1. Collins Center Special Report | May 2011
Stimulus Spending on Infrastucture in Florida
An Examination of more than $1 Billion in
Transportation Expenditures and the Lessons Learned
By Robert T. Dunphy
May 2011 | 1

2. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABOUT THIS REPORT
About this Report ...................................................................... 2 This study is an independent analysis of stimulus spending on transpor-
tation infrastructure for Florida’s largest metropolitan regions. It explores
About the Collins Center for Public Policy ................................ 2 the rationale for these investments, with a special focus on how they ad-
Acknowledgements ................................................................... 2 dress regional development goals and consider disadvantaged communi-
ties in their planning and spending.
About the Author ....................................................................... 2
Executive Summary................................................................... 3
Introduction ............................................................................... 4 THE AUTHOR
Well-Positioned to Spend................................................. 4 Robert Dunphy is a consultant special-
izing in sustainable transportation solutions
“Shovel-Ready” Limitations ............................................. 5
and the politics of growth. He is also an
Stimulus Spending in Florida’s Major Regions .......................... 6 instructor in the graduate real estate pro-
gram at Georgetown University. Mr. Dunphy
Florida DOT Highway Projects ......................................... 7
established the transportation research
MPOs Partner with Others ............................................... 8 program at the Urban Land Institute, where
he served as a senior resident fellow. He is
Transit Decisions Mostly Local ......................................... 8
also an emeritus fellow of the Transporta-
Stimulus Spending by Region ................................................... 9 tion Research Board. His research interests
Road Priorities ................................................................ 10 include smart growth and transportation
strategies, transit oriented development, suburban centers, and parking.
Transit Priorities .............................................................. 11 He serves on the University of California Transportation Center Advisory
Shifting Emphasis .......................................................... 12 Committee and the University of Minnesota’s Transportation and Land
Use Journal advisory board.
Rethinking Regional Growth .......................................... 13
Lessons Learned ..................................................................... 14
Conclusion .............................................................................. 18 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Appendix Table ........................................................................ 18
Thanks the Foundation to Promote an Open Society, in partnership
Data Sources ........................................................................... 19 with the Open Society Institute, for providing the resources with which to
Footnotes ................................................................................ 19 conduct this study. The author would like to thank the Collins Center for
Public Policy staff, especially Leda Perez, Ph.D, for her helpful comments
and guidance throughout the researching and writing of this report.
Cover photo: A toll road connecting Interstate 4 to the Selmon
Expressway in Tampa is partially funded with $105 million in federal In addition, thanks to the following individuals for their insights:
stimulus money. Photo courtesy of the Tampa Tribune.
Southeast Florida – Carla Coleman, ULI; Joe Giulietti, SF RTA;
Carlos Goa, Miami-Dade MPO; Greg Stuart, Broward MPO;
Stacy Miller , FDOT District 6; Linda Glass-Johnson, FDOT
District 4; Lynn Fain, Miami-Dade Transit.
THE COLLINS CENTER
Florida Gov. LeRoy Collins’ legacy of Central Florida – Shelly Lauten, Myregion.org; Jim Sellen, ULI
uncompromising integrity in government Orlando leader; George Lovett , FDOT District 7; Alex Trauten,
and business continues at the Collins METROPLAN Orlando; Phil Laurien, ECFRPC.
Center for Public Policy. Established in
1988 by distinguished Floridians who Tampa Bay ― Stuart Rogel, Tampa Bay Partnership; Brian
envisioned the need for an independent Blanchard, FDOT District 7; Bob Clifford, Tampa Bay Area
entity to find impartial solutions to Regional Transportation Authority; Scott Collister , FDOT district
controversial problems, the Collins Center 7; Steve Seibert, Collins Center for Public Policy.
is known as a think tank with muddy boots.
With offices in Miami, Tallahassee, and Jacksonville― Rob Palmer, RPA Group/ ULI District Council;
Tampa Bay, our mission is to find smart Jeff Sheffield, North Florida TPO ; Brad Thoburn, Jacksonville
solutions to important issues facing the people of Florida and the nation. transit; William Killingsworth, city of Jacksonville; James Ben-
We are independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit and passionately committed nett , FDOT District 2; Florida DOT, Tallahassee, Kathy Neill,
to lasting results. David Lee.
2 | May 2011

3. ExECUTIvE SUMMARy
Of the $1.7 billion received by Florida through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) transportation stimulus
package, $1.1 billion accounted for spending in Florida’s major metropolitan regions in South Florida, Tampa Bay, Central Florida and
Jacksonville, with the remaining $600 million spent elsewhere. Projects were divided among the Florida Department of Transportation
(DOT), local transit operators and the state’s regional Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). The Florida DOT oversaw $592
million in stimulus spending while local transit agencies oversaw $266 million and MPOs another $223 million. About $534 million
went to the South Florida region, about $272 million to the Tampa Bay area, roughly $174 million to Jacksonville and nearly $102
million to Central Florida.
ARRA Spending by Region and Type of Agency Responsible (Millions)
Central Florida South Florida Tampa Bay Jacksonville Total
DOT 27.6 256.7 177.8 129.5 591.6
MPO 42.5 107.5 49.2 23.8 223.0
Transit 31.5 169.5 44.5 20.3 265.8
Total 101.6 533.7 271.5 173.6 1080.4
By examining these funding decisions and reviewing long-range transportation plans, we can make some key observations:
n Florida’s practice of maintaining its infrastructure made it possible to use most of its stimulus funding for new projects,
rather than repairs to existing infrastructure.
n By completing project development through planning, design and, in some cases, land acquisition while awaiting
stimulus funds, the Florida DOT was able to begin construction quickly when the funding did arrive.
n etropolitan Planning Organizations are often too limited in authority and geography to have a regional impact.
M
n lorida DOT District officials offer the best regional perspective in most instances.
F
n ntegrating land-use decisions with transportation plans is critical because transportation affects growth patterns.
I
n lthough numerous agencies have been charged with serving the transportation disadvantaged, these agencies are
A
widely dispersed and are not serving their intended communities to the degree possible.
May 2011 | 3

