Status review and future role of the Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway Authority

Status review and future role of the Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway Authority

Material Information

Status review and future role of the Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway Authority
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Center for Urban Transportation Research
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Express highways -- Florida -- Hilssborough County ( lcsh )


General Note:
"April 1996."
Statement of Responsibility:
prepared by Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
C01-00110 ( USFLDC DOI )
c1.110 ( USFLDC Handle )

Postcard Information



This item has the following downloads:

Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nmm 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 008 s1996 flu|||| |||||| eng
datafield ind1 7 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00110
2 doi
0 245
Status review and future role of the Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway Authority /
c prepared by Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida.
Tampa, Fla. :
b Center for Urban Transportation Research,
"April 1996."
Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway Authority.
Express highways
z Florida
Hilssborough County.
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
1 8 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856


Status Review and Future Role of the Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway Authority Prepared by: Center for Urban Transportation Research College of Engineering University of South Florida Apri11996


Status Revi ew and Future Role of the TampaHillsborough Co unty Expressway Authority Introducti on The Center for Urban Transporta tion Research was asked by the Florida L egislature t o conduct a study of the future role of the Tampa-Hillsb orough Coun ty Exp ressway Authori ty. The request also specified that "after defining the purp ose and mission of the Authority aod assessing its status in meeting its responsibilities the primary thrust of our inquiry is an ide ntifi ca tion and assessment o f alternatives to the Authority's current status. We are looking at whether t he status quo is justified; whether the Authority's mission should be redefined to e xpand its role and, if so, how; and whether the A u tho rity's responsibilities could be performed by other governmental entities. The potential advantages disadvantages and consequences of these options shou ld also be identified." This is an inter im report to the Legislature that answers tbe immediat e question of whether th e Tampa-H ill sborough County Expr essway Auth o rity's responsib ilit ies could be performed by o th e r go vernmental e ntit ies The remainin g question of"whether the Authority's mission s hould be redefin e d to expand its role and, if so, how" may be addressed in a follow -u p r eport. This report des c ribes the purpose and mission of the Tampa-Hi ll sb orough County E xpre ssway Authority (fHCEA), its current status in me eting its responsib ilities, and its rela tionship with other governmenta l entities. Also discu ssed are the advantages and disadvantages of public authorities, generally, and the advantages and disadvantages of expressw ay authorities, specifically. Next, the organizational structure ofTHCEA is compared t o other expressway authorities in Florida. The report concludes wi th a discussion of alternative roles and whether THCEA's responsibilities could be pe r fonned by other governmental entit ies, followed by our conclusions and r ecomm endations. Included for reference as an appendix are three documents published by THCEA: (I) The Road Ahead, (2) Projects and Imp r ove ments Master Plan, and (3) Blueprint for the Future. Purpose a nd Mission The TampaHillsborough County Expressway Authority was created in 1963 and was r eorganized effective July I 1974 under Pan IV of Chap ter 3 48, Florid a Statutes. THCEA i s an independent spec ia l distri c t as d escribed in Section 18 9. 403 FS Section 348.53, FS, states that "The authority is created for the purposes and s hall have power to construct, reco nstruct, improve, extend, repair, maintain and operat e the expressway system


In December 1995, THCEA adopted new vision and mission statements to provide new guidance and direction for the Authority. THCEA's new vision statement is; "To initiate, develop, and support innovative and balanced regional transportation systems that contribute to the economic well-being, ease of mobility, and overall quality of life for the citi2ens of the Tampa Bay region." THCEA's new mission stateme n t is: "Support the fu lfillment of transport ation needs and plans of Hillsborough County and the Tampa Bay region with primarily toll-financed facilities. Stimulate the use of public and private partnerships in order to maximize the effective and accountable use of resources. Seek citizen involvement in planning and implementing financially and environmentally sound transportation systems. Serve the public interest by promoting coordination among transportationr elated organizations to ensure the integrated development of regional facilities and systems." The "o utcomes" that THCEA hopes to achieve are: Increased public and governmental awareness and suppo rt of the import ant r o l e of toll financed facilities. Improved services, accessibility, and amenities for toll expressway customers Enhanced financial capability and flexibility to improve and expand the expressway system. Increased participation in coordinated local and regional a!Jiances, both public and private, to ensure responsive and accountable use of transportatio n resources. Implemented master plan of future programs that contrib ute to a balanced and efficient transportation system Current S tatus THCEA currently manages the Crosstown Expressway. The Cross town is a 14-rnil e expressway between Gandy Bou le vard in the Inter-Bay area in Tampa and Interstat e 75 n ear Brandon. The Crosstown was constructed in three segments. The first segment opened in 1976 and extended 2


approximately 5 miles between Gandy Boulevard and downtown Tampa The seeond segment opened in 1981 and added 8.8 miles between downtown Tampa and Fa;,lkenburg Road near Brandon. The third segment opened in 1986 and connected the Crosstown to J. 75. The construction of the Crosstown was fmanced by issuances of $54,000,000 of bonds in 1971 and $117 ,500,000 of bonds in 1978. THCEA's revenues and expenses for recent years are shown in the graph below. THCEA's bonded debt payments and its admini strative costs are paid out of toll revenues. When toll revenues are not sufficient to cover these costs, Hillsborough County has pledged to make up the difference ou t of its local gas tax revenues. Debt Service and Administrative Costs vs. T oll Revenues Millions $13 . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Debt Servica and Adminlstrtlve Coate . . . . . . . . . $11 $10 0 ... $11 0 1986 1987-88 1988-89 1989 1990!11 1991 1992-93 1993 1994 Fiscal Year Toll revenue on the Crosstown Expressway has recently begun to exce e d the debt service payments and, therefore, the county is not currently having to contribute local gas tax revenue toward bond payments. However, at current rates toll revenues are not expected to be sufficient to cover all of the current operations and maintenance costs before the bonds axe due to be retired in 2008. Therefore, FOOT is expected to continue to advance funds to cover the operations (toll collection) and maintenance costs of the Crosstown 3


