered on the vehicle (Kaparias, et al. 2012), and still is in

many suburban and rural areas. Now that pedestrians are becoming the central theme

of cities, urban planners and engineers must redesign shared spaces for the comfort and

safety of pedestrians and bicycles (Kaparias, et al. 2012). This means little or no vehicle

23

traffic, an appropriate lighting level, and safe zones must be incorporated into the small

spaces designated for transportation (Kaparias, et al. 2012). Efforts in changing driver

behavior are rooted in altering the drivers’ willingness to share space with pedestrians

and bicyclists (Kaparias, et al. 2012). The presence of many pedestrians, in particular

children and the elderly, decreases the willingness of drivers to share space while at the

same time increasing the comfort of pedestrians and bicyclists (Kaparias, et al. 2012).

This paradox makes the job of urban planners and engineers more difficult when

designing shared spaces for pedestrians, bicycles, and cars. Downtown St. Petersburg

has one of the best examples of urban redesign with pedestrians as a priority over

drivers (Boatwright 2014). Planners in that municipality have constructed safe zones,

increased lighting, and restrict vehicles on certain streets during high pedestrian times

(Tampa Bay Metropolitan Planning Organization 2012). Many of the other twenty-four

municipalities in Pinellas County are also moving toward more walkable shared spaces.

Incrementalism appears to be the best tool for implementing walkable urban

design into communities. As was witnessed with the failed Greenlight Pinellas

referendum which would have incorporated considerable walkable safety features to

streets, “Far-reaching, original procedures and goals evoke particularly strong

opposition and usually must be modified if support is to be maintained” (Rainey 2010).

No Tax for Tracks represents the particularly strong opposition described by Rainey

and suggested smaller changes to transit service in their arguments against the plan (No

24

Tax for Tracks 2014). In the case of transit improvement in Pinellas County, it would

appear that the incremental approach is “the most feasible alternative” when it comes to

successful policy implementation (Rainey 2010).

The next conundrum will be how to expand an urban design into suburban and

rural areas. The answer will likely involve multi-modal transportation since the

traveling distance will be farther. Any combination of walking, biking, mass transit,

park and ride, and personal vehicle will prove to be beneficial on a local level, a

regional level, a fitness level, and an environmental level. There is no silver bullet for

transportation issues, individuals and communities must open access to as many viable

options as possible in order to reduce traffic congestion, minimize adverse health effects

associated with high traffic areas, and increase the ability of all socioeconomic classes to

move freely.

Revenue Sources

There are many revenue sources that can fund transportation alternatives. The

Pinellas Trail was originally constructed through revenue generated by a one cent sales

tax called the Penny for Pinellas (The Pinellas County Planning Department 2008). The

Penny for Pinellas also funds transportation infrastructure and capital projects and has

been approved by voters for the past three decades (The Pinellas County Planning

Department 2008). Since it is a sales tax, it is considered by some to be a more fair tax

because everyone must pay a portion not just property owners. Also, it is estimated

25

that approximately one third of all sales taxes in Pinellas County are paid by tourists

(The Pinellas County Planning Department 2008). This alleviates the tax burden from

the residents and capitalizes on the already booming tourism industry in the area (The

Pinellas County Planning Department 2008).

Another option is to fund alternative transportation through the General Fund

whose revenue comes from property taxes. The challenge with relying on the General

Fund is that a majority of the County government’s budget is paid through this fund

(The Pinellas County Planning Department 2008) and it would not be surprising if

transportation alternatives were overlooked during expenditure planning.

A safer possibility is to create a special revenue fund dedicated to mass transit

and transportation alternatives. A special revenue fund is defined as “government

revenue allotted for a specific purpose” (Wooldridge, Garvin and Miller 2001). A

special revenue fund could collect revenue through discouraging overuse of personal

vehicles through higher gas taxes, tolls, or parking fees (Buehler and Pucher 2011). Any

proposed tax increase will likely be very unpopular and met with intense public

opposition (Buehler and Pucher 2011). However, it may also curb energy use and

encourage residents to take advantage of alternatives (Buehler and Pucher 2011). Also,

it is possible to trade one tax for another. For example, in Germany, when met with

opposition to an increase in gas taxes to fund public transportation, officials reduced

26

payroll taxes thereby appeasing the masses and making the tax increase revenue neutral

for the government (Buehler and Pucher 2011).