4. INTRODUCTION
Congress passed the federal stimulus program in 2009 to help
the nation recover from the worst economic crisis since the Great
Depression. It helped stimulate the stagnant construction industry
by addressing needed infrastructure reinvestment. Stimulus grants
to Florida for transportation accounted for $1.7 billion in high-
way and transit funding:
n 1.347 billion for 680 highway and bridge projects.
$
n $316 million for 173 transit projects.
n $55 million for 22 airport grants.
Florida’s largest metropolitan areas received $762 million in
highway funds, 57 percent of the total highway spending, and
$266 million for transit, about 84 percent of the stimulus money
dedicated to transit. Roughly half of the $55 million in Federal
Aviation Administration airport stimulus funds went to Tampa
International and Orlando International.
Well-positioned to spend
The stimulus funding in 2009 was welcomed by cash-starved money on new projects. “We have no bridges falling down,” said
transportation agencies in Florida. An October 2008 review of Bob Clifford, executive director of the Tampa Bay Area Regional
funding needs in Florida’s metropolitan areas by the University Transportation Authority. Unlike other states, Florida is required
of South Florida’s Center for Urban Transportation Research by statute to maintain bridges and roads in top condition. Federal
estimated a statewide 20–year funding shortfall of $62.5 billion, Highway statistics show that two-thirds of Florida’s interstates
or $3.1 billion per year.1 In addition, Florida’s DOT reduced are rated in the best condition, compared to only one-third of the
its 5-year work program by $10 billion. A clear advantage for nation’s interstates as a whole.2 Additionally, the rate of deficient
Florida is that it carefully maintained its transportation facili- bridges in Florida is half that of the national average.3
ties and was better positioned than other states to spend stimulus
4 | May 2011

5. INTRODUCTION
“Shovel Ready” Limitations
To be eligible for stimulus funding, new projects needed to be money into the economy quickly. Structural reforms in federal
“shovel ready.” That meant all necessary environmental permits funding, such as selecting projects with national impacts, were
had to be in place, land acquisition completed, and all other delayed so that the money could be delivered expeditiously. As a
agreements executed. James Bennett, the Urban Transportation result, the federal stimulus allocated funding to state transporta-
Development Manager for FDOT District 2, which covers Jack- tion agencies and local transit agencies as separate accounts to
sonville, said that despite being perennially strapped for funding, be spent on available projects, rather than funding high-value
“we took steps in advance for right of way, environmental and projects that mixed highway and transit funds. The need for rapid
land acquisition, and took steps to have designers update ‘on-the- project development tended to favor smaller, less controversial,
shelf plans’ and apply for permits. It was a calculated risk of ex- lower-impact road and transit projects rather than larger, more
pending planning budgets if funding for construction did not be- complex developments that could have greater impact on serving
come available, but also a risk if we had not updated plans.” Such travel and shaping development.
planning in the face of financial difficulties prepared District 2 to
use the stimulus funding to advance many major road projects. This limitation was apparent across the nation, where much of
By contrast, many other states had fewer “shovel ready” projects. the funding went to short-term improvements rather than long-
For transit, however, expansion projects in the state were not as term investments, according to a study by the federal Govern-
advanced, leaving transit agencies to fund short-term operational ment Accountability Office. The study shows states spent half of
improvements rather than major capital projects. the highway funds for pavement improvement, and just 9 percent
for new roads and bridges. Similar results were found for transit
A central theme of the federal stimulus concept is reinvest- spending, with 88 percent going to maintain operations, not
ing in the future, but this took a back seat to the need to get the investments for the long term.4
May 2011 | 5

6. Stimulus spending in Florida’s major regions
The Florida experience differs significantly from those of As previously mentioned, the stimulus program restricted the
other states. A 2009 study by the Kirwan Institute for the Study types of transportation projects that could move forward. It was
of Race and Ethnicity at Ohio State University found one-fourth therefore necessary to establish criteria and responsibility for
of the money for highways in Florida was allocated for highway project selection. Transportation plans are conceived as address-
preservation efforts, while three-fourths was spent for new road ing many objectives: relieving congestion, promoting economic
construction.5 Similarly, Florida DOT data finds that for the development, and serving regional growth while protecting the
estimated $1.1 billion that Florida committed to the major economy and the disadvantaged. However, the short-term com-
regions, about three times more was spent on major road projects mitments – half of the funding needed to be committed in 120
(most of which expanded capacity) than on preservation. days – of the stimulus program allowed little flexibility in proj-
ects not already vetted. A total of $1.3 billion in highway funds
As described in the case studies outlined later in this report, was distributed to Florida DOT by the Federal Highway Admin-
most of these projects are for a range of capacity expansion, istration. For areas over 200,000 in population, 30 percent of the
increased technology and expanded services such as managed funding went to projects selected selected by the regional MPOs.
lanes. Although this approach required more time to put in place, The remaining 70 percent of the funding went to the Florida DOT
bringing criticism of slow implementation, it holds the promise under a statewide flexible funding program, in which FDOT
of greater long-term value for the projects. Because there were selected projects with input from the 26 MPOs. For the regions
few major transit expansion projects “on the shelf,” it appears studied here, the DOT took the lead role in selecting $592 mil-
transit stimulus funding focused more on acquiring more buses lion in major highway projects, the MPOs selected $223 million
and improving facilities and equipment than on advancing major in other road and pedestrian projects and $266 million in transit
new projects. funding was delegated to local transit authorities.
6 | May 2011