As o f t h e end of 1 995, Tl-ICEA owed FOOT $36,608,361 for a ccumulated operat i ons costs, $8,170,539 for acc u m ulated mai nten ance costs and $18,88 4,709 for iriiiial cons truc tio n loans. In addition, THCEA owes Hillsborough County $45,226,588 for local gas tax rev enues that have been applied to bond paymentS as of the end of the county's 1995 fisca l year (June 30, !995). Other major debts ofTHCEA are $ 3 ,938,719 owed to the FOOT Toll Facilities Revo l ving Trust Fund for planning and design work on extensions to the Crosstown and the outstanding principa l on the bonds for the Crosstown Expressway of $120,030,000. The c u rrent debt service (principal and interest) for the bon ds is approxim a tely $13,000 000 per year Other than the bonds, none of these debts bear in t erest. When t o ll reven u es exceed adminis t rative costs plus bond e d debt payments, the excess revenue must first be applied to bond repayment ( 133 percent of the annual deb t service must be set aside for bond repay m e nt, w i t h the e xtra" 33 percen t being p l aced i n a sinking fund). Excess revenues ove r that amount mus t be applied first to the FOOT operations and construction debts until they ar e paid off, then to the county gas tax debt until i t is pa i d off, and then to the FOOT main t enance debt. The result is that excess reven ue s are not forecasted t o be available for exp r essway improvements u n til at least ten years after the curren t bon ds are retired. According to THCEA's consultants, congestion has become a prob lem on the Crosstown and capacity i m provements a r e now n eeded. Addi t io n al capacity also is consi de red e s sential i f the Crosstown is to function as an alterna t e route during the reconstruct ion oflnterstate 4. Fl o w o f T o ll Rev enue s FIRST: THCEA Administrati ve Costs SECOND: Bonded Debt Servic e T H IRD : Bond Amortizatio n Sinking Fund FOURTH FOO T Operations and Construction Debts FIFTH: Hillsborough County Gas Tax Debt SIXTH : FOOT Maintenance Deb t SEVENTH: E x p r esswa y Improve men t s 4


The bond covenants also place a number of res tric tions on the operation of the Crosstown. For instance THCEA is prohibited from using differential pricing by time of day or for high occupancy vehicle lanes. The bond covenants and the lease-purchase agreemen t between THCEA and FOOT also call for routine maintenance and toll collection services to be provided by FOOT. THCEA currently has no construction projects underway but is exploring various options with FOOT and local govemment. THCEA did the p l anning and initial development for the Veterans Expressway but, when it became apparent that THCEA had insufficien t financial capacity to finance the construction THCEA established a partnering arrangement with the FOOT Turnpike District wherein THCEA became the Turnpike District's right-of-way agent for the project and the Turnpike undertook the construct io n and management of the facility. Relationship with other Governmental Entities FDOT Turnpike District As noted above, THCEA established a partnering arrangement with the Turnpike District in order to bring the Veterans Expressway to fruition Under that agreement THCEA purchased the right of way for the project on behalf of the T urnpike. The arrangement will remain in effect until all current legal cases invo lving right-of-way acquisition are resolved, which is expected to occur within the nex t year. As part of that arrangement, the Turnpike District has reimbursed THCEA for a substantial share of its administrative cost. Since the agreement went into effect in October 1990 that share ofTHCEA's administrative cost has been as high as 70 percent and is currently about 30 percent. THCEA is proposing additional partnering relat ionships with the Turnpike o n future projects. If the bonds on the C rosstown are retired, the expressway will be transferred to state ownership, and it is FDOT policy that all toll facilities owned by the state will be managed by the Turnpike D i strict. FDOT Central Office The FDOT Office of Toll Operations is responsible for toll collection on all state toll roads, including the Florida Turnpike, and, under contract to THCEA, on the Crosstown Expressway. This relationship is stipulated in the Crosstown Expressway bond covenants; otherwise, THCEA could hire its own toll takers or contract that function out to the private sector. Within the FOOT Office of Financial Planning a revo lving trust fund is maintained from which local govemments, including expressway authorities, can borrow u p to $500,000 per year for the initial design and planning of expressway projects. THCEA borrowed from this fund for its initial work on the Veterans Expressway That debt was assumed 5


by the FDOT Turnpik e District when it assumed responsibility for the Veterans Expressway. THCEA a lso has borrowed from the ToU Facilities Revolving Trust Fund for studies on the connection between the Crosstown Expressway and Interstate 4, the Crosstown extens io n through Brandon, and the Gandy extension, and that debt is expected to be repaid from future bond proceeds. FDOT District 7 District 7 provides the maintenance for the Crosstown Expressway under contract with THCEA. This relationship is stipulated in the bond covenants; otherwise THCEA could hire its own maintenance workers or contract that function out to the private sector. Distric t 7 is represented on the THCEA by the District Secretary It also participates in THCEA affa irs through its membership on the MPO. Hillsborough County Commission The county guaranteed the bonds for the Crosstown Expressway by pledging its local option gas tax. Without that pledge TIICEA would not have been able to sell bonds. The county is represented on the THCEA by one county commissioner. It also i s involved in THCEA affairs through its membership on the MPO Cities within Hillsborough County Tampa, Temple Terrace and Plant City are involved i n THCE A affairs through their membership on the MPO Tampa is also represented on the THCE A by the mayor. Neighboring Counties THCEA has no ongoing relationship with neighboring counties, except through the MPO and its ongoing coordination efforts with other area MPOs. THCE A is proposing a cooperative relationship with Pinellas County on the proposed project to exten d the Crosstown E xpressway into Pinellas County. Hillsborough Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Projects undertaken by THCEA must be approved by the MPO as part of the MPO's long-range plan. The specific projects selected from the long-range plan for construction by THCEA are a resu lt of negotiation among THC EA the MPO, and other involved parties. Hillsborough Area Regional Transit (HART) Historically, HART's only involvem e n t in THCEA affairs has been through its membership on the MPO. THCEA is proposing a closer relationship that may involve cooperation on making provision for rail transit services in expressway corridors. HART currently uses the Crosstown Expressway on some of its express bus routes. 6


Advantages and Disadvanta ges of Public Authorities According to the authoritativ e textbook, Public Authorities and Public Policy, the primary mandate of an a u thority is .. to develop revenue-producing facilit i es in an atmosphere insulated from polit ical press u res It says that the authority ... shou l d be structured so as to encourage independence in decisio n -making from elect e d official s ... and encourage the staff to think in l ong-rang e terms not limited by the next elect ion." It also says that authorities ... are the b u sines ses of American government. ... [and] are supposed to operate in the public interest but in the manner of a self-s upp orting business free from poli tical compromise, public pressure, and bureaucratic red t ape. Advant ages At least some officials in Hillsborough County voice the opinion that independent authorities are better able than local g overnmen t to accomplish specialize d func ti ons. As an example, they suggest that Tamp a International Airport would not have the excellent reputation it does if it had n o t bee n independent. This, in fact, is the primary reason voiced around the country for special dis trict s or authorities : that the ir concentrated focus on providing a single project or service allows them to accomplish w hat general-purpose governmen t s will not or cann ot. Public Authorities and Public Policy says that "the large powers of public authorities (both s t ructural and managerial) have given them the capacity to ac hieve goa ls far beyond what migh t be expected of tradition a l government agencies or, for that matter, private sect or firms The governing boards of these authorities also provide an opportunity for citizens to p a rt icipate in local government and they help develop a base of c ivic and politica l leadership in a community. Another advantage no ted in the book, Governing Urban America is that "usually the debts and cost s of special districts do no t count i n detennining debt and tax limits of regular local governments, and the bonds of suc h districts are sometime s more eas ily marketed than are those of other loca l govenunents Public Authorities and Public Policy says that authorities prov ide ... the independence and flexibility thought to b e requ ired for the conduct of businesslike operations, g ive n current constitutional and statutory restrictions on general-purpose governments Disadvantages N onetheless, there is opposition within th e polit i cal science community to the wide spread use of special districts or authorities. Pointing out the disadvantages, Governing Urban American g o es on to say that although "special districts have o ften done v ery good jobs in construction and engine ering and sometimes in management. .. they do not necessarily elimi nate political patronage ... do not guarantee pr ofessional administration of 7


