TBARTA open house comes to you
MariellaI attended the TBARTA Open House on Monday, and today I’m bringing it to you, just in case you didn’t slog through rush-hour traffic to voice your concerns about transportation around here. (Sticks commenter Scott Gunsaullus spent 2 hours on public transportation to get to the meeting!) But you get to skip that transportation hassle, and you don’t have to wade into the usual gaggle of developers, politicians and activists milling about this kind of thing. You can participate in the Open House virtually, right here on Sticks of Fire.
First, check out the maps that were posted around the room, with “general connections” identified. Then fill out the same questionnaire that was handed out, just as if you were there.
Uh-oh. What’s that green swath on the map of South Hillsborough Options? Is that the Green Swath of Death rearing its ugly head again? So soon after it was scraped off our county planning maps by massive citizen opposition? (See my article, “roads to sprawlville” for background on this beltway/bypass.)
I asked a couple of the TBARTA folks about this, but they were kind of vague. “It’s just a possible corridor,” they told me. “We’re asking for input on all the possibilities. Everything is on the table at this point.”
Hmmm. It looks kinda like a rail corridor, but then it hooks up with a new road corridor. Could this be a resurrection of the Brandon Bypass?
I mentioned that Green Swath on my questionnaire. I told ’em that new roads in rural areas attract expensive suburban sprawl, waste farmland under new development, and pour more commuter traffic on all our roads; and, I told ’em, we need to be concentrating our growth and infrastructure along urban transit corridors in order to make mass transit feasible. And I told ’em I don’t like roads carving up my nature preserves.
Certain people — the people who make money this way — are still pushing for new roads to open up cheap farmland for more sprawling subdivisions full of commuters. If you have an opinion on transportation, you might want to voice it soon, because
TBARTA is charged with developing a Regional Transportation Master Plan by July 1, 2009.
TBARTA is also charged with engaging the public in developing this plan, so let them know what you think about rail, buses, roads, alternative transportation — anything that matters to you in your regional transportation plan.
Loading ...
March 12th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Just as many of us suspected they would do! Can they really be dumb enough to have left it GREEN? I checked the map and YES it is still GREEN. I see it avoids a big chunk of Lithia this time and then turns purple as it hits 39.
Shouldn’t our County Commission members that sit on TBARTA have made them aware that this “corridor” has been removed off of EVERY county map there is at the insistence of the public? Another display of poor leadership on their part………..or is this a case of a “public-private” partnership running roughshod over the public in order for private gain? A recent article in the Trib after a TBARTA meeting asked Shawn Harrison how they would pay for rail……..I believe his answer was………. We will probably build some toll roads.
March 12th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
I attended the TBARTA Workshop and found that there were only a very small handfull of citizens that showed up. Most of those that attended were from what I call “monied interests”, meaning that they seek a financial gain by keeping the building/paving machine running at top speed. TBARTA had ballot boxes on each table for comments from attendees. They plan to use whatever is collected from the ballot boxes as citizen input. The problem is that those ballot boxes were being stuffed by development lobbyists like Mike Peterson, Ron Weaver and other powerbrokers. Who knows how many ballots they submitted. So, as usual, the cards are stacked against what the real public would like.
It would really be helpful if people did what Mariella is suggesting and flooded TBARTA with “ballots” asking them to essentially do 4 things:
1) ask them to have the public’s interests adequately represented to balance the heavy developer lobby influence that exists in TBARTA. They have a citizen committee comprised mostly of people connected to development interests. We should have citizens that have no connection to the development industry or lobby on the citizen committee.
2) ask them to propose no new roads that traverse rural areas and/or protected areas.
3) ask them to do their homework before they submit any ideas. They continue to propose a beltway/bypass running through sensative areas in east Hillsborough even though they have not researched alternatives like expanding I-75 or I-4 with overhead roadways. Beltways/bypasses should be a last resort, not a shoot from the hip idea with no real research behind it.
4) Above all else, respect our Comprehensive Plan goals. Don’t propose solutions that are in direct conflict with these goals. We, the citizens of Hillsborough, will not accept any solutions that conflict with our interests, which should remain protected. That’s why our Comp Plan was created in the first place. We are not willing to sacrifice our quality of life for any new growth plan no matter how badly the “monied” interests may want it.
We need for everyone to become vocal on these issues with TBARTA or the lobbyists are going to heavily influence what eventually is proposed. We need to be firm on the ground rules as to what we, the citizens, will and will not accept from them.