7. STIMULUS SPENDING IN FLORIDA’S MAJOR REGIONS
Florida DOT’s highway projects
The DOT chose those projects which:
n Had been deferred by the state.
n Were tied to concurrency where development
is being held up (transportation concurrency is
required by the state growth management law).6
n Had the potential to generate revenues and jobs.
n Were geographically balanced.
n Provided congestion relief.
n Were located in economically distressed areas (a
new requirement, although almost of the state fell
into this federal definition). were geographically balanced. The federal emphasis on economi-
n Could be completed in 3 years (priority criteria cally distressed areas seemed to have had little impact in Florida,
per federal ARRA legislation). because most of the state meets the federal definition of “disad-
vantaged.” While congestion relief was also important, most of
The projects studied here were selected primarily because they the major projects had been designed many years ago for that
were ready to go, they had been deferred in the past and they purpose.
The FDOT selected larger projects that benefited regions. For the regions studied in this report, 15
projects accounted for about $592 million in project value.
Major Florida DOT stimulus projects Project Cost (Millions)
Description ARRA Funds Total
Widen S.R. 50 to six lanes in Winter Garden in Orange County $18.5 $28.4
Widen S.R. 434 (Maitland Blvd.) to six lanes in Seminole County $4.7 $5.5
Widen Hoagland Blvd. and reconstruct 1.1 miles in Osceola County $4.5 $7.1
Implement electronic tolling on a section of Florida’s Turnpike $22.0 $22.0
Convert I-95 car pool lanes to managed lanes in Miami and Broward County $104.6 $127.6
Widen Interchange of S.R. 826/S.R. 836 in Miami $89.2 $648.2
Widen Dixie Highway (S.R.811), Broward and Palm Beach counties $40.9 $48.4
Toll road connection between the I-4 and Selmon Expressway in Tampa $105.0 $507.9
Reconstruct U.S. 19 into an urban freeway in Pinellas County $48.3 $141.7
Widen U.S. 41 (S.R. 45) to four lanes in Pasco County $14.7 $17.0
Widen U.S. 301 in Sarasota $9.7 $10.7
Construct S.R. 9B, a new four-lane highway in Duval County $76.1 $82.2
Widen S.R. 212 (Beach Blvd.) in Duval County to six lanes $15.2 $17.0
Construct S.R. 23 overpass in Clay County $8.4 $10.2
Widen S.R. 200 (A1A) to four lanes in Nassau County $29.8 $34.0
TOTAL MAJOR PROJECTS $591.6 $1,707.9
In three of these projects, the stimulus funds supported much larger projects. The total cost of the S.R. 826/836 interchange in
Miami was $648 million. The toll road connecting I-4 and the Selmon Expressway in Tampa was part of a partnership with a pri-
vate consortium with a total cost of $508 million. The U.S. 19 project in Clearwater was part of a total state project costing $142
million. In these projects, federal funds leveraged more than $1 billion in state and private dollars.
May 2011 | 7

8. STIMULUS SPENDING IN FLORIDA’S MAJOR REGIONS
MPOS Partner with Others
Florida has 26 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs),
more than any other state. When selecting projects to fund with
stimulus money, the larger MPOs turned to smaller entities
within individual counties and cities. For example, the Miami-
Dade MPO (one of three representing the Miami urbanized
area) sub-allocated its funds by population among its cities and
counties and let those government entities select the projects. In
the Tampa-St. Petersburg portion of the upper Tampa Bay region,
represented by three MPOs, each of them – Hillsborough County
MPO, Pinellas County MPO, and Pasco County MPO – partnered
with FDOT to jointly fund a regionally significant project in their
county.
This sort of metropolitan transportation planning divides
regions as opposed to uniting them. Economies, labor markets
and housing markets function at the regional level; geographical
boundaries pose no barrier to commerce, commuting, home buy- Florida regions, and 16 percent in the Tampa Bay region. Because
ing, shopping or other connections. Yet, as the previous examples existing transit service is heavily oriented toward the larger cit-
illustrate, metropolitan transportation planning in many Florida ies and low-income travelers, this share represents the principal
regions is dispersed among county-level agencies, rather than a stimulus commitment to disadvantaged travelers.
single organization. At the same time, local plans tend to focus
on local traffic and transit concerns, without addressing the larger Transit funding decisions were made at the local level. This
regional concern. It is essential that there be a component of resulted in separate funding distributions to each transit agency
transportation planning that provides the road and transit and did not allow for a more strategic investment plan, such as
links to serve entire regions. a greater emphasis on regional projects like the I-95 Express in
Miami-Broward. It also means that disadvantaged communities
Transit decisions mostly local may have also lost out as a result of some of these strictly local
funding decisions. A study of MPO plans by the Center for Urban
Federal stimulus spending for local transit projects in the major Transportation Research in Tampa found that transit improve-
regions amounted to $266 million, about half as much as spent on ments are determined based on revenues available, rather than
the Florida DOT’s major road projects. Almost two-thirds ($170 estimating needs first and then finding a way to pay for them. The
million) of the $266 million was spent in South Florida. About transit projects, unlike the highway spending, did not include any
one of every four stimulus dollars spent in the major regions went significant new capital investments, a consequence of the require-
to transit, from a low of 12 percent of overall stimulus spending ment to spend the stimulus money quickly, which is difficult with
in Jacksonville, to almost a third in both the Central and South transit projects because of their complexity.
Comparisons
The chart below shows population estimates and travel indicators for major areas in Florida.
Area in Population density Avg. daily miles Public transit share
Urban Area Population
Square Miles per square mile driven per capita of commuting
Miami 5,431,000 1,499 3,623 24 3.5%
Tampa/St. Petersburg 2,326,000 1,072 2,170 27 1.2%
Sarasota 673,000 455 1,479 25 .7%
Orlando 1,414,000 716 1,975 31 1.8%
Jacksonville 1,052,000 696 1,512 31 1.2%
8 | May 2011

