Meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee Hillsborough County MPO Chairman Wednesday, February 14, 2018, 9:00 AM

Commissioner Lesley “Les” Miller, Jr. Meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee Hillsborough County MPO Chairman Wednesday, February 14, 2018, 9:00 AM

Councilman Harry Cohen City of Tampa MPO Vice Chairman I. Call to Order & Introductions

Paul Anderson Port Tampa Bay II. Public Comment - 3 minutes per speaker, please

David Mechanik HART III. Members’ Interests 9:05

Trent Green IV. Approval of Minutes – January 17, 2018 9:10 Planning Commission

Commissioner Ken Hagan Hillsborough County V. Action Items

Commissioner Pat Kemp Hillsborough County A. Title VI Non-Discrimination Plan (Johnny Wong, MPO Staff) 9:15

Mayor Mel Jurado B. TIP Amendment: HART BRT Proposal (FPN#440742-1) 9:30 City of Temple Terrace (Sarah McKinley, MPO Staff) Joe Lopano Hillsborough County Aviation Authority VI. Status Reports

Mayor Rick A. Lott City of Plant City A. Tampa Bay Next Quarterly Update (FDOT Representative) 9:45

Councilman Guido Maniscalco B. Regional Transit Feasibility Plan (Scott Pringle, Jacobs 10:15 City of Tampa Engineering) Commissioner Sandra Murman Hillsborough County C. FY19 & FY20 Unified Planning Work Program – Call for Projects 10:45 Cindy Stuart (Allison Yeh, MPO Staff) Hillsborough County School Board D. Tampa Bay Partnership Regional Indicators Report 10:50 Councilman Luis Viera City of Tampa (Dave Sobush, Tampa Bay Partnership)

Joseph Waggoner Expressway Authority VII. Old Business & New Business

Commissioner Stacy R. White A. TBARTA CAC Report (Bill Roberts) 11:05 Hillsborough County

Beth Alden, AICP Executive Director VIII. Adjournment IX. Addendum A. MPO Meeting Summary & Committee Report B. Fact Sheet: SC 580/West Busch Blvd from E of N Armenia Ave to W Florida Avenue

The full agenda packet is available on the MPO’s website, www.planhillsborough.org, or by calling (813) 272-5940.

The MPO does not discriminate in any of its programs or services. Public participation is solicited without regard to race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, disability or Plan Hillsborough family status. Learn more about our commitment to non-discrimination. planhillsborough.org [email protected] 813 - 272 - 5940 Persons needing interpreter services or accommodations for a disability in order to 601 E Kennedy Blvd participate in this meeting, free of charge, are encouraged to contact Johnny Wong, 18th Floor Tampa, FL, 33602

813-273-3774 x370 or [email protected], three business days in advance of the meeting. Also, if you are only able to speak Spanish, please call the Spanish helpline at (813) 273-3774, ext. 211.

Si necesita servicios de traducción, el MPO ofrece por gratis. Para registrarse por estos servicios, por favor llame a Johnny Wong directamente al (813) 273-3774, ext. 370 con tres días antes, o [email protected] de cerro electronico. También, si sólo se puede hablar en español, por favor llame a la línea de ayuda en español al (813) 273-3774, ext. 211.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, materials attached are for research and educational purposes, and are distributed without profit to MPO Board members, MPO staff, or related committees or subcommittees the MPO supports. The MPO has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of attached articles nor is the MPO endorsed or sponsored by the originator. Persons wishing to use copyrighted material for purposes of their own that go beyond ‘fair use’ must first obtain permission from the copyright owner.

If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the board, he or she will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.

HILLSBOROUGH METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE 601 E KENNEDY BLVD 18TH FLOOR

MEETING OF JANUARY 17, 2018 MINUTES

I. CALL TO ORDER & INTRODUCTIONS

The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chair Bill Roberts at 9:02 AM and was held in the Plan Hillsborough Room on the 18th floor of the County Center Building.

Members present: Ray Alzamora, Vance Arnett, David Butcher, Amy Espinosa, Ricardo Fernandez (Office At Large), Dennis Levine, Edward Mierzejewski, Cliff Reiss, Nicole Rice, Rick Richmond, Bill Roberts (Vice-Chair), Wayne Traina, Terrance Trott, Lynne Vadelund, David Wilson (Chair)

Others present: Rich Clarendon, Johnny Wong, Joe Price, Brandon Berry – Hillsborough MPO, Neveen Ali-Nawawy - HART

II. PUBLIC COMMENT

No public comments were made.