functions, and do not remove from the arena of politics governrnental functions that involve is sues of policy. Special districts often result in increased c o sts of local governme n t because of duplication of personnel, inefficient utilization of equipmen t, and inability to save thro ug h c entralized purchasing and other centralized housekee ping activities. They d o not balanc e the various needs for services of a community, do not recognize the in t e rdep endence of various fu ncti ons and are not usually provided with a method for coordinating their activities and budgets with those of the othe r governments in the area in which they exist.. .If the governing board is indirectly chosen, as is us u ally the case, there is no real respo n sibility to the p u b lic for t he f unctio n performed." Victor Jones in an art icle titled "Local Gove rnment Organization in Metropolitan Areas" says "a c orporate form of metrop olitan governm ent in which the selection of t he authority o r district commission members is once or more removed from the electoral contro ls may give u s efficient and effect ive government b u t it cannot give us good government .... [Good government cannot be achieved] by s licing off the most importan t functions of local govenune n t and handing them over to one or severa l autonomous bodies." Florida has expe ri e nce at the lo ca l leve l wit h both limited and wide-spread use of a u t h or ities Dade County, for instance, is limited in its u se of authorities. The Miami airport and the local trans it agency, for example, are part of county govern ment. Hillsborough County, on the other hand, uses the authotity form o f government quite freely, and the Tampa airport and the local transit agency, for example, are ind ependent authorities At one time there were numerou s a u thor ities in Dade Coun t y but they hav e ten ded to be absorbed int o county government as part of the government consolidation that has t a ken place there. It is important to note that contrary to this general trend, Dade County r ecent ly crea ted an exp r e s sway authority in the belief that thi s mechanism will improve it s a bili ty to fund lo ca l transporta t ion ne eds Advantages and Disadvantages of Expre s sway Authorities In addition to the ques t ion of how best local or s tate g o venunent can construct and manage toll fa cil ities t here also is the p o licy issue of whether toll financ ing of transportation facilities is, in fact, an a ppropriat e funding mechanism For instance, there are equity issue s such as the extent to which lower-inco m e persons may be unable to us e the facilities, and the question of whether the gas tax is a better funding mechanism. On the other hand, toll facilities represent the p u r e s t form of user fee financing. Comparing projected transportation needs in Hillsbo rough Count y t o projected funding, toll financing may be the most l i ke ly way t o meet the county's need for limited-access highways in a timely manner. 8


Advantages The primary advantage of an expressway authority is: It is a single purpose agency fo c used on a specific mission Its ability to focus on a single ltansportation project and not be distracted by competing interests or purposes a ll ows it to accomplish projects that other state and local governmental entities often cannot, or allows it to accomplish projects more quickly. Other advantages include: It is able in Florida to borrow money from the state's Toll Facilities Revolving Trust Fund t o begin the planning and implementation phases of toll facilities This opportunity is available to local governments but is not availab l e to district offices of FOOT It may be more sensitive to local issues than are state agencies because all appointees are local residents. When it is composed, in part of non-elected members it may be better able to implement needed but controversia l p r ojects. Through its bonding ability it can undertake major projects whose cost is so high that they cou ld not be funded by district offices of FOOT However, local governments and FOOT's Turnpike D i strict also hav e this bonding ability. It provides citizens an opportunity to serve their community, and i t helps develop a base of civic and political leade r ship. When the authority is composed of more than one county it may bring a regional perspective to bear on regional transportation needs that may be lacking in local governments. FOOT district offices might also provide a regional perspec t ive. Disadvant ages The primary disadvantage of an expressway authority is: It contributes to the fragmentation of local governmen t making coordination and efficient allocation of resources more d i fficult and making it more difficult for citizens to know where to provide community input. 9


Other disadvantages include: When it i s composed, in part, of non elected members it i s less accountable to local voters than an authority or l ocal govenunent co mposed entirely of elected officia ls. It duplicates to some ext ent the efforts and costs of other governm ental en titi es This is especially true if the authority i s jus t managing an ex isting toll facility and i s not actively involved in the plannin g and building of new facilities. A s ingle-county authority may l ack the r egional perspective needed for ex pressway projects that affect surrounding counties A disadvantage of t oll facilities generally is the high cost of collecting the tolls In its last year of operating toll facilities, the Jacksonville Transportation Authority estima t ed that the cost of collecting the tolls amounted to 21 percent of its revenues, not including lost time and higher vehicle operating costs e xperienced by motorists due to congestion at toll barriers The previous toll faci l ities are now financed by a sale s tax and the authority s cost of collection i s negligible. Using a gas tax in place of tolls would have the same effect. The increased use of new electronic toll collectio n technologies could substa ntially reduce this cost Organizational Structu r es T h e expressway authorities in the state are authorized under Chapter 348, FS, Parts I thro ugh IX. In addition, the Jacksonville Tr ansportation Authority is authorized under Chapter 349, FS. The authorized purposes an d powers of each of the eight expressway a u th o rities and the one bridge authority created by Chapter 348 are essentially the same, except in the case of the Dade County Expressway Authority, which has the aUihority to use its revenues for multi modal transportation services. The Jacksonville Transportation Authority is responsible for both e x pressways and transit service. One of the primary differences among the authorities in Florida--as well as among authorities around the country--is the compo s ition of th e boards These boards range from being composed entire l y of elec t ed officials (Pasco and Seminole}, t o mostly elected officials (St. L ucie and Broward}, to mostly appoint ed members (Tampa and Orlando), and to entirely appointed member s (Santa Rosa and Jacksonville), as s hown in the following table. These diffe rences usually reflec t local differences in th e d esire t o insulate the developm en t and managem e nt of t o ll f aci liti es from politics versus the desire to maintain political control and accountability. On so m e of the boards--but not all--the FOOT district secretary serves as an ex offici o voting member. The boards vary in size from five (Orlando) to thirteen (Dade). Of Dad e's thirteen members, nine are voting members and those nine are all non-el ected mem bers. 10