9. Pensacola Tallahassee
Jacksonville
Lake City
Panama City
St. Augustine
Apalachicola Gainesville
Stimulus spending Ocala Daytona Beach
by region
Orlando
Central Florida – The $102 million of federal stimulus
funding in the Orlando region is the smallest among the regions Melbourne
studied and the most balanced, with roughly equal amounts for Clearwater Tampa Lakeland
highway expansion, road rehabilitation, and transit. There are St. Petersburg
only three major road projects, two of which would not be clas- Bradenton
sified as major in other regions. Each appear to be important in
advancing an ambitious longer-term transportation plan that sup-
ports a new vision for development in Central Florida, one with Port Charoltte
the potential to be more sustainable, more productive, and more West Palm Beach
attractive to future residents. The region’s proposed new SunRail Ft. Myers
commuter rail project is a first step to major transit improve- Boca Raton
Deerfield Beach
Pompano Beach
ments, although it did not receive stimulus funds, a consequence Naples Fort Lauderdale
Hollywood
of not being “shovel ready.” (A review of the project by the
Miami Miami Beach
Governor may eliminate or delay the projected to start). While
not part of the stimulus project, another federal program is being
used to expand Orlando’s downtown circulator transit to serve
a minority community, the Parramore district, part of a broader
revitalization project there.
Marathon
Key West
Jacksonville – Four major road projects will add capacity
to the east, northwest, west, and south of downtown, while the agencies and road, bridge, and pedestrian/bicycle rehabilitation
transit improvements are focused on the existing service area. projects. It occurred concurrently with the region’s evolution to
The new road projects account for six times the investment in a broader regional view of growth. The three highway develop-
transit, which is the lowest share of the major regions surveyed, ment projects represent critical projects for the jurisdictions and
a consequence not of local choices but rather of federal funding the region as a whole, as well as important statewide connections.
formulas. All of these major projects add capacity in suburban They would appear to advance the “connected region” concept
areas beyond the core central area. While seemingly expanding of a 2035 long-range transportation plan and contribute to the
growth potential, they were planned long ago and do not serve region’s new vision for sustainable development. The Tampa
areas where development is limited by Florida’s concurrency project also helps solve a problem of truck traffic in an inner-city
regulations – one of the criteria used statewide for project selec- neighborhood, a beneficial byproduct of this major envestment.
tion. “They address existing congestion, and the projects would The transit projects reinforce existing transit in each of the seven
have been in the five-year Transportation Improvement Program, agencies. However, the “shovel ready” rules and the local focus
which includes all approved development,” according to Laurie of the seven agencies probably prevented any broader strategy of
Kettrell, transportation planning services manager with the city transit investment. During this period, one major transit initiative
of Jacksonville. Their Transportation Planning Organization, the failed at the ballot box in Hillsborough Cªounty.
metropolitan planning organization for the region, acknowledges
that the current regional transportation plan has the underlying South Florida – Stimulus funding helped some critical
goal of supporting existing trends in development, which consist highway improvements, while the transit and local road projects
primarily of developing the suburban fringe, with little atten- were distributed in a less strategic fashion, a consequence of the
tion given to reinvesting in urban communities. More ambitious dispersed nature of transportation planning and lack of an overall
growth initiatives are in their infancy. regional institution, with the exception of the Florida DOT,
whose own districts are actually divided among the three central
Tampa Bay – The federal stimulus program in the Tampa Bay counties. The big projects should yield long-term benefits to the
region has been concentrated into a few large highway develop- region, well beyond the short-term jobs that were the primary
ment projects, an array of transit projects scattered among transit rationale for this federal program.
May 2011 | 9

10. STIMULUS SPENDING By REGION
Road Priorities
Jacksonville – The Florida DOT District’s funding was suf-
ficient for three major projects, but low bids on those projects
meant a fourth could be funded. The major project priorities,
while established by the Florida DOT, were ones that were also
among the top priority projects for the Transportation Planning
Organization. The TPO was able to use the distribution of local
funding to make sure that “all counties were treated well,” ac-
cording to Jeff Sheffield, the TPO’s executive director. These
major projects add capacity in four suburban areas with growth
potential. “The intention was not to create sprawl,” Sheffield said.
“They address existing congestion.”
Central Florida – The Florida DOT worked closely with
Metroplan Orlando, but had the lead in setting the road-widening
projects through its district office and the central office in
Tallahassee. These projects were on important corridors sched-
uled for improvements. Unlike other regions, the MPO’s board
established an equity criterion for distribution of local project
funds according to the population of the three member counties.
Because the MPO traditionally emphasizes capacity projects
to improve regional traffic and serve growth, many resurfacing
projects were not included in the MPO plans, although assur-
ances were made to incorporate those projects into long-range
transportation improvement programs in order to comply with the
stimulus requirements.
Tampa Bay – The decision-making process was divided
among the Florida DOT, responsible for big-ticket items worth
$178 million, the MPOs and their authority over $49 million in
highway resurfacing and pedestrian/bike improvements, and the
local transit agencies and their priorities for spending $45 million. Photo courtesy of the Tampa Tribune
Each of the MPOs in the Tampa sub-area partnered with FDOT Work began on a road connecting I-4 and the Selmon Expressway in
March 2010 and is expected to be completed in 2013.
to jointly fund a regionally significant project in their counties.
Hillsborough County agreed to jointly fund the I-4/Selmon Ex- travel to downtown Miami and other cities along the north-south
pressway Connector , which was 100 percent designed but stalled spine, and the tolls will also help fund enhanced transit service.
for lack of funding. The U.S. 19 project is the key arterial serving This project crosses between the two Florida DOT districts, and
Pinellas County and its major cities, and continues a series of im- it will become part of a larger managed-lane network. The Dixie
provements along this important state road corridor. U.S. 41 (S.R. Highway improvement connects Broward and Palm Beach coun-
45) improvements had been continually deferred because of fund- ties. Finally, the all-electronic toll facility on Florida’s Turnpike
ing cutbacks, so the Pasco County MPO identified this project as implements an “open road tolling” concept, which eliminates the
a top priority and spent its entire stimulus funding on it. delay and congestion from collecting tolls.
South Florida – Responsibility for $257 million for five major In contrast to the strategic approach of the Florida DOT, the
highway projects rested with the Florida DOT, Districts 6 and 4, Miami-Dade MPO sub-allocated its $56.2 million funding by a
and accounted for 70 percent of the combined highway spending population-based distribution among its 34 cities and unincorpo-
in this region. The projects selected represent critical regional rated areas and let these government entities select the projects.
needs, especially important given the dispersed nature of met- This resulted in a large number of relatively small projects. The
ropolitan planning into three different MPOs. The S.R. 826/836 average resurfacing project in Miami-Dade County had a project
(Palmetto/Dolphin freeways) interchange reconstruction will cost of a little over $250,000, in contrast to an average of $3
improve a link near the regional core, affecting travel throughout million in Palm Beach County. Broward County considered such
South Florida, and done in partnership with the Miami-Dade Ex- an approach, according to Greg Stuart, executive director of the
pressway authority, helping leverage an additional $500 million MPO there, with each city getting small amounts that did not add
in project costs on top of the $89 million in ARRA funding. Two up to much. Instead the MPO decided to make larger investments
projects, known as 95 Express Phase ll, will improve regional into fewer projects.
10 | May 2011