III. MEMBERS’ INTERESTS

Ms. Nicole Rice summarized newspaper articles which stated that city mayors, Jacobs Engineering, and the Tampa Bay Partnership have come out in support of bus rapid transit instead of light rail. She questioned why the Regional Transit Feasibility Plan and Tampa Bay NEXT are taking place when she felt that private background conversations are taking place to determine the future of transportation in the community. Ms. Rice also questioned how this meeting was not in violation of Sunshine Law, where this meeting is on the record, and if the meeting was in conjunction with Tampa Bay NEXT.

Discussion ensued about when the item is coming up on the agenda for the TMA Leadership Group, which article Ms. Rice was referring to, the accuracy of the article, transparency in funding, support for infrastructure for BRT, inviting HART and Jacobs Engineering to give an explanation of how they got from point A to point B, when it would be appropriate to bring this request forward for a motion, and what the content of a motion would contain.

Mr. Rich Clarendon of the Hillsborough MPO stated that the item is coming up on the TMA Leadership Group agenda for January 19th. This meeting is on the MPO’s calendar and is open to the public. To Mr. Clarendon’s knowledge, the finding reported in the paper has not been endorsed or approved. A presentation from HART and Jacobs Engineering is tentatively scheduled for the February 2018 CAC meeting, subject to acceptance from the agency and consultant. They have set aside nine months to discuss the outcome of this plan before making a final decision.

Motion: In the finalization of Mr. Clarendon’s request to have HART and Jacobs Engineering report the results of their study, they be made aware of the CAC’s concern about the information transmitted in the articles and the overall transparency, and they should be prepared to discuss the release of this information ahead of the process (Arnett-Rice). The motion passed unanimously.

Further discussion ensued about links from the October 2017 CAC agenda, and whether information about a full transit connection picture is available.

Motion: The motion passed unanimously.

Additional discussion ensued about the transparency of the meeting and recent meetings with elected officials.

At this point in the meeting, Vice-Chair Roberts turned the gavel over to Chair Wilson.

Chair Wilson thanked the committee for the opportunity to chair, mentioning that this would be the last meeting of his tenure.

Further discussion ensued about the distinction between the Regional Transit Feasibility Plan and Tampa Bay NEXT studies and processes, Ms. Katherine Eagan’s departure from HART, and whether it would be appropriate for the CAC to send a letter to Ms. Eagan thanking her for her service.

Motion: Recommend the MPO Board send a letter to Ms. Eagan thanking her for her service to HART and Hillsborough County (Arnett-Fernandez). The motion passed unanimously.

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Motion: Approval of the joint TAC-CAC minutes of December 13, 2017. The motion was passed by acclimation.

V. ACTION ITEMS

A. TIP Amendment for Performance Measure Target-Setting: Safety (Johnny Wong, MPO Staff)

Dr. Johnny Wong of the MPO presented on a TIP amendment to incorporate the safety targets set for calendar year 2018. He reviewed the national goals related to MAP-21, which have new requirements for MPOs to record performance on specific metrics. These requirements relate to setting goals for highway safety. Dr. Wong reviewed these five metrics, which include the number of fatalities, number of serious injuries, number of nonmotorized fatalities and serious injuries, rate of fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled, and rate of serious injuries per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. This data is collected as a five-year rolling average, making the CY2018 targets based from data collected between 2012 and 2017.

He reviewed the process and schedule for target setting. FDOT submitted a goal of almost zero in all five metrics in August 2017. FDOT chose almost zero as there is funding tied to setting an actual number. The department also selected an interim target, of which numbers are higher than almost zero. Dr. Wong stated that while FDOT set a target of almost zero, that number goes against guidance received from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of using annual

2 targets that are data-driven, realistic and achievable. There is no punishment for missing these targets, as all safety money across the state is spent on safety projects. Dr. Wong continued by reviewing the Hillsborough MPO’s targets for CY2018, which were developed using a linear formula. He ended by stating the recommended action for the committee, of identifying the long-term goal of achieving zero fatalities and serious injuries and establishing the CY2018 baseline safety targets.