BOAR.D COMPOSIT ION AND SIZE' Auth ority Electrd Non-Eir

referendum and replaced by a local sales tax e ff ective in 1989 due, in large part, to the congestion caused by the toll barriers. Nonetheless tolls may be used finance new facilities when the needs exceed the sales tax revenues. A substantial part of the sales tax (over 20 percent) goes into transit, repla cing some of the reduction in federal transit assistance. According to the authority, having tran sit and expressways in the same authority has resulted in much greater coordi nation of the two. JT A says tbat it exists because there are roads that need to be built that FOOT and the city of Jack sonville cannot build. There are no elected officials on the JTA board. Three members are appointed by the Governor three are appointed by the Mayor, and th e seventh member is the FOOT District Sec retary. The Orlando-Orang e County Expressway Authority opened its first expressway in 1967. From then W1til 1995 FOOT provided toll-collection and maintenance services. Last year the authority began contracting with the private sector to provide these services. The authority also has begun to establish partnering relationships with FOOT and local governments to undertake jointly the construction of new facilities, which is an approach now being discussed by THCEA The authority's five-member board consists of the Chair of the County Commission, the D i strict Secretary of FOOT, and three persons appointed by the Governor The seven-member board of the Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway Authority consists of the Mayor of Tampa (or the mayor's designate, who must be the Chair of the Tampa City Council), a member of the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners (selected by the board), the District Secretary of FOOT, and four members appointed to four-year terms by the Governor subject to confirmation by the Senate. Although not required by statute, the four appointed members' terms have through circumstance become st ag gered, with one term ending in July 1996, one in July 1997, and two in July 1998. Advantages and Disadvanta ges of Alternative Role s The alternatives facing the Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway Authority are {I) to continue in its current r ole (status quo) with or without funding for new construction projects, (2) to become part of an expanded role such as a regional expressway authority or a more general tmnsportation authority, and (3) to transfer its functions to some other governmental entity. Status Quo without New Funding If the THCEA's current effort to refin ance the bonds of the Crosstown Expressway to c hange th e bond covenants and to obtain funds to fmance new projects is n ot successful, its role for som e years to come will be limited to managing the Crosstown Expressway, unless it can ot her wise obtain additional funding. As noted previously, toll revenues are not expected to be available for new projects until THCEA's FOOT and Hillsborough County debts are paid off, which under current forecasts and toll rates will be at least ten years after the current bonds are retired in 2008. 12


An argument can be made that the operation and management of a toll facility is an appropriate and sufficient role for an expressway authority. One could argue that a toll facility requires special marketing, that drivers expect to receive a premium service on a toll facility in terms of Level of service, maintenance landscaping, etc., and that an authority whose sole mission is the marketing and operation of such a facility is in the best posi t ion to accomplish this. There is some validity to this argument but there a lso is a question about the cost effectiveness of this approach. As a rule some government entity other than a separate authority can adequately perform this function at lower cost. There also is some question as to whether the current bond covenants give THCEA suffi cient flexibility to perform this function to the l evel assumed in the above argument. For example, the current bond covenants require that FDOT perform the routine maintenance and collect the tolls. Loca l control of the Crosstown also allows for loca l decisions regarding such issues as suspension of tolls for special events, appropriateness of main tenance standards, and other issues on which a state agency may not have sufficient flexibility to mee t the community's desires. But the curren t bond covenants severe l y restrict TH CEA's flexibility in these matters too. Status Quo with New Funding THCEA has identified several potential road construction projects it could undertake if it is able to refinance its existing bonds. Recent discussions by THCEA have focused on undertaking these projects through partnering arrangements with other organizations, such as FDOT District 7, the FDOT Turnpike District, and local governments, though as yet there has been no agreement among these agencies on what, if any, projects they would undertake jointly. The primary argument advanced for the existence of expressway authorities is that they can get things done due to the ir concentrated focus and effort on one large project at a time. For the most part, the record of expressway authorities does suggest that they have been successful in building needed roads that otherwise would not have been built and in building them more quickly than could have been done by other government entities. It is often said, for example, that the Veteran's Expressway would not exist if it were not for the initial efforts ofTHCEA. The proposed partnering arrangement ofTHCEA with other organizations, however, does raise the question of t o what extent such a partnering would dilute the effect ofTHCEA's concentrated focus and effort. 13


Expanded R o l e as Regional Express way Authority A multi-coun t y expresswa y authority would appear to make sense if there is a multi county project to be b u ilt. Regional coordination-if not a regional expressway authority-is also needed when large, sing l e-county projects have impact s on surrounding counties. For example, the proposed Crosstown extension through the Brandon area would have a significant impact on travelers from Pinellas County. It is possible that individual county expressway authorit ie s working together on a single, multi-county project may b e equally effective. In fact, some might argue that single county authorities are better able to accomplish within their own counties their portion of the project because they understand better the local community and how to acc omplish things within that community Potential multi-county projects involving Hillsborough County include : -a connection between the Crosstown Expressway and 1-275 in Pinellas County. -a connection between the Veteran's Expressway and 1 75 in Pasco County. -the Suncoast Parkway through Pasco County to the Veteran's Expressway. With a multi-county project there is some addi tional complexity in arranging for an acceptable division of costs, revenues and gas tax pledges, but this shou ld not be a major barrier. Expanded Role as a Transportation Authority Across the country there are a number of variations of transportation responsibilitie s that have been brought together t o form a single-county or a multi -c ounty transportation authority. One possible combination for Hillsborough County is a single-county authority that would combine the responsibilities ofTHCEA, the Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority, and the Hillsborough County MPO. A more comprehensive autho rity might include complete responsibility for surface transportation within the county. A single county transportation authority could be made into a regional authority by including transit agencies and MPO s from surroundi ng counties. The primary advantage of this type of consolidation of transportation responsibiliti es is that it fosters more of a multi-modal persp ec tive and emphasis and it oft e n provides an opportunit y to create a new local transportation funding source, e g a regional transportation authority that can l evy a property or sales tax. There also may be some economies achie ved through the sharing of staff and facilities. One of the disadvantages of trying to consolidate existing agencies-or counties into a transportation authority is the political difficulty of accomplisliing it. lf new taxi ng 14


power is involved, public opposition also can be high. Conso li dation is much easier to accomplish when the agencies involved are already departments. of county government, for instance, rather than independent authorities. Another issue that would have to be addressed is the extent to which there would be cross subsidy of transit by expressways. Shift Responsibilities to Other Governmental Entities Another alternative could be for the role ofTHCEA to be perfo rmed by some other organization. The most obvious would be the county, FOOT District 7, the FOOT Turnpike District, or the MPO. It is important to note though that any transfer of THCEA's responsibilities and obligations would require legislative changes and either approval of the bondholders or a refinancing of the bond debt. County Government Until 1974 the board of the local expressway authority consisted of the Board of County Commissioners, the Mayor of Tampa, and the FOOT District Engineer. The primary argument for putting THCEA-indeed all authorities-under the control of the county is that government is too fragmented; the public does not know w here to go to have their concerns addressed ; and that acco untability would be improved if el ec ted officials were responsible. T he argument against having THCEA as part of county government, and the reason given for removing it from county government in 1974, i s that the county cannot focus the attention required to accomplish a major toll-facility project due to the multitude of com peting interests And, as noted previously, local pressures often prevent county governments from accomplis hing major controversial projects such as expressways. Another issue is c ounty maintenance of county roads within the city of Tampa. The Crosstown lies within the city of Tampa and is very important to the city, but historically the city has not been sat i sfied that the county has adequately maintained county roads within the city The county also does not have experience managing toll roads. Florida Department of Transportation IfTHCEA is not able to obtain the necessary funds or bonding capacity to construct n ew toll facilities, one of the more obvious places to assign the responsibility for managing the Crosstown Expressway would be FOOT. As noted previously, i t is FOOT policy that all toll facilities owned by the state will be managed by the FDOT Turnpike District. As a technical matter though, both 15