11. STIMULUS SPENDING By REGION
Transit Priorities
Transit agencies tended to report stimulus funding as a single nities. Stimulus grants also went to suburban transit operators.
line item in their budgets. The following analysis was based on Sarasota and Manatee counties received about $ 5 million apiece,
reports from agencies, some more accessible than others. Over- and Pasco got about $1.7 million. Modest amounts went to Citrus
all, the stimulus funds appear to have been spent on near-term and Hernando counties.
operational improvements rather than longer-term investments,
a consequence of the need to spend the money quickly. Transit South Florida – It received $170 million in transit funding, al-
investments are often complicated and require a longer lead time. located to the three county transit operators and the South Florida
Regional Transportation Authority (SFRTA). The largest share,
Jacksonville – The regional transit operator, the Jacksonville $75 million, went to Miami Dade Transit, with Broward County
Transportation Authority, received $20 million in stimulus funds. Transit and Palm Tran each receiving almost $40 million, and
The largest items were new buses and improved fare collection SFRTA receiving $16 million. The money was distributed widely
equipment, which accounted for about half. The remainder went to 28 municipalities in proportion to their populations.
for a wide range of improvements, including repairs to Jackson-
ville’s downtown people mover, facility improvements and some While politically popular, this approach created many small
bus service. grants, and difficult grant administration for Miami Dade Transit
(MDT), which knows the Federal guidelines and regulations,
Central Florida – Transit received $31.5 million, and it went while the smaller municipalities do not. The local governments
to the regional transit operator, LYNX, which operates service for selected a range of projects, typically bus stop improvements and
the three counties. Over two-thirds of this was spent on vehicle purchase of trolleys and buses, but MDT was left with the respon-
purchases and bus shelter improvements, with the remainder on a sibility of managing these projects and reporting to the federal
variety of smaller items, and $2 million for rural transit service. agencies, because these smaller agencies were not qualified to
handle such project management. Most of the Miami Dade Tran-
Tampa Bay – A total of $45 million in transit funding went to sit funding was spent on improving and rehabilitating infrastruc-
the region, which is served by transit operators for each of the ture for Metrorail and Metromover, $43 million, with $12 million
seven counties, although the majority was for Hillsborough Area allocated to implementing Bus Rapid Transit on Kendall Drive, a
Rapid Transit in Hillsborough County and the Pinellas Suncoast transforming suburban center in South Miami. SFRTA, the only
Transit Authority (PSTA) in Pinellas County – $15 million each. true regional transit agency, offering commuter rail service in
About half of the funding went for new buses, $5.4 million South Florida, plans to spend its funds on new locomotives and
was used for a GPS tracking system, and the rest for a range of rail cars to upgrade an aging fleet.
service improvements, facility improvements and passenger ame-
Share of Households in Transportation Disadvantaged
Florida Regions with
some form of transportation The transportation disadvantaged, according to the Florida Commission for the Trans-
limitation portation Disadvantaged, are travelers whose physical or mental disability, income
status, or age, make them unable to transport themselves and dependent on others to
Transportation Urbanized Area Percent
Limitations of Households1 obtain access to health care, employment, education, shopping, or other life-sustaining
activities. They represent a surprisingly large group, as shown in the table below. The
Miami Tampa Orlando Transportation Disadvantaged Commission served 8.9 million one-way trips, at an
Households average cost per trip of $12.90 in Fiscal Year 2007-08. In addition, the Commission
11% 9% 7% reported that other services for the transportation disadvantaged in Florida provided
without cars
50.3 million trips to more than 680,000 passengers in the same year, sixty-four percent
Seniors living
11% 11% 7% of these on fixed-route services such as buses and rail systems.
alone
Living in
14% 11% 11% Estimates for different components of the population unable to drive were compiled for
poverty
the largest urbanized areas in the country, including three in Florida. These are broad-
Transportation er measures than strictly transportation disadvantaged, and in some cases overlap.
14% 17% 7%
disabilities
However, in aggregate they suggest the relatively high percentage of the population
1 Committee on the Role of Public Transportation in Emergency that is unable to drive and dependent on others for transportation –either specialized
Evacuation, “The Role of Transit in Emergency Evacuation, transportation services or conventional transit service. It is important that metropolitan
special report 294”, Transportation Research Board: Washington, transportation planning recognize and plan for these populations.1
D., 2008, Annex 4-1
May 2011 | 11

12. STIMULUS SPENDING By REGION
Shifting Emphasis
Jacksonville – A disconnect often developed between trans- grades, polling shows even opponents of the referendum want the
portation plans and land use. Projects that added road capacity transit improvements, so the challenge is how to pay for them.
to support growth often led to more auto-oriented development Communities far away from downtown Tampa are moving ahead,
and increased traffic congestion. The current plan broadens the changing local planning regulations to allow increasing densities,
transportation goals by emphasizing transit. Laurie Kattreh, pedestrian connections and mixed uses that will support Transit
transportation planning services manager with the city of Jack- Oriented Development (TOD) once the transit system is actually
sonville, acknowledged that, “today we would not be widening built.
roads, but creating more options for transit and balanced commu-
nities where people do not have to drive so much.” In addition, South Florida –The plans call for a transportation system that
economic development considerations are much more prominent. emphasizes greater options, reinforces transit and creates places
There is recognition that the impacts of the Port of Jacksonville that encourage walking. Even a Florida DOT district secretary
have benefits to surrounding counties and beyond. has said that building more roads is not the solution, and to many
the DOT of the past has been a roads-only agency. The business
Central Florida – The long-range plan has more emphasis on community sees transit as the spark, so the South Florida Region-
transit than any previous plan. It shifts the conventional focus al Transportation Authority was created through strong support
from serving ever-expanding suburban fringes to enhanced ser- by the business community, which was able to be a more effec-
vice to established areas and urban centers. It calls for expanding tive advocate to the legislature than public officials had been.
the bus fleet, creating bus rapid transit routes, constructing Sun- The commuter rail operator called Tri-County Commuter Rail
Rail, a 61-mile North-South commuter rail system, and develop- Authority (Tri-Rail) was merged into the South Florida Regional
ing an East-West Light Rail line. Transportation Authority (SFRTA) in 2003, with a mission to
coordinate, develop and implement a viable regional transporta-
Tampa Bay – Although Hillsborough County voters said no tion system in South Florida, including the coordination of the
to a local sales tax increase to fund transportation improvements, existing three transit agencies – Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm
including light rail, expanded bus service and major road up- Beach Transit.
12 | May 2011