Discussion ensued about the methodology, rising trends and their relation to rolling averages, whether these targets are set for the county or District 7, the impact of Vision Zero on safety, projecting the impact of safety projects, concern with how the statistics are being presented and whether they are tied to population changes, the reason for using raw counts, the impact of density increases, the reason for providing this data to FHWA, which roads this covers, the applicability of this data, concern with a target that is higher than 2017, whether these targets can be adjusted yearly, and the reason for using the term target instead of baseline.

Motion: Accept the CY2018 MAP-21 baseline safety target measures (Fernandez-Arnett).

Further discussion ensued about emphasizing the importance of these targets being a baseline, attaching a per-capita per-vehicle metric to the fatality statistics, and the rate of fatalities in 2017.

Motion: The motion carried fourteen to one. Mr. Edward Mierzejewski opposed.

Further discussion ensued about what would have occurred if the CAC did not accept the baseline safety target measures, how much time was spent fulfilling the FHWA data requirements, and what the target entails.

B. TIP Amendment – I-4 Resurfacing (Joe Price, MPO Staff)

Mr. Joe Price of the MPO presented on a proposed TIP amendment for a funding change in construction cost along I-4 from 50th Street to McIntosh Road. Due to the current cost of resurfacing, there has been an increase in cost from $22.3 million to $27.4 million.

Discussion ensued about whether this increase in cost will take away funding from another project, how construction costs are set, and how standards for road resurfacing are set.

Motion: Accept the TIP amendment for an increase in construction cost along the I-4 segment (Arnett-Alzamora).

Further discussion ensued about the reason for the cost increase, whether this estimate came from a contract, and the timeline for the project.

Mr. Price showed the www.fdottampabay.com webpage, which provides further information about FDOT projects.

Motion: The motion passed unanimously.

C. Long Range Transportation Plan Amendment – I-275 Operational Improvements & Howard Frankland Bridge Project (Rich Clarendon, MPO Assistant Executive Director)

Mr. Rich Clarendon of the MPO presented on a proposed amendment to the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan. FDOT has come forward with a proposal to add general use lanes in the

Westshore area and express ramps from the Howard Frankland Bridge at the State Road 60/Memorial Highway Interchange as a means of reducing congestion. As the 2040 LRTP does not have the express lanes in it, the plan needs to be amended to refer to them. The cost is about $65 million in year-of-expenditure dollars for construction between 2020 and 2024. These dollars are coming from the state intermodal funds that are allocated at a statewide level. This project is setup for the Howard Frankland Bridge project, of which Mr. Clarendon showed a graphic.

Discussion ensued about why the Howard Frankland bridge project is in Pinellas County’s LRTP, whether this project has already been approved, whether this project has anything to do with Tampa Bay NEXT, whether this is a design-build project, whether this project impacts safety, whether this is setup for expansion to managed toll lanes, how this will impact the bottleneck at the interchange, if the bridge will be built to accommodate light rail in the future, the width of the walk-bike path, what is being asked in this LRTP amendment endorsement, why the exits were not considered in the Pinellas County LRTP project, and whether the term express lane means managed toll lanes.

Discussion ensued about the motion regarding whether the phrasing endorses express lanes as managed toll lanes, what is being approved in the motion, whether revenue from the toll road will raise funds to pay for the road, and general FDOT stances on express lanes being tolled.

Amendment to motion: Approve the project (Arnett). The amendment passed unanimously.

Motion with amendment: Approve the project, with clarification on whether the express lane is slated to be a toll lane, general use lane, or other type of lane (Vadelund-multiple seconds). The motion with amendment passed unanimously.

D. Attendance Review & Declaration of Vacant Seats (Rich Clarendon, MPO Assistant Executive Director)

Mr. Clarendon provided a review of member attendance. He reviewed rules, which allow the MPO to revoke membership if a member misses three consecutive meetings, but stated that staff generally reach out to those members before doing so. He provided a staff recommendation to declare frequently-absent seats from the Tampa Hillsborough Expressway Authority and the Transportation Disadvantaged Coordinating Board vacant until members are found to fill those seats.

Discussion ensued about whether staff have reached out to these agencies to fill the seats, and whether there is an alternative to declaring the seats vacant.