FOOT District 7 and the Turnpike District have the and expertise necessary to manage a toll facility. However, ifTHCEA is in a position to construct new facilities, FOOT District 7 suffers from much the same handicap as the county in that it has hundreds of projects to which it has to devote attention, making it difficult to focus sufficient attention on one particular toll project. The Turnpike District does not have the same level of competing interests but both it and District 7 have state level perspectives compared to the local perspectives of the county and the expressway authority. I t generally is believed that local organizations are more likely to reflect local needs and desires Metropolitan Planning Like oth er MPOs in the state, the Hillsborough County MPO is strictly a planning agency, not an operating agency But it could be both, and there are a few examples around the coun t ry of MPOs that have both p la nning and operating respo n sibility. One perceived advantage of transferring THCEA's responsibilities to t h e MPO is that elected officials (who comprise the MPO) would be in charge, thereby increasing accountability Another perceived advantage is that there would be greater coord i nation of financing and meeting the county's highway needs. Indeed, it can be argued that tolls are one means of financing the MPO's "cost feasi ble" transportation plan and, therefore, the MPO should be the one to determine how and where it wants to use toll fmancing. As wit h the county, however, the MPO does not have experience managing toll roads. Conclusions and Recommendations On the question of whether an expressway authority can build transportation projects that FOOT or local government cannot, or can build them in a more timely manner, the evidence seems clear, both in Hillsborough County and around the state as well as around the country. Although there are excep t ions, the single fact about expressway authorities on which both critics and proponents seem to agree is that they can and do accomplish projects that either would not otherwise be accomplished or would not be accomplished as quickly. It is our be lie f that Hillsborough County will continue to need additional limited-access highway facilities and that the best means of meeting at l east some of that need in a timely manner, given current funding exp ecta tions, is to have an expressway authority constntcttoll facilities-partncring perhaps with other agencie s 16


It is also our belief that the mere management of an existing toll facility is not sufficient justification for the e x istence of an expressway authority. THCEA has' recently elected a n e w chainnan and hired a new executive director who are aggressively pursuing funding options for new construction, such as refinancing the bonds on the Crosstown Expressway. But at this point it is uncertain if they will be successful in obtaining the funds necessary to undertake the constructio n of new toll facilities. Therefore: We recommend that the Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway Authority, given its new and aggressive leadership, be given the opporlunity to fund new construction projects. If at the end of six months there does not appear to be a reasonable expectation ofTHCEA obtaining funding for new projects, we recommend that THCEA's functions be transferred to either FDOT or some local government entity. 17


APPENDIX: Tampa Hillsborough County Expressway Authority Publications




The Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway Authority was created iri;l963 by an act of the F l o rida Legis lature. Fou: of the Authority's seven members are l oc a l r esidents who are appointed by the Go\'ernor and serve without compensation Three members sene on the Autholity as a role of the public offices h o ld. APPOINTED MEMBERS 0. EDUARDO MELD Chairman JAMES L. CARTER, JR. \'ice Chairman V AN&SSA COHN Secretary MONROE MACK Chairman Ex-OFFICIO MEMBERS DICK A. GRECO Mayor, City oJTo.mpa JoE CHILLURA Hills borough Cou ncy Commissioner WIU.IAM McDANIEL District V71 Secretary Florida Department of Transportation


REPORT HIGHLIGHTS 40% of westbound morning commuters are using the Crosstown Expressway. Last year, for the first time, toll revenues covered the Crosstown's entire debt payment. Plans to make the Crosstown six lanes from downtown to 50th Street are underway. New financing strategy will pay for needed improvements and reduce debt payments. Limited-access hi.ghway to connect 1-4 and the Crosstown is on list of future projects. Study is scheduled to decide best route for south Crosstown extension to the Gandy Bridge. Expressway Authority envisions future of regional planning and cooperation.


-"' 0 0 "' --0 < > _, 0 _, < :::> ; z . z < "' ., < 40/o Of Westbound Drivers Use Crosstown During Morning "Rush" Mor e than 40 percent of drivers going into downt0\\1J Tampa from the east during the morning "rush hour" are using the Crosstown Exp ressway help ing t o make 1995 a banner year for the toll e}, :p ressway i n terms of traffic volume and reven ue. During the peak-use hour (7:00-8:00 a.m.), the Crosstown is moving an average of 4,100 vehicles between 50th Street and downtown Tampa, which is more than westbound I4 at the same time. This fou r -m ile segment of the expressway has become so congested on weekday mornings that p lans are underway for addi ng one more lane in each d irection in the median, expanding some access ramps. and imp r oving the to ll collection fac i liti es. 0\ eral l with more than 25 million trips taken on it last year. the Crosstown's traffic volume increased about 14 percent over 1994. Toll rev enue also registered double digit growth for the year. up by approximately 1 2 percent. 75AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 60 45 30 1 5 -


Crosstown Toll Revenue Covers Debt Payments! For the first time since the Crosstown opened to traffic in 1976, the toll expressway generated enoug)1 cash in 1995 to cove r all of its $13 million annual debt paym ent. With a record revenue of $13.6 million, it was the f'rrst full year that the money borrowed to build the 1 3-mUe expressway was repaid entirely from tolls. The construction funds more than S 171 mUllon were raised by selling long -term bonds to investors Repayment of the bond debt is backed b)' the toll revenues from the express way and. 1f necessary. by certain Hillsborough County gas taxes. During the Cr osstow n's ftrs t 1 8 years. Hlllsboro u g h County advan ced a total of $42 million to h el p pay the annual debt service. in effect making an "investment" of about 10 percent in a asset now worth an estimated S400 million ( replacement cost). $15M:AVERAGE TOLL REVENUE 0 :::1 $12 M -w ::> z w > w a: .. .. -' .. :::> z z $9M S6 M S3M-O


v - On The Drawing Boards: With more than 4.100 vehicles traveling the Crosstown Eh'Pressway between 50th Street and downtO\\TI Tampa durin g the morning rush hour. the increas in g l y popular highway i s r apidly reaching Its capacity. Plans are now being drawn up to widen the expressway from four Janes t o sL" by adding one more lane in each dir ection L'1 the medi an, which wiU save the cost of addi Uonal rtghts-of-way. Also the main downto\vn access ramps at Kennedy Bou levard \\;Jl be upgraded tO relfeve congestio n. panicularl)' during peak -use times Customer sen'ice improve ments are another high priority of the. Crosstow n enhancement plans. Toll plazas wi.ll be expanded to speed up tFaffic flow and wtll feature a high tech system that uses r adio signals to identify a vehicle and automatically deduct the toll from a prepai d account without the driver having to stop The expressway improve ments rna) also Include resen1ng certain lanes for high -occupancy vehicles. such as car pools and buses. ,/' ..... . :;.-.:


The planned lmpro,ements on the Crosstown's eastern section will cost an estimated S5 7 million which the Exp r essway Authotity intends to fund by r efinancing bonds sold in t he J 970s. Basically. th e n e w financing p l a n would work much lik e r e financing a mortgag e to add a room onto a house. T he unpaid principal (that i s. the aY back an a dditional loan for buildin1!. sav. a bedr o om or recre-. a lion room ont o the ho us e T h e E;-.:pressway Aut ho ri ty's p lan would r e finance t he a pproXimat ely S l33 mil lion u np aid principal of the exis tin g bonds and extend the repayment for a number of vea r s. The effect would be t o lowe r the debt payrnent from abom 513 mill i o n a year iO SS million The $5 mil lion diff erence would be pledged to repav new bonds that would pro1ide the S57 millio n needed for the Crosstown


CONNECT 1-4 AND CROSSTOWN In cooperation wit h the F l orida Department of Transportation. the Expressway A u th ortty is conducting preliminary eng in eertng des i gn for a lim ited -access h i ghway to connect Interstate 4 and the Crosstown Expressway wes t o f 34th Str eet in Ybor Citv The c o nnec tor is ne eded for be tter traffic cir culation in the busy corridors east of the cen t ral business district. I t 1\ill also serve as an alternate route durtng the reconstruction of the 1 -4/l-275 interchange. which is set to start soon after the turn o f the century Construction of the six-lane. mostly elevated co nne ctor and its three-le1 el interchange with the Crossto\1111 is estimated t o cost appro xi mately $180 millio n onehalf of which is expected to be paid by matching federal highway funds Also on the E>.:pressway Authority's list of fut u re projects is a proposed extension of the Crossto wn's southern leg to the Gandy Bridge Preliminary studies to decide the best route for the Sl06-million extension are under way.


AUTHORITY ENVISIONS REGIONAL .ALLIANCES During the past few months, Expressway Authority mem bers have cond u cted several planning sessions to d iscuss and envision ways of solvtng the future transportation needs of our community There was unanimous agreement that when it comes to metropolitan transportation planning "community" has a wtder context than just a sing l e city or county. With the continued growth of the Tampa Bay region s suburban and rural areas. the Aut h orltv members believe . that regional cooperatio n and public-private partnerships are essential e l ements of transportation master p lan ning for the broader -co mmunity'. To support this \ision of the future. the Authority is creating a strateg i c p lan for participating in reg i onal alliances that will more effectively integrate transporta tion programs and systems. The Authority's intention i s t o join \vith other public agencies and pri,ate organizations In the FOOTs District . : . . . . . PINE . . . ... . VII in d i scussions and study of possibilities for strengthening coope r ation and coordination.


. + BROADER VIEW As a framework for strategic plann i ng t he Authority has adopted a statement that broad l y expresses its v i sion of coordinated region al transportation systems, its mission as a publ i c serv i ce organ ization. and the results or outcomes to be achieved in fu l filling its vision and miss ion. The strategic plan will be completed o v er the next few months as specific goals, objectives and benchmarks are established thr oug h d i scussions among the Authority m embers, staff. consultan t s and other interested agencies or individuals. VISION To initiate, develop: and support ovative and balanced ; regional transportation systems . -. that contribute to the . economic well-being, ease of mobility, and overall quality of life for the citizens of the T pa Bay regton.


MISSION ... SUPPORT fulfillmem of transpor tation needs and plans o f Hills b orough Coumy and the Tampa Bay regio n d : h primari)1 toll-financed f acilit ies STIMULATE !he use of public and pril' at e pan nershjpsin order to maximize th e effective an d accounta ble use of resources. SEEK c i tizen invollement in plan ning and implementi n g financially and ronmemally sound t ranspona tion s1stems. SERVE tht public intere st by promoting coordination among transpon aiion related organizati ons to assure the imegr ated development of regi ona l r., ... ilit>o.-............ ,.. ....... _...,.,,... OUTCOMES ... INCREASED pu blic an d g overnmental awareness and suppor t of the imponant role o f toll financed facilities IMPROVED access i bility and amenities for toll expressway customers ENHANCED financial capabil ity and fleXibility to improve and expand the expressway system INCREASED partic ipation in coordinated local and regional alliances. both public and private. to assure r esponsive and accountable use of tran spor t a tion r eso urces IMPLEMENTED




.. . . GH .. ......




Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway Authority PBOJECTS & I.HPBOVEHENTS MASTEB PLAN Adopted Match 25, 1996


Introduction Since September, 1995, the Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway Authority has conducted several planning ses sions to envision ways of helping to solve the future transportation needs of our community. There was unanimous agreement that when it comes to transportation planning, "community" has a wider context than just a single city or county. With the continued growth of the Tampa Bay region's suburban areas, the Authority Members believe that regional cooperation and partnerships are essential elements of transportation master planning for the broader "community." To support this vision of the future, the Authority is completing a strategic plan for participating in regional alliances that will more effectively integrate tra ns portation programs and systems As a framework for planning, the Authority adopted three related statements: 1. Its vision of coordinated regional transponation systems. 2. Its mission as a public service organization. 3. The results or outcomes to be achieved, including development of a master plan of projects and improvements.


MISSION SUPPORT the fulfillment of transportation needs and plans of Hillsborough County and the Tampa Bay region with primarily toll-financed facilities. STIMULATE the use of public and private partnerships in order to maximize the effective, accountable use of resources. SEEK citizen involvement in planning and implementing fmancially and environmentally sound transportation systems. SERVE the public interest by promoting coordination among transportation related organizations to assure the integrated development of regional facilities and systems.


OUTCOMES JNCREASED public and governmental awareness and support of the important role of toll-financed facilities. IMPROVED services, accessibility and amenities for toll expressway customers ENHANCED fmancial capability and flexibility to improve and expand the expressway system. JNCREASED participation in coordinated local and regional alliances, both public and private, to assure responsive and accountable use of transportation resources. IMPLEMENTED master plan of future programs that contribute to a balanced and efficient transportation system. .