13. STIMULUS SPENDING By REGION
Rethinking Regional Growth
Jacksonville –The projects funded under the stimulus program and the fostering of distinct, attractive places to live. Noting the
are generally consistent with current growth plans. But grow- impact of the alternative land use identified during the planning
ing concerns over the unintended consequences of growth led to process, the MetroPlan Orlando Board developed its 2030 Long
the convening of a long-term visioning exercise in 2009, Real- Range Transportation Plan.
ity Check First Coast, at which government, civic, and business
leaders looked at growth trends and plans for accommodating Tampa Bay – Bob Clifford, executive director of the Tampa
the expected doubling of population by 2060 in an area includ- Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority, said “We cannot
ing seven counties and 27 municipalities. A Region First 2060 continue to sprawl this way. It is unsustainable from an envi-
group is intended to help develop a growth compact among the ronmentalist, local governments, and development perspective.
participating governments. A new Northeast Florida Regional This discussion started in transportation and expanded to water,
Transportation Study Commission was initiated to develop a sustainability, and land use under the title ‘One Bay.’” Develop-
Regional Transportation Authority for the seven counties. Most ment impacts were studied and four potential growth scenarios
commission members agreed with the need for economic growth were created. A 2009 survey found residents soundly rejected the
and an expansion of transit. They emphasized the need to protect “business as usual” scenario when considering future growth. A
the agriculture and the environment, in particular the St. Johns plurality of residents support a scenario that focuses on protecting
River. Finding the right balance was the most common concern. water resources, followed by one that emphasizes compact design
The Transportation Planning Organization introduced an exercise along transportation corridors to preserve open space.
to test an alternative land-use scenario for its impact on transpor-
tation projects. It was believed that “the TPO board was ready to
explore but not ready to adopt such aggressive planning, so this South Florida - There is a new organization created to pro-
was an opportunity to plant the seed,” said Jeff Sheffield, execu- duce a long-range transportation plan for the region, although it
tive director. The mood of the public may be ahead of the of- focuses primarily on what are considered to be regional links, and
ficials, however. In a survey that asked “what’s the best solution lacks implementation. Another group called Southeast Florida
to reducing traffic in north Florida?” there was wide support for 2060 has been established to create a vision for growth, the
improving mass transit (30 percent) and developing communities economy, and the environment within a much broader region,
where people don’t have to drive as much (26 percent), compared consisting of seven counties along Florida’s Atlantic coast. South
to only 28 percent for building new roads.7 Florida is the recipient of a $4 million U.S. Department of Hous-
ing and Urban Development Sustainable Communities grant to
Central Florida – The group “Myregion.org” developed a the South Florida Regional Planning Council which will enable
shared community vision for growth in Central Florida. Resi- the Planning Council to put in place the regional plan (2060
dents and local leaders identified several principles to guide Southeast Florida Regional Plan for Sustainable Development)
transportation decisions, including the preservation of open space and the regional partnerships to advance this agenda.
May 2011 | 13

14. Lessons learned
Adding a billion dollars in federal funds to Florida’s major
regions with the requirement that it be spent quickly represented
a major challenge. This extraordinary circumstance produced
stress in what should have been a slow-paced, collaborative and
deliberate process. The following thoughts are offered as poten-
tial improvements:
Fix it first. Florida takes care of its infrastructure through
regular maintenance and timely repairs, despite limited finances.
A failure by other states to follow this principle is a rudimentary
cause of America’s deteriorating infrastructure. Infrastructure
is not “sexy” and calls for maintaining it often fall on deaf ears
among officials and a public more interested in building new
projects. When political winds change, and there is support for
additional funding, having a state highway system in good repair
means new funds can go to new projects. An important lesson for
Florida, after the stimulus is spent, is to hold to the “fix-it-first”
principle – it is a good practice for the long run.
Metropolitan Planning Organizations divide, rather than
unite regions. One of the enduring conflicts in transportation
policy, as in many other areas of public life, is finding the proper
level of governmental action for regional issues. Just as there is
tension between the federal government and the states, there is a
similar conflict between states and local governments. This issue
becomes more complicated because of the interaction between
transportation policy and land-use decisions, which are tradition-
ally the closely guarded responsibility of local governments.
Florida’s experience demonstrates a clear recognition of the need
for regional-level action, although the institutions created to do
so, the MPOs, are often too limited in authority and geography
to have the desired impact. This is especially true in the largest
two regions, South Florida and Tampa Bay, where MPOs often
function as county-level institutions. The most recent develop-
ment has been the Northeast Florida Regional Transportation
Study Commission, initiated to develop a Regional Transporta-
tion Authority for the Northeast, the only major region not to
have one. In the present context, the Florida DOT has the only
truly regional perspective, as well as a broader responsibility for
travel between Florida’s regions. The selection of infrastructure
projects demonstrates how the DOT is able to concentrate on a
few, high-impact projects with long-term benefits, while much
of the local spending was more widely distributed and directed
to smaller projects and maintenance with less of an impact. This
may be a short-term expediency, but metropolitan planning needs
to emphasize strategic goals for the long run.
While this is an obvious inconsistency, there is no easy answer.
There are several good examples in Florida of creating organiza-
tions to present such a regional view, but these are overlays to ex-
isting MPOs, which may find it difficult to give up responsibility.
Another option is to acknowledge the importance of the Florida
DOT district officials as key regional players, possibly with new
functions. The way in which funding is divided, as seen in this
14 | May 2011