Motion: Declare the recommended seats vacant (Fernandez-Butcher). The motion passed unanimously.

V. STATUS REPORTS

A. MPO School Transportation Working Group & School Safety Study Update (Lisa Silva, MPO Staff)

Ms. Lisa Silva was not present, and this status report was not provided.

B. Health Atlas (Brandon Berry, MPO Intern)

Mr. Brandon Berry of the MPO provided a presentation on the Hillsborough County Health Atlas, a web map tool with information on health, the environment, emergency preparedness, and transportation. The Health Atlas grew out of the MPO and its partners’ Garden Steps project and supports the Health in All Policies initiatives developed by the Planning Commission and MPO in collaboration with the Department of Health in Hillsborough County. Mr. Berry provided a review of the information contained in the Health Atlas, and reviewed ideas for further updates. He ended the presentation with a short demonstration.

Discussion ensued about the API for the tool, whether it is an open data tool, how this tool has supported past MPO projects, how it ties in with policy, and how other MPOs across the country are pursuing health.

C. Complete Streets Corridor Screening (FDOT Representative)

An FDOT representative was not present, and this status report was not provided.

VII. OLD BUSINESS & NEW BUSINESS

A. TBARTA CAC Report (Vice-Chair Bill Roberts)

Vice-Chair Roberts provided an update on the TBARTA CAC. TBARTA is recommending to the legislature to leave all committees as they currently stand until they come up with a full set of recommendations, meaning the CAC representative will not become a voting member in the interim. TBARTA has also submitted a plan for regional productivity to the legislature. They have requested a $1 million allocation for the year. TBARTA is also seeking a replacement for their current Executive Director, who is planning to leave in approximately one year.

B. Other Business

Mr. Arnett spoke about how Tampa is still one of the leading areas for pedestrian fatalities, and how policies are affecting that statistic. He recommended looking at the policies in place that affect these statistics, and recounted the difficulties encountered with building a piece of sidewalk in his neighborhood. He said that there needs to be a look at the polices that are restricting pedestrian-focused initiatives.

Discussion ensued about the experiences in other neighborhoods, the cost of implementing sidewalks county-wide, the effect of rising pedestrian and bicycle fatality rates on policy changes, the connections between health and safety, positive effects from Vision Zero, the impact of complete streets policies, economic feasibility, and the effects of parking codes and requirements on pedestrian environments.

VIII. ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, Chair Wilson adjourned the meeting at 11:06 AM.

Board & Committee Agenda Item

Agenda Item 2018 Title VI Nondiscrimination Plan Update Presenter

Johnny Wong, PhD (MPO Staff) Summary

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects persons from discrimination based on race, color, or national origin by agencies and programs which receive federal financial assistance. Under the umbrella of Title VI and related statutes and executive orders, the Hillsborough MPO extends additional protections such that no one will be discriminated against due to sex, age, disability status, family or religious status, income, or English proficiency.

The 2018 update marks the first major overhaul to the Title VI Plan in nearly a decade. The plan to be presented includes:

• New mapping products, which allow us to identify the locations of our disadvantage populations, otherwise known as Communities of Concern (COCs); • An outline to providing meaningful opportunities for COCs to participate in the transportation planning process; • Descriptions of the tools used to evaluate the equity of our plans, and methods for identifying the potential for inequitable distribution of impacts; and, • Measures for evaluating success in engaging COCs in the planning process, and examples of particularly successful engagement strategies which have been implemented in the past.

Finally, an inventory of community groups representing the perspectives of protected populations has been included as an appendix. This spreadsheet will continue to be updated with community groups and contact persons to allow for immediate and direct feedback on transportation plans. Recommended Action Approve the 2018 Title VI Nondiscrimination Plan Update Prepared By

Johnny Wong, PhD (MPO Staff) Plan Hillsborough planhillsborough.org Attachments [email protected] 813 - 272 - 5940 2018 Title VI Nondiscrimination Plan Draft 601 E Kennedy Blvd 18th floor Tampa, FL, 33602

Nondiscrimination Plan

February 2018

Hillsborough County Metropolitan Planning Organization 601 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, FL 33602 www.hillsboroughmpo.org Una versión en Español está disponible en www.planhillsborough.org LARGE PRINT AVAILABLE AT www.PLANHILLSBOROUGH.org

Hillsborough MPO’s Nondiscrimination Statement in Plain English The Hillsborough County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) assures that no person shall on the grounds of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any MPO-sponsored program or activity.