PIUJJECTS & IMPBOVEMBNTS MASTBB PLAN One of the targeted outcomes of the strategic framework is a master plan o f futu r e projects. Authority Members conduc ted a planning workshop on March 18, 1996, and considered a broad range of transportation ne eds and partnering opportunities in Hillsborough Cou nty and t he surrounding reg i on. The following sections summarize the results of the planning workshop. Priorities The Authority Members determined thr ee levels of priorities: l. Improvemen t s to the Crosst o wn E xpressway that wou ld enhance customer service and ease of mobil ity (2-5 years). 2. Linkages to the Crosstown Exp r essway t hat would improve regional traffic circulation, especially during t he reconstructio n o f Interstates 4 and 275, while also providing mu l ti modal capabilities (within 10 ye ars). 3. O ther potentia l projects that could more effect ivel y integrate existing and planned transportation corridors throughout the region (beyond 10 years) . Projects 1. Crosstown Improvements (2-5 years): Operational Management-A single entity, preferably the Expressway Authority, should h ave responsibility for the ove r all management o f the Crosstown Ex pressway to coordinate daily operations and p l anned imp r ovements and to optimize efficiency and customer service. Traffic Operations and Aesthetics-Improve informational and d i rectional signs, lane striping, landscaping, and maintenance


Projects (continued) Fiber OpticsLease right-of-way to fiber optics carriers and use the technology on-site to help facilitate A VI (see below) and traffic flow. Automatic Vehicle Identification (A VI)-An electronic system that automatically identifies a vehicle and deducts the toll from a prepaid account without the driver having to stop. This customer service will be coordinated with the Turnpike District to assure uniformity with other toll roads in Florida Toll Plazas Improvements to reduce peak-use congestion and increase driver convemence. Interchange ModificationsPerform a comprehensive study of all interchanges on the Expressway to identify opportunities to improve access and egress and support downtown destinations and attractions. Widening-Add one lane in each direction from 50th Street to Kennedy Boulevard in downtown Tampa. Traffic studies show that this improvemen t will be n eeded by 1997. 2. Crosstown Linkages (5-10 years): Connecting the Crosstown Expressway and the Gandy Bridge would provide a vital link in what is envisioned as a continuous limited-access corridor from I-75 in Hillsborough County to 1-275 in Pine llas County, including rec o nstruction of the Gandy Bridge and its connection to I-275 to the wes t. With multi-modal capability, this corridor could also serve as a commuter rail link for Pinellas County and Tampa's Interbay Peninsula, and Pinellas' light-rail lin k to Florida's planned high speed rail system. Also slated in this project is a mostly elevated six-lane link connecting 1-4 and the Crosstown west of 34th Street in Ybor City. The planned linkages will provide an effective alternative route through Tampa during the reconstruction of 1-4 and 1-275. Prosp ective partners in building t his regional facility include the Expressway Authority, Hillsborough County, City of Tampa, Pinellas County, City of St. Petersburg, Hillsboroug h Area Rapid Transit Authority, Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority, Florida Department of Trans portatio n, Turnpike District, Florida Overland X-press Federa l Highway Administration, and others With Pinellas County's partnership in completing the corridor, the project could be named the "Cross-Bay Expressway."


ESTIMATED COSTS 1. Crosstown Improvements The planned improvements to the Crosstown Expr esswa y have fairly defined parameters and are near-term, so cost estimates for this project are believed to be reasonably accurate. Upgrading the toll plazas, installing AVI, modifying interchanges, and widening t o six lanes from 50th Srreet to downtown Tampa are expected to cost approxima tely $60 million. 2. Crosstown Linkages A continuous limited-access corridor from 1-75 in Hillsborough County to I-275 in Pinellas County is a ne w concept that has not yet been sufficiently analyzed to provide detailed costs However, preliminary estimates for the 1-4 link the Gandy Bridge link reconstruct ion of the bridge, and a limited-access link westward to I-275 are in the range of $600 million. If a light-raillink is inclu ded in the corridor, t he project costs may be $300 million more. 3. Other Potential Projects A l imited-access beltway loop around the perimeter of the urban cor e is h ighly conceptual at this poin t and is too far in to the future to estimate costs.


3. Other Potential Projects (10+ years): As suburban communities and accompanying commercial nodes continue to be developed throughout the Tampa Bay region, there is a growing need for limited access mobility between these activity centers around the perimeter of the urban core A "beltway" system is env i sioned to link the Veterans' Expressway withl-75 in southern Pasco County and I-4 in eastern Hillsborough County. The alignment of these possible links would depend on community preferences. Another link could continue south from 1-4 and connect with the Crosstown Expressway east of I-75. To complete the limited-access "loop," t h e southe rn terminus of the Veterans' Expressway could be exte n ded to I-275. Other potential links to the "beltway" system include one into northern Pinellas County and a connecto r in the Brandon area if an alignment acceptab l e to the community can be identified.




i :I; i


CROSSTOWN EXPRESSWAY SERVES TAMPA BAY Aquarium Cruise Terminal County Offices Convention Center Ybor City -.... __ Brandon Mall Residential Suburbs


CONGESTED MORNING COMMUTE OCT. 23, 1995 7:40AM Palm River Dale Patten Toll Plaza


w :E :J s > 0 ii: ... : .. CORRIDOR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Crosstown Expressway Carries 40/o of the Corridor Traffic During the Morning Commute. WESTBOUND DAILY PROFILE 3500 LEGEND 2500 n "' 1-4 Profile ._. 2000 1 II I &."' .,... \ I Arterial Profile 1000 500-M.. Jl "-J $. $. * *-*-$. $. *-* * * $. * * $. H '" .. I' 0. 0 C'!l Cll ft .. 10 h (lilt 0 N ---------------- All. P.-. TIME OF DAY ,. Crosstown Profile Arterials Included in Profile: East Broadway Adamo Drive (S.R. 60) Causeway Boulevard


w 2 3 g 0 IL IL < CORRIDOR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Crosstown Expressway Carries OneThird of the Corridor Traffic During the Evening Commute. EASTBOUND DAILY PROFILE 30001 .... I 2000 tOCIO v' '" 1 500 1 r -.....::::: 0 . . . . . . . . . . ... --........... A.II. TlMEOFOAY P.M. LEGEND n .r1 1-4 Profile --Arterial Profile -._/ Crosstown Profile Arterials Included in Profile: East Broadway Adamo Drive (S .R. 60) Causeway Boulevard




EXPRESSWAY CONGESTION 1993 TRAFFIC Tampa to Kennedy 2004 B Light Kennedy to 22nd St. 4132 E Packed 22nd St. to 39th St. 3964 D Heavy 39th St. to 50th St. 3828 D Heavy 50th St. to 78th St 3436 D Heavy 78th St. to US 301 3251 c Busy


FUTURE PROJECTS (MORE TRAFFIC) Ice Palace Convention Center Hotel Tampa Port Expansion Ybor City Redevelopment Eastern County Growth


CROSSTOWN EXPRESSWAY TRAFFIC GROWTH FORECAST (2 Lane Max.= 4400 Vehicles/Hour) Location 1993 2005 2015 Kennedy-22nd St. 4,132 4,706 5,124 22nd St. -39th St. 3, 964 4,381 4,544 39th St.-50th St. 3 828 4,260 4,470


. . ' EXPRESSWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE PRESENT & FUTURE YEAR WEST CORRIDOR Gandy to Kennedy EAST CORRIDOR Kennedy to llnd llnd to 1-4 1-4 to 39th 39th to SOth 5oth to 78th 78th to US JO I us 30 1 to Faulkenburg Faulkenburg to 1-75 rr B .. a ...