15. LESSONS LEARNED
study, might be a simple answer – find the right mix of local/re- Many urban regions have ambitious transit dreams. Part of that
gional versus state funds, and let the organizations use their funds ambition is rooted in a desire to offer options to their residents
to reach the optimum goals. and part is rooted in a competitive envy toward new transit
projects in Denver, Charlotte and Houston and the belief that a
Link transit investments to corridor development (and re- similar project may hold the key to becoming a world-class city
development). Transit serves two important roles: for those who and region. However, making transit work also requires a recon-
have no choice; and for those looking for a choice. The first and sidering of traditional suburban development plans, the same
foremost is that of a social service to “transit dependents,” those ones responsible for developing much of Florida since World War
lacking the finances or mobility to drive. This service is expen- II. Perhaps even more surprising than the flowering of interest in
sive to provide, costing an average of 87 cents per passenger mile public transit has been the wave of civic and business initiatives
in Miami-Dade and Tampa Bay for transit, and fares must be kept directed toward finding a new development pattern, one that will
low to serve low-income travelers. Revenues for these two transit serve future Floridians better and avoid some of the unwanted
operators pay only one-fourth of the operating costs. Transit’s consequences of suburban sprawl.
second role is to get drivers out of their cars and help reduce
congestion for “choice riders,” those with cars as an alternative. Recognize a broader transportation role in community
This latter function is playing a more important role in all of the building. Nine regions have embarked on some form of regional
major regions studied here, as communities create transit-oriented visioning exercise, covering most of the state and virtually all of
guidelines for development projects planned around future transit its population. Such futurist processes are intended to develop a
extensions. This strategic role of transit is difficult for agencies consensus around a range of future goals involving growth, the
that serve a single county and lack a broader regional view of the economy and the environment. Long-range transportation plan-
resources needed to develop a new transit project. Interestingly, ning requires this same kind of thoughtful deliberation, but has
the new commuter rail in Orlando will be run not by the local often been treated as merely an exercise in projecting the location
transit agency, which actually does have a regional service area, of future residents and jobs; little more than inputs to mathemati-
but by the Florida DOT for the first seven years. cal travel models. Critics denounce such procedures as “predict
and provide” extensions of current trends many communities
May 2011 | 15

16. LESSONS LEARNED
would like to change. In this sense, transportation planners have Each of these regions represents a rethinking of Florida’s
been cast as involuntary allies in perpetrating the status quo. traditional reliance on the automobile and an expanded future for
transit, walking and bicycling. Each region has ambitious transit
The oldest of these regional visions, Central Florida’s “How plans. While the “love affair with the car” may not be over, citi-
Shall We Grow?” began 10 years ago. Such visions try to zen surveys and a growing number of elected officials are taking
reinvent people’s view of the American Dream, which revolves a more expansive view of travel options.
around a family, a car and a house in the suburbs with a conve-
nient drive to work. Fueled by evolving demographics and chang- Integrate services for the transportation disadvantaged.
ing preferences on where it is considered “cool” to live, future Much of the stimulus spending on transit is scattered among a
development visions will move beyond large suburbs that do wide range of local operators faced with cutting services because
not serve workforce housing or the economically disadvantaged. of declining revenues. Public transit is but the tip of the iceberg
Sprawl, the dominant development pattern for the past half cen- when considering the wide range of transportation services
tury, was fueled by deliberate government policy decisions, such devoted to elderly, low income, and persons with disabilities.
as the Interstate Highway System and Federal Housing Admin- Serving the disadvantaged might work better by organizing ser-
istration (FHA) mortgages that steered people away from cities. vices around the needs of users, with funding allocated to public
A more holistic approach will expand the need for transportation transit providers and social service agencies, and possibly even
choices and ensure new transit projects are supported by strong contracted private services.
ridership rather than struggling to survive. The One Bay initiative
serves such a role for the Tampa Bay area, as does the Southeast Because there is a multitude of transit agencies, critical issues
Florida 2060 in South Florida and Region First 2060 for Jackson- like serving the disadvantaged can get scant attention. However,
ville’s First Coast region. this study identified a few special examples of regional transpor-
tation projects that assist the disadvantaged:
16 | May 2011

17. LESSONS LEARNED
n he Pinellas county MPO conducts an environmen-
T n he Jacksonville Transportation Authority is a part-
T
tal justice demographic analysis with maps showing ner of the Northeast Florida Mobility Coalition, a
low-income and minority populations. It produces a regional cooperative partnership formed to enhance
“State of the System Report” that tracks the perfor- access to transportation for all persons throughout
mance of the transportation system and the long- Northeast Florida, serving elderly, disadvantaged,
range plan in serving these populations. and persons with disabilities. It brings together state
agencies and human service agencies, transporta-
n he Hillsborough County MPO created a Ride
T tion planning organizations, consumers and com-
Guide brochure with a comprehensive listing of munity transportation coordinators for each of the
services that may be of use to the transportation seven counties of Northeast Florida.
disadvantaged.
n ne of the benefits of connecting the I-4 and Sel-
O
n he City of Orlando received a USDOT Tiger grant
T mon Expressway is that it will eliminate the intru-
to assist in a plan that calls for reinvesting in the sion of truck traffic headed for the Port of Tampa
Parramore community, a low-income neighbor- through Ybor City near downtown Tampa. Reme-
hood cut off from downtown by the freeway. The diating such impacts is a concern to port operators
plan offers expanded transit services to support the nationwide, and this is one example of finding a
redevelopment and housing assistance. successful solution.
May 2011 | 17