Another possible route could be to fund mass transit and transportation

alternatives through user fees (Buehler and Pucher 2011). This is also known as an

enterprise fund. An enterprise fund is defined as “managing self-supporting operations

driven by income, e.g., water and sewage service” (Wooldridge, Garvin and Miller

2001). So as to not over-burden members of the lower socioeconomic status, a sliding

scale could be applied for users based on their income. Also, discounts could be offered

to riders who purchase weekly, monthly, or annual passes with or without regional

connections (Buehler and Pucher 2011). Although possible, this strategy would require

more high socioeconomic transit riders and would be susceptible to fraud due to the

income requirements.

Congestion pricing is a form of tax on commuters during peak hours that could

be used to fund transportation alternatives. Clifford Winston described his theory of

congestion pricing in his essay Efficient Transportation Infrastructure Policy which would

cover the costs of transportation infrastructure and maintenance for roads by charging

commuters during peak hours in the hopes of encouraging them to use public

transportation such as buses or trains instead (Winston 1991). The funds gained in

congestion pricing would be used to both maintain current roads and develop more

transportation alternatives (Winston 1991).

27

The current standard for most counties in Florida is a special revenue account

funded through ad valorem taxes (Gerber and Gibson 2009). Greenlight Pinellas would

have changes Pinellas County from this structure to a sales tax-based special revenue

account, what is considered a tax swap (Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority 2013).

Unfortunately, Greenlight Pinellas was defeated in the polls in November 2014 with

62% of Pinellas County residents rejecting the one cent sales tax increase to fund and

expand mass transit.

Policy Implications

There is a wide range of stakeholders when it comes to active and mass transit.

There are stakeholders who passionately support and oppose policies targeted at

shuffling roadway funds to pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. These

stakeholders along with policymakers and politicians use the foundations of their

respective ideologies to support their views meaning, “…people not only fight over

ideas, they fight with them – and words are their primary weapon” (Clemons and

McBeth 2009). History has shown that investment in infrastructure enriches the lives of

citizens (Bradley 2012). It is only progress in the built environment that has led to the

development of non-motor vehicle infrastructure as a growing priority in communities.

Of course, change happens slowly.

The Congressional Digest effectively illustrates the differing viewpoints on

alternative transportation infrastructure by various stakeholders. The periodical

28

explains that congressional supporters of the SunRail project (the high-speed rail project

rejected by the Governor) believe it’s necessary for the continued growth of America,

“viewing the technology as essential to developing a strong twenty-first century

economy in the face of dwindling oil supplies, increasing highway and airport

congestion, and the need to create new manufacturing jobs” (Congressional Digest

2011). The Digest also cited opponents’ opinions that “the…proposal would commit

the Nation to a perpetual stream of Federal subsidies to offset the operating costs of a

national high-speed rail network — and that the program, in fact, could become the

equivalent of another Federal ‘entitlement’ in its impact on budget deficits”

(Congressional Digest 2011). Clemons and McBeth remind us that “power is not

diffused evenly,” especially when it comes to a transportation initiatives (Clemons and

McBeth 2009). Objective and subjective conditions determine the motives and values

behind each stakeholder’s investment in the project (Clemons and McBeth 2009). For

example, many scholars have found a positive correlation between transportation

infrastructure investment and economic development (see Figure 3) (Berechman,

Ozmen and Ozbay 2006), but Tea Party members and Governor Scott’s administration

did not share that view based on their placement of higher value on low taxes and no

deficits (Tea Party 2012). Since investing in transportation infrastructure requires

borrowing and taxing of some sort, the Tea Partiers and Governor Scott completely

opposed the idea without consideration of alternatives for funding. Such dualistic

29

choice association and zero-sum ultimatums do not correspond with real life situations

(Clemons and McBeth 2009). Scholars, such as Faiz, have also cited the objective

resolution that mass transit alleviates poverty in urban areas (Faiz 2011), but this is not a

major concern for Scott and the Tea Party because their demographics are largely made

up of older white men who tend to be wealthier than the average American (Wikipedia

2011). Therefore, the subjective value placed on transportation infrastructure projects is

much lower for stakeholders such as Governor Scott and members of the Tea Party in

Florida who place more significance on the individual rather than the collective good.