March 12th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
You’re right about development interests on the TBARTA citizen committee. Ken Hagan appointed Scott Jones of Newland Communities and on TBBA. I wonder if Mr. Jones made a $500 contribution….
March 12th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Looks like our politicians can safely wash their hands of suggesting any unpopular roads by leaving this up to TBARTA and letting them take the heat. If we had real leaders we wouldn’t need TBARTA…… instead it is just one more agency citizens have to fight to protect their neighborhoods. Since TBARTA encompasses 7 counties then it will be easy for them to overlook the will of the local people under the heading of a regional benefit.
March 12th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
“They plan to use whatever is collected from the ballot boxes as citizen input.”
No offense, George, but they might just as well use the flip side of the ballots to take phone messages. Citizen input is generously ignored AGAIN by the developer-pleasing puppets of TBARTA.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
You’re right! They might as well use the paper for phone messages or coasters for their coffee in the morning.
I mentioned their intent to use the comments as citizen input to highlight the game that is being played. They use the “workshop” format along with “comment cards” as a way of feigning actual citizen participation. Our BOCC has used this tactic effectively time and time again. They used it when they were doing the Comp Plan EAR amendments. When I tell the board that they don’t have legitimate participation or adequate representation of their citizens, they say that they’ve met their legal obligation by running a newspaper ad. They are obligated beyond just running an ad, at least as far as the Comp Plan goals are concerned. Just as the BOCC does, TBARTA will say that they’ve met their legal obligation for public involvement, even though the public did not really get involved in the process. They will also say, as some higher level officials in PG&M sarcastically comment, “you can’t expect us to get the public involved if they’re not interested”. In spite of what they say or imply, the public is interested in what happens. It’s the county’s and TBARTA’s job to make sure that the public is adequately involved and they should not proceed until they get that involvement. Those of us that are involved and/or aware of these shortcommings need to demand it.
March 13th, 2008 at 7:19 am
Greetings from a former lifelong Tampan now living in Northern Virginia.
2 weeks ago the Virginia Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional a regional transportation authority created last year, because all of its board members were appointed, not elected, and thus it was “taxation without representation.”
Though the appointed members of the T-BARTA board are in a minority, if a vote of the board comes down to the difference of the 4 appointed members, would we then have a legal challenge on our hands?
Stay tuned
March 13th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Chris, I’m a longtime Tampa girl now living in NOVA. We should compare notes.
I apologize for my defeatist attitude by adding this quote:
“If we do not know any better than believing that the only game is what is presented through social-political norms - if we don’t know any better than to continue making limited choices, then how can society as a whole change how it functions? Too often the result is a cynical, self-defeating, “can’t change the system” attitude where positive “future-present” choices are obscured and dismissed as impractical or impossible. This culturally reinforced sense of isolation keeps us from living in a more awakened way that further encourages emergence of a higher state of awareness and being for all, regardless of what generation we are a part of. It is time to change “the game” and the very rules describing “the game.” It is time for a new paradigm to become more evident for people to see, to compare, and to experience a fundamental difference for themselves. This will encourage more people to choose a positive future rather than a paradigm that continues to devolve into chaos.”
- Alex Kochkin
March 13th, 2008 at 10:44 am
I attended the TBARTA meeting, and I’m a bit concerned about the process being used to gather information. There were many maps and folks available to talk to, but not a lot of information-sharing or fact-gathering. You looked at population models for 2030 and were supposed to comment on corriders. The comment sheet is geared toward gathering information on corriders — transportation lanes. We need to discuss the need for protecting the rural areas, adding light rail, and maximizing the corriders we have. I don’t think the methods that are being used at these meetings will do anything but gather comments from a lot of monied interests about new areas to expand into. I do hope many people take advantage of submitting their ideas through the links provided here. Otherwise, those citizens who pay attention to local events because of an inner call to duty and a love for their communities will lose their voice or be overshadowed by the overwhelming attention these topics get from the ones who profit by them.
March 13th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Tampa will never get a mass transit system because we’re not a pedestrian community. Mass transit systems work best in cities that have a centralized business district. Ours is too spread out.
March 13th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
I noticed the population density grafix and quickly noticed that it made it look as though no one lived outside the city limits even though we know there’s a lot of density out there. Just wondering how that affects the analysis.
March 14th, 2008 at 10:01 am
OK folks I’ve had enough.
Here’s the deal with rail, light commuter or otherwise.