18. Conclusion
This review of the use of federal stimulus funding for transpor- funding. While the pressure to spend on “shovel ready” projects
tation in Florida’s major regions has found significant differences is partly to blame for diverting resources from transit, Florida
in approaches for the three primary institutions responsible for ur- also had challenges with integrative planning. Generally speak-
ban transportation. On one hand, the Florida DOT emphasized a ing, institutions of long-range planning in Florida are narrowly
few strategic major highway expansions in each region, while on focused on their own missions. Instead, what is needed is a
the other hand the metropolitan transportation organizations and broader vision.
transit agencies emphasized short-term, low-impact rehabilitation
and repair projects. The good news is that this broader, sustainable vision is begin-
ning to spread throughout the state. It is important for key federal
Part of the challenge in Florida has been the pressure to spend and state officials to help reinforce this more sustainable view of
the money quickly, making a task that required holistic planning Florida’s future.
even more difficult. One of the casualties of this has been transit
The Rise and Fall of the Orlando to Tampa High Speed Rail Line
The state’s rejection of a high-speed rail line connecting Orlando and Tampa dominated the headlines in Florida
in early 2011. Although that project was not part of the stimulus funding examined in this report, it bears mention.
Planning for high-speed rail connecting Tampa, Orlando and Miami has been under way for decades and appeared
to be nearing reality when President Obama announced a national high-speed rail program. The U.S. Department of
Transportation selected Florida’s Orlando to Tampa project as one of the initial segments, agreeing to fund $2.4 bil-
lion of the $2.6 billion cost. However, the project was canceled in February 2011 as one of the first actions of incom-
ing Governor Rick Scott, who said he was skeptical of ridership projections and concerned that the state would be
responsible for cost overruns. The decision infuriated the project’s suporters, including many politicians and business
leaders who argued it would create thousands of jobs, help ease highway congestion and provide better access and
conectivity between the state’s largest metro areas for millions of residents and tourists. When completed, they said,
it would be a boon to the central Florida economy. They complained the governor based his decision on political
ideology rather than fact. Furthermore, a study released by the Florida Department of Transportation after the gover-
nor’s decision estimated higher ridership and more profitable operations than previously projected. A New York Times
story reported that the project suffered from several flaws: Tampa and Orlando are only 84 miles apart, too close to
benefit much from the train’s high speed; and, both cities lack good local transit connections. Would riders opt for a
train when they would need a car when they arrived at their destination? In a special session called by then-Governor
Charlie Crist in 2009, the state Legislature approved the SunRail project, a commuter train designed to at least partial-
ly solve that problem and sealing the eventual selection of Florida as one of the initial federal grants. The high-speed
rail project appears to be dead, however, at least for the time being. The SunRail project could be in danger, its future
depending on potential reconsideration by Scott.
18 | May 2011

19. APPENDIx TABLE
Summary of Stimulus spending by county and project type (millions)
Type of Stimulus Project
County Add Capacity Road Rehab Bridge Pedestrian and Bike Transit Traffic Control Total
Orange 18.5 12.3 5.4 31.5 67.7
Central
Seminole 5.0 9.9 0.8 4.2 19.9
Osceola 4.8 9.0 0.2 14.0
Total 28.3 31.2 6.2 4.2 31.5 0.2 101.6
Miami-Dade 126.0 44.9 4.0 10.2 74.9 22.0 282.0
Broward 125.4 0.5 0.5 39.8 166.2
South
Palm Beach 2.6 24.8 2.7 0.8 38.7 69.6
TriRail 16.1 16.1
Total 254.0 70.2 6.7 11.5 169.5 22.0 533.9
Hillsborough 105.0 0.3 15.2 120.5
Pinellas 48.3 1.3 15.4 65.0
Pasco 18.2 1.2 4.4 23.8
Tampa Bay
Hernando 2.3 6.6 1.1 0.01 10.0
Citrus 9.7 0.5 10.2
Manatee 6.3 0.7 0.6 4.6 6.1 18.3
Sarasota 9.7 4.6 1.4 3.0 4.9 23.6
Total 183.5 27.5 2.1 7.7 44.5 6.1 271.4
Duval 91.3 9.4 19.4 120.1
Jacksonville
Clay 10.4 3.8 0.2 14.4
St. Johns 1.4 3.3 0.2 0.6 0.9 6.4
Nassau 29.8 2.5 0.4 32.7
Total 132.9 19.0 0.2 1.2 20.3 173.6
All Regions 598.7 147.9 15.2 24.6 265.8 28.3 1080.5
SOURCES
Three major sources were used for this research; Florida DOT’s database of stimulus projects; reports from regions, DOT districts and transit agencies;
and interviews with experts from the Florida DOT, metropolitan planning and transit officials, and members of the business and civic communities.
Footnotes
1
Jeff Kramer and Alexander Bond, The 2008 Review of Florida’s MPO Long Range Transportation Plans, The Florida Department of Transportation,
October 2008
2
FHWA Highway Statistics, 2009
3
FHWA, Deficient bridges by state highway system, December 2010
4
GAO report GAO-10-231, Recovery Act: Status of States’ and Localities’ Use of Funds and Efforts to Ensure Accountability, Government Accountability
Office, Washington, D.C., issued on December 10, 2009
5
Building Opportunity: A Call for Florida to Assure Transparency, Accountability and Equity in the Use of Economic Recovery Funds KIRWAN
INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF RACE AND ETHNICITY, THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, 2009
6
“Concurrency” is the Florida term for “adequate public facilities controls,” indicating that facilities need not necessarily be in place at the time of project
approval but that they must be scheduled to become available “concurrently” with demand from the proposed development. Intended to promote better
planning, it has done the opposite by preventing development in established locations with pedestrian connections, which because of their greater
density and urban locations, tend to be located in areas with greater traffic volumes.
7
2008 North Florida Transportation Survey, cited in “Connecting Florida: Transit and Florida’s Economy”, Urban Land Institute, 2010, page 26
May 2011 | 19

20. For more information contact:
Thomas M. Arthur
Director of Collins News and Information
727-599-9245
Miami | Tampa Bay | Tallahassee
www.CollinsCenter.org
20 | May 2011