Bradley reminds us that our nation was founded on the concept of promoting the

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Bicycle only

Trails Pedestrian only

Complete Road

Road only

Total jobs per $1m

Results based on a national study of 58 public works projects in 11 cities.

30

general welfare of all citizens, not just ourselves (Bradley 2012), which appears to be a

concept that has been rejected by the Tea Party and Governor Scott’s Administration.

Any transportation initiatives developed in the near future will need to prepare

for and address the undoubtedly ferocious attacks from the anti-tax/anti-government

community. More importantly, policies must incorporate some aspect to appease the

anti-tax establishment while improving active and mass transit options. For democracy

to truly function, proponents and opponents must have their voices heard and middle

ground must be found on what has become quite a controversial topic.

Conclusion

Bus service, passenger rail, and trail systems are transportation alternatives that

exist in Pinellas County, but only in the most fundamental sense. An expansion of these

alternatives is beneficial to the community but only if the community embraces them as

reasonable substitutes to driving a personal vehicle. Much consideration goes into

individuals’ preferences for modes of transportation with some forms relegated to

recreational use only (such as the bicycle). Altering the perceptions of transportation as

a motor vehicle-only paradigm will greatly improve the health, access, and economy of

communities. PSTA’s Greenlight Pinellas plan failed to receive the approval of voters

partly due to the staunch criticism launched by the No Tax for Tracks organization. The

ideology of No Tax for Tracks supporters is seen in all levels of government including

the Governor’s office where the SunRail project died. There are strategies for funding

31

active and mass transit projects that can be effective when tied to a comprehensive plan

that includes construction, redevelopment, and education. Implementing such a plan

would need to happen incrementally for it to achieve success. Although opponents to

transportation initiatives often place higher value on individual rights rather than

public interest, their opinions must be acknowledged in policy planning for democratic

society to be effective. Future progress in Pinellas County will likely involve more

referendums, more walkable urban designs, and a restructured bus system. One can

only hope that a progressive leader will undertake active and mass transit as an

ambitious mission from conception to completion for the benefit of the residents of

Pinellas County, the state of Florida, and the visitors that come from around the world

to experience what the state has to offer.

32

Bibliography Berechman, Joseph, Dilruba Ozmen, and Kaan Ozbay. "Empirical analysis of

transportation investment and economic investment at state, county, and

municipality levels." Transportation, 2006: 33:537-551.

Boatwright, Josh. "Tower Named for Dali Builds on St. Pete Real Estate Boom." Tampa

Bay Online (TBO), October 9, 2014.

Bradley, Bill. We Can All Do Better. New York, NY: Vanguard Press, 2012.

Buehler, Ralph, and John Pucher. "Making public transport financially sustainable."

Transport Policy, 2011: 126-138.

Chakraborty, Jayajit. "Automobiles, Air Toxics, and Adverse Health Risks: Environmental

Inequities in Tampa Bay, Florida." Annals of the Association of American

Geographers, 2009: 674-697.

Clemons, Randy S., and Mark K. McBeth. Public Policy Praxis. Pearson Longman, 2009.

Congressional Digest. "Hgh Speed Rail: Investing in a New National Transportation

Infrastructure." Congressional Digest, April 2011.

Dombroski, Matthew A. "Securing Access to Transportation for the Urban Poor."

Columbia Law Review, 2005: 503-536.

Faiz, Aysha. "Transportation and the Urban Poor." Institute of Transportation Engineers

Journal, 2011: 40-43.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Coast to Coast Connector. Project

Proposal, Tallahassee: State of Florida, 2013.

Florida Department of Transportation. "Remarks on SunRail." State of Florida

Department of Transportation, 2011. 1-3.

Gerber, Elisabeth R., and Clark C. Gibson. "Balancing Regionalism and Localism: How

Institutions and Incentives Shape American Transportation Policy." American

Journal of Political Science, 2009: 633-648.

Gerson, Michael, and Peter Wehner. "A Conservative Vision of Government." National

Affairs, Winter 2014.

Glastris, Paul. "This Time It's Different." Washington Monthly, September 15, 2012: 3.

33

Graves, Lisa. "The Koch Cartel: Their Reach, Their Reactionary Agenda, and Their

Record." The Progressive, July and August 2014: 25-31.