The vast majority of rail infrastructure in America is owned by the Class 1 railroad companies, i.e. CSX. The rest by short-line or other companies, but the point is it is almost entirely privately owned. The cost to build railroads is EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE…not just for building, but also in paying off the property rights of the landowners where the track is going to run.
Most communities, then, negotiate with the Class 1’s for usage rather than build the track themselves. And the Class 1’s negotiate with the communities to share in the cost of infrastructure building.
But…the Class 1’s will always negotiate in favor of maintaining their ability to move freight, their primary revenue source.
Freight volume is going to double in 20 years, so if they do negotiate for shared track usage, prices will be at a premium as freight demand goes up.
The Class 1 companies long ago staked their geographic claims, so the only one really operating lines in Florida is…CSX.
If the Tampa Bay area truly wants commuter and/or light rail of its own, it HAS to negotiate with CSX for track usage.
Now…CSX is trying to finalize a $400m deal with the state to sell some of its tracks in the Orlando area for use as public transit commuter rail. Tampa Bay area legislators are threatening to hold it up or end it over the impact of CSX moving its freght into Lakeland and Plant City.
Who are the legislators? Namely Paula Dockery and Mike Fasano. Fasano chairs the powerful Senate Transportation Appropriations committee. He ALSO chairs the Bay ARea Legislative Delegation, the group that spearheaded the effort to create T-BARTA.
So, if Fasano screws up this CSX deal for Orlando, he screws up chanceS of rail for Tampa Bay.
And if that happens, at least you’ll know why
If our legislative leaders kill the Orlando deal, imagine how “eager” CSX is going to want to be in helping us in our own area.
But, folks, that’s how it works. Commuter rails, states, cities, etc., MUST negotiate with the Class I railroads for shared track usage. You think Amtrak owns the rails forkm DC to Boston? They are constatntly fighting with CSX and others for usage, and the congestion prtobelms worsen. Freight volume is only going to get larger, so
March 15th, 2008 at 7:17 am
Please allow me to make a few points to clarify Reality Czech’s assertions. Yes, Amtrak does own the rails from DC to Boston and no they don’t constantly fight with CSX for usage. Amtrak owns, maintains, controls, dispatches, and schedules all trains on their Northeast Corridor between DC, New York and Boston and have since 1976 when they took ownership during the creation of Conrail. As for the comments about the Tampa Bay area losing any chance at current or future commuter or intercity passenger rail by “offending” CSX, put that out of your mind also. That was already done in the current FDOT - CSX - Orlando commuter rail deal. If you simply read the Contract for Sale and Purchase between FDOT and CSX posted on the “Deal” website you will read the following; “WHEREAS, State believes it is entitled to condemn that portion of the A-Line necessary for the purpose of accommodating such need; and WHEREAS, State and CSXT maintain their respective positions but elect not to endure a court challenge of the contested issue and have instead elected to transfer the properties described below upon threat of condemnation”. I believe your point has already been made very clearly and it was made just to get the current Orlando rail deal moving in order to help “mickeyland” with their highway congestion. So why would not the same “threat” or negotiating tactic not be valid for Tampa Bay or Jacksonville or anywhere else in the State when it comes to “negotiating” with CSX. Give Dockery and Fasano credit where credit is due. They ARE looking out for the best interests of TBARTA and the Bay Area’s needs for passenger rail and bringing that possibility a lot quicker than any of our current “planners” and “money interests” have done thus far, assuming they, through legislative action can modify the current “deal” to better serve all Floridians, especially Tampa Bay.
March 25th, 2008 at 12:03 am
We as involved citizens need to continue to demand intelligent development in the right place at the right time supported by adequate facilities and services of all types. We cannot continue to allow urban development in places that can never be served by urban services. Please read ‘The Geography of Nowhere’ and other relative literature as a start toward understanding what happens when we lose our sense of place, as we have clearly done in most of Florida. Besides better urban design, I have continuously suggested that we need to consider a ‘level of service’ housing standard whereby each new home built must be within a quarter-of-a-mile (walking distance)of an existing (or planned) elementary school, a park, a transit stop and perhaps a postal facility. This would foster development nodes more easily served by both the public and commercial interests, enticing the government and the private sector to work in tandem to create livable, sustainable communities instead of isolated houses that force people into private autos for each trip, which leads to a whole range of personal and societal problems and costs. Tying transportation and land development to an intelligent, comprehensive public planning process is the only way out of the mess in which we find ourselves. Until the development of transportation facilities implements the public plan, instead of serving oil, auto and private property interests, we are doomed to keep making the same mistakes that have led to most of America’s current problems.