The MPO also assures that every effort will be made to prevent discrimination through the impacts of its programs, policies and activities on minority and low-income populations. Additionally, the MPO will take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to services for persons with limited English proficiency.

The Hillsborough MPO adheres to a Title VI/Nondiscrimination Policy Statement that is reaffirmed annually. The 2017 reaffirmation1 states:

Pursuant to DOT Standard Title VI Assurances and Non-Discrimination Provisions, the Hillsborough MPO assures the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) that no person shall on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, family or religious status, as provided by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, and other nondiscrimination authorities be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination or retaliation under any program or activity.

The Hillsborough MPO further assures FDOT that it will undertake the following with respect to its programs and activities:

1. Designate a Title VI Liaison that has a responsible position within the organization and access to the Recipient’s Chief Executive Officer. 2. Issue a policy statement signed by the Chief Executive Officer, which expresses its commitment to the nondiscrimination provisions of Title VI. The policy statement shall be circulated throughout the Recipient’s organization and to the general public. Such information shall be published where appropriate in languages other than English. 3. Insert the clauses of Appendices A and E (Title VI Nondiscrimination Contract Provisions2) of this agreement in every contract subject to the Acts and the Regulations. 4. Develop a complaint process and attempt to resolve complaints of discrimination against sub- recipients. Complaints against the Recipient shall immediately be forwarded to the FDOT District Title VI Coordinator. 5. Participate in training offered on Title VI and other nondiscrimination requirements. 6. If reviewed by FDOT or USDOT, take affirmative action to correct any deficiencies found within a reasonable time period, not to exceed 90 calendar days. 7. Have a process to collect racial and ethnic data on persons impacted by your agency’s programs.

1 Annual Title VI Certification and Assurances document, May 2, 2017. 2 www.fdot.gov/planning/policy/metrosupport/titleVI.pdf.

Federal Laws and Responsibilities of the MPO The past 50 years have brought about significant federal legislation specifically directed at preventing discrimination and promoting equitable treatment of all people. In addition to Title VI and Environmental Justice, other nondiscrimination statutes prohibit discrimination based on sex, age, or disability. These include Section 162(a) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 [23 U.S.C. 324] (sex), the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 [42 U.S.C. 6101] (age), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 [29 U.S.C. 701] and the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 [42 U.S.C. 12131] (disability). Taken together, these requirements define a broad Title VI/ Nondiscrimination Program. The following table presents the relevant Federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, and rules.

Citation Description Nondiscrimination 20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., Civil Rights Clarifies congressional intent to prohibit discrimination in all Restoration Act of 1987 programs and activities of Federal-aid recipients, regardless of whether or not they are Federally assisted.

23 U.S.C. 324, Highway Act of 1973 Adds sex as a protected class and authorizes the use of Title VI enforcement measures for sex discrimination. 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq., Section 504 of Prohibits discrimination based on disability in Federally funded the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 programs or services. 42 U.S.C. 2000d-2000d-7, Title VI of Provides that no person in the United States shall, on the the Civil Rights Act of 1964 grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from, participation in, or be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. 42 U.S.C. 6101 et seq., Age Prohibits discrimination based on age in any Federally funded Discrimination Act of 1975 program or activity. 42 U.S.C. 12131 et seq., ADA of 1990 Prohibits discrimination based on disability in programs or services operated by government entities. 49 C.F.R. 27, Nondiscrimination Based Codifies ADA/504 for U.S. DOT programs, services, and on Disability in U.S. DOT-Assisted activities. Programs Title VI 23 C.F.R. 200 et seq., State Codified Title VI for FHWA programs, services, and activities. Transportation Agency Nondiscrimination 23 C.F.R. 450.336, Self-certifications Requires the metropolitan transportation planning process be and Federal Certifications carried out in accordance with Title VI and other nondiscrimination requirements. 49 C.F.R. 21 et seq., Nondiscrimination Codifies Title VI for U.S. Department of Transportation in U.S. DOT Assisted Programs programs, services, and activities. Disadvantaged Business 49 C.F.R. 26, DBE Establishes Federal guidelines for DBE participation in U.S. DOT- funded contracts. Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 (1994) Directs Federal agencies to address disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects in programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low- income populations.