AUTHORITY'S GOALS: Relieve Traffic Congestion Improve Highway Network In Tampa Bay Area


INCREASE CAP A CITY AND REDUCE CONGESTION Widen Expressway to accommodate forecasted traffic, providing stable serv1ce. -Add extra lanes in median, Kennedy > 50th St. Improve interchanges for better access. Improve Kennedy and Faulkenburg Ramps. Modify toll collection system for greater convenience and more capacity. Install Automatic Vehicle Identification system.




CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS When: 1997 to 2000 Cost: -Added Lanes $ 45 Million -Interchanges $ 10 Million -Toll Facilities $ 2 Million TOLLS, Not LOCAL 1 T AXES \ / .......... ___.... .....-The User Pays!


FUTURE AUTHORITY PROJECTS 1-4 Connector: Direct connection between 1-4 and Crosstown Expressway West of 34th Street. Gandy Connector: Extension of Crosstown Expressway West to Gandy Bridge.


1-4 CONNECTOR When: 2000 to 2005 Cost: -$ 180 Million** ** Added Lanes serve as Stage One for the connector project, and are needed with or without the connector.


GANDY CONNECTOR When: -> 2015 Cost: -$ 106 Million Under Study ** ** Preliminary studies on route location .. currently underway by FOOT.


J: u ....., ftS :!: < ftS 00 u 0 ..J t/) f zu "'C t/) -::s c: "C C'" ::s c: C1) LL ::s 0::: >.LL t/) .......... 0 "'C

EXPRESSWAY AUTHORITIES PROVIDE LOCAL $ FOR LOCAL PROJECTS Tolls and bond proceeds remain in area for local projects.


FLORIDA'S MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS HAVE EXPRESSWAY AUTHORITIES Tampa-Hillsborough County Orlando-Orange County Jacksonville Broward County Dade County


AUTHORITY MUST REFINANCE TO FUND NEW PROJECTS Revenue Bonds 1971 Series 1978 Series Now is the Time!


EXPRESSWAY REFINANCING PLAN Takes advantage of low interest rate window of opportunity Lowers debt service $5 million, allowing many improvements without toll increase. Provides bonding capacity for needed projects.


EXPRESSWAY REFINANCING PLAN Removes current bond restrictions preventing use of excess tolls for improvements. Removes current restrictions on operations. Reduces possible use of County gas tax for debt service.


2 Q) (f) -.0 Q) 0 CURRENT DEBT S E RV I CE AVE RAG E S $13.4 MILL I ON ANNUALLY 20 0 .00,000 18,000,000 16,000,000 14,000,000 12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 0 1996 1998 Series 1971 & 1978 Aggregate Debt Service 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 1978 1 Series


TAX-EXEMPT INTEREST RATES (JANUARY 1995-PRESENT) 7.00% ..-------------------------------------, 6.94% 6 .80% . 6 60% 6.40% . 6.20% 6 00% -I 5 80% 6 .14% 5.60% 5.40 % -' ' ,-, ' ' .... .... N w w .,. <.n a> a> "-I co co co .... ----------0 <.n N .... co w N .... .... N .... w N .... -a> a> 0 0 .... N w .,. .,. <.n -CD --<.n

CURRENT INTEREST RATES SUPPORT REFINANCING BONDS Yield Curve Comparison T 6.oooo;. 5 9o;: 5.500% 5.000% .I , 4.500% 7 4 .000% v 3.000% 1996 5.50% 5.20% 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 -Series 1971 Series 1978 Series 1995


REFINANCING BONDS PROVIDES GREATEST FUNDING FLEXIBILITY Term to Term 14,000,000 r-------------------------------------------------------------------------------, 12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000 000 2,000,000 0 1996 14,000,000 12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4 ,000,000 2,000,000 0 0> 0> ., 0> 0> 2000 0 0 0 "' "' 0 0 "' 2004 ... 0 0 "' --.. ----. --------1 ------.. -. -. -. -----------------------------.... -----------( ,---. --------------I 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 Extended Term 0 0 "' ., 0 0 "' 0 "' ...

REFINANCING ACCOMMODATES TOLL REVENUES AND PROJECTS 20, 000,000 ..------------------------------------. 15,000 ,000 10,000 ,000 5,000,000 0 Interchange Imp. Project 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 20,000,000 -------------------___ I --------" ---------. . ... ----. ---1 lnte rcha nge lm p. Project 14,000 ,000 12,000 ,000 10,000 ,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000 ,000 2,000,000 0 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024


FINANCING CAP A CITY FOR LARGE PROJECTS $100 M illion New Money-N o Extension 20,000,000 5,000,000 1 0 000 000 5 000,000 0 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 20 1 6 2018 2020 2022 2024 $100 M illion New Money -Restructured Debt 20 000,000 1 8,000,000 16, 000 000 14, 000,000 12 000 000 1 0 000 000 8,000,000 6,000 000 4 000 000 2 ,000,000 0 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 20 0 6 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2 018 202 0 2 022 2024


ALTERNATIVE STRUCTURE OF REFINANCING 20,000,000 r--------------------------------------------. 11,000,000 16,000,000 li------------14,000,000 12.00 0. 000 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4 ,000,000 2 ,000,000 0 1996 199 8 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 20,000,000 18,000,000 16,000,000 1 4 ,000,000 12,000,000 10,000,000 8 ,000,000 6 ,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 0 Interchange Imp. Project 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024


TAMPA HILLSBOROUGH COUNlY EXPRESSWAY AUTHORITY -A Catalyst For Change (In The Past) South Crosstown Expressway Veterans Expressway


TAMPA HILLSBOROUGH COUNlY EXPRESSWAY AUTHORilY -A Catalyst For Change -(In The Future) Capacity Improvements 1-4 Connector Gandy Connector


Download Options

Choose Size
Choose file type
Cite this item close


Cras ut cursus ante, a fringilla nunc. Mauris lorem nunc, cursus sit amet enim ac, vehicula vestibulum mi. Mauris viverra nisl vel enim faucibus porta. Praesent sit amet ornare diam, non finibus nulla.


Cras efficitur magna et sapien varius, luctus ullamcorper dolor convallis. Orci varius natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Fusce sit amet justo ut erat laoreet congue sed a ante.


Phasellus ornare in augue eu imperdiet. Donec malesuada sapien ante, at vehicula orci tempor molestie. Proin vitae urna elit. Pellentesque vitae nisi et diam euismod malesuada aliquet non erat.


Nunc fringilla dolor ut dictum placerat. Proin ac neque rutrum, consectetur ligula id, laoreet ligula. Nulla lorem massa, consectetur vitae consequat in, lobortis at dolor. Nunc sed leo odio.