Kaparias, Ioannis, Michael G.H. Bell, Ashkan Miri, Carol Chan, and Bill Mount. "Analysing

the perceptions of pedestrians and drivers to shared space." Elsevier, 2012: 297-

310.

Ladd, Brian. "Cars and the American City." Journal of Urban History, 2009: 777-782.

Lezotte, Chris. "Born to Take the Highway: Women, the Automobile, and Rock 'n' Roll."

The Journal of American Culture, 2013: 161-174.

Majumdar, Sarmistha R. "The Case for the Development of Public Transit in an Urban

Boundary Area." Review of Policy Research, 2010: 741-754.

Morel, Laura C. "Population growth likely to push Florida past New York, experts say."

Tampa Bay Times, January 4, 2013.

National Advisory Council on State and Local Budgeting. Recommended Budget

Practices: A Framework for Improved State and Local Government Budgeting.

Chicago: Government Finance Officers Association, 1998.

No Tax for Tracks. "No Tax for Tracks Brochure." No Tax for Tracks. 2014.

http://railtaxfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Tri_Fold1_Page2.pdf

(accessed September 15, 2014).

Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority. "The Greenlight Pinellas Plan." Greenlight Pinellas.

2013. http://greenlightpinellas.com/images/learn-about-the-plan/The-Greenlight-

Pinellas-Plan-DEC-2013.pdf (accessed September 15, 2014).

Poister, Theodore H., and Gregory Streib. "Elements of Strategic Planning and

Management in Municipal Government: Status after Two." Public Administration

Review, 2005: 45-56.

Potok, Mark. "The 'Patriot' Movement Explodes." Southern Poverty Law Center's

Intelligence Report, Spring 2012.

PSTA. History of PSTA. 2014. http://www.psta.net/history.php (accessed October 4,

2014).

34

Qin, Huanmei, Hongzhi Guan, and Guang Zhang. "Analysis of the Travel Intent for Park

and Ride Based on Perception." Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, 2012:

1-14.

Rainey, Hal G. Understanding and Managing Public Organizations. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass, 2010.

Rick Scott for Florida. Rick Scott for Florida. August 20, 2012.

http://www.flgov.com/2012/08/20/statement-from-gov-scott-on-student-testing-

no-more-teaching-to-the-test/.

Rohr, John A. "The Study of Ethics in the P.A. Curriculum." Public Administration Review,

1976: 398-406.

Rohr, John A., and Ralph Clark Chandler. "Civil Servants and Second-Class Citizens."

Public Administration Review, 1984: 135-143.

Shephard, Roy J. "Is Active Commuting the Answer to Population Health?" Sports

Medicine, 2008: 751-758.

State of Florida. PSTA Special Act. Tallahassee, 1983.

Tampa Bay Metropolitan Planning Organization. Pinellas County Bicycle and Pedestrian

Master Plan Update: Crash Data Report Technical Memorandum. Crash Data

Report, Clearwater: URS, 2012.

Tea Party. Tea Party Platform. 2012. http://www.teaparty-platform.com/.

The Pinellas County Planning Department. Pinellas County Historical Background.

Clearwater: The Pinellas County Planning Department, 2008.

US Department of Transportation. High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program.

Washington, D.C.: White House, 2010.

Visit Florida. 2013 Annual Report. Annual Business Report, Tallahassee: State of Florida,

2013.

Walzer, Michael. "The Problem of Dirty Hands." Philosophy & Public Affairs, 1973: 160-

180.

Wikipedia. Tea Party Movement. 2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement.

35

Williams, Timothy. "Florida's Governor Rejects High Speed Rail Line, Fearing Costs to

Taxpayers." New York Times, February 16, 2011: A20.

Winston, Clifford. "Efficient Transportation Infrastructure Policy." Journal of Economic

Perspectives, 1991: 113-127.

Wooldridge, Stephen C., Michael J. Garvin, and John B. Miller. "Effects of Accounting

and Budgeting on Capital Allocation for Infrastructure Projects." Journal of

Management in Engineering, 2001: 86-94.

Zink, Janet. "Gov. Rick Scott lawyer to Supreme Court: My facts were wrong on high

speed rail." Tampa Bay Times, April 15, 2011.

—. "Gov. Rick Scott rejects funding for high-speed rail." Tampa Bay Times, February 17,

2011.