Citation Description Nondiscrimination DOT Environmental Justice Order Reaffirms U.S. DOT commitment to EJ and provides steps to 5610.2(a) (2012) prevent and/or address disproportionately high and adverse effects to minority or low-income populations through Title VI analyses and environmental justice analyses conducted as part of Federal transportation planning and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) provisions. FHWA Environmental Justice Order Provides FHWA policies and procedures for use in complying with 6640.23A (2012) Executive Order 12898. Limited English Proficiency Executive Order 13166 (2000) Requires Federal agencies to improve access to programs and services for those who are limited English proficient, and to provide guidance to Federal-aid recipients on taking reasonable steps to provide meaningful access for those who are Limited English Proficient (LEP).

iii

PLACEHOLDER FOR MPO ENDORSEMENT: EVIDENCE THAT THE MPO HAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED THE TITLE VI PROGRAM AND REPORT (TO BE INSERTED IN THE FINAL REPORT AFTER PUBLIC REVIEW AND SUBSEQUENT APPROVAL BY THE MPO)

Table of Contents

Purpose ...... 1 What is included in this document? ...... 2 PART I: TITLE VI COMPONENTS ...... 4 Component 1: Where are the Communities of Concern? ...... 4 Community Characteristics ...... 4 Minority Populations ...... 5 African American Population ...... 5 Hispanic Population ...... 7 Limited English Proficient Households ...... 7 Low-Income Population ...... 12 Persons with Disabilities ...... 12 Zero Vehicle Households ...... 14 Hillsborough County Snapshot ...... 16 Communities of Concern ...... 16 Environmental Justice Order ...... 19 Additional Resources for Understanding Community Characteristics ...... 21 Component 2: How do we engage with Communities of Concern? ...... 23 Community Partners ...... 23 Steps for Limited English Proficiency and Persons with Disabilities ...... 24 Standing Committees of the MPO ...... 27 Component 3: How do we determine plan equity? ...... 30 Using the Regional Planning Model ...... 30 Equity in Traffic Safety ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Equity in Household Out-of-Pocket Costs ...... 40 Component 4: How do we evaluate outreach effectiveness? ...... 42 PART II: Title VI Work in MPO Primary Program Areas ...... 45 LRTP: The imagine 2040 transportation plan ...... 46 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) ...... 50 CM/CMP: Columbus Dr and 17/18/19th Avenues Study ...... 52 CM/CMP: Tampa St/Highland Ave and Florida Ave Corridor Study ...... 55 131st Avenue and 46th Street Complete Streets Studies ...... 57 Tampa-Hillsborough Greenways and Trails Plans Update ...... 59 George Road Complete Streets Feasibility and Health Impact Assessment ...... 61 Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan ...... 63 2016 Public Participation Plan Measures of Effectiveness Report ...... 65 Unified Planning Work Program & Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Utilization ...... 67 Organization Staffing and Structure ...... 68 Recommendations ...... 71

Appendices APPENDIX A: Methodology to Identify Communities of Concern and Environmental Justice Areas APPENDIX B: Reporting Documentation

APPENDIX C: Discrimination Complaint Procedures APPENDIX D: Lists of Travel Analysis Zones Flagged for Environmental Justice Analysis and Travel Analysis Zones Identified as Communities of Concern APPENDIX E: Inventory of Community Groups Representing the Perspectives of Protected Populations

Tables Table 1. Limited English Proficiency Population by Language in Hillsborough County ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 2. Effects of the Imagine 2040 Plan ...... 32 Table 3: Measures of Effectiveness for the Public Participation Plan (2016) ...... 44 Table 4: Miami-Dade MPO's Targets for Effective Outreach ...... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figures Figure 1. Areas with High Concentrations of Minority Populations ...... 6 Figure 2. Areas with High Concentrations of Limited English Proficiency Households ...... 9 Figure 3. Areas with High Concentrations of Limited English Proficiency, Spanish-Speaking Households ...... 10 Figure 4. Areas with High Concentrations of Limited English Proficiency, Other than Spanish ...... 11 Figure 5. Areas with High Concentrations of Low-Income Households ...... 13 Figure 6. Areas with High Concentrations of Households Living with a Disability ...... 15 Figure 7. Areas with High Concentrations of Zero Vehicle Households ...... 17 Figure 8. Communities of Concern ...... 18 Figure 9. Top Quintile of Environmental Justice Protected Populations ...... 19 Figure 10. Screenshot of EPA’s EJSCREEN Tool ...... 20 Figure 11. Screenshot of AARP’s Livability Index Tool ...... 37 Figure 12. Spanish Translation of an MPO Newsletter ...... 38 Figure 13. Imagine 2040 Needs Assessment: Trails and Sidepath Network at Three Levels of Investment ...... 37 Figure 14. Imagine 2040 Needs Assessment: Transit Level of Service at Low Level of Investment 38 Figure 15. Percent of Jobs within a 30-Minute Drive ...... 39 Figure 16. Percent of Jobs within a 40-Minute Drive ...... 40 Figure 17. Block Groups with High Housing and Transportation Costs ...... 41

PART I: Title VI Components

PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to describe the measures taken by the Hillsborough Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to assure that all residents of Hillsborough County regardless of race, color, national origin, sex, age, income, or disability are welcomed and included in the transportation planning and policy- and decision-making process. The report also documents the MPO's compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (hereafter, Title VI) and is supported by additional reports including the Public Participation Plan (PPP) and the Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Plan.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 United States Code §2000d) provides that "no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under The Hillsborough MPO is a transportation policy-making board comprised of 16 members and mandated by federal and any program or activity receiving state law. The MPO is directly responsible for making sure federal financial assistance." federal and state dollars spent on existing and future transportation projects and programs are based on a To fulfill this basic civil rights mandate, continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation each federal agency that provides planning process. Committed to meaningful public financial assistance for any program is engagement throughout this process, the MPO is responsible for establishing priorities to meet short-term (next five years) authorized and directed by the US and long-term (five to 20-plus years) multi-modal Department of Justice to ensure transportation needs for Tampa, Temple Terrace, Plant City, compliance with all provisions of Title VI and unincorporated Hillsborough County. by issuing applicable rules, regulations, As part of its comprehensive transportation planning process, or requirements to recipients and sub- the MPO provides forecasts of population, housing, economic, recipients of federal funds. The Florida and transportation trends to inform the process of addressing current transportation needs and identifying and preparing for Department of Transportation (FDOT) is future needs. a primary recipient of federal funds. On this basis, the FDOT requires that funding sub-recipients, such as the Definitions Hillsborough MPO, document their

Title VI. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits programs and activities and have discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs established to comply with any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. Title VI requirements. Title VI does not, Environmental Justice. Environmental justice is the fair however, prescribe guidelines for treatment and meaningful involvement of all people defining Title VI areas or recommend regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with how to serve those areas. Those respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. decisions come at the discretion of the sub-recipient, which must identify Communities of Concern. A Community of Concern is a census block group that has a high proportion of two or more Communities of Concern (see left) and protected classes, such as racial minorities, low-income include them in transportation planning groups, persons with disabilities, and those with limited processes. To learn more about the English proficiency. guiding regulations, please see Appendix A.

1 Purpose PART I: Title VI Components

WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THIS DOCUMENT? This report outlines how the Hillsborough MPO Best Practices addresses the requirements of Title VI. MPOs have three The components of this plan were adopted responsibilities to address in their planning work; Part from a 2011 report by the Center for Urban I describes components of Title VI practices for those Transportation Research (CUTR) at the three responsibilities as well as a fourth component University of South Florida (USF). It addressing assessment and evaluation. This section of recommends Title VI plans: the document is dynamic and will be periodically • Develop community profiles for the updated with the most recent Census data as they planning area and maintain a GIS database with the capability of analyzing become available. socioeconomic demographics, defining target populations, and locating them Component 1. Where are the Communities of spatially; Concern? • Establish an ongoing or concerted public Data collection and analysis should be based on the engagement effort that is oriented toward better understanding the needs latest census data for ethnic and racial groups by census and concerns of low-income, disabled, block groups, a relatively small geographic area based and minority populations; on population. Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) are also • Develop a system-level process for used for analysis, particularly when using the Tampa measuring the distributional effects of Bay Regional Planning Model (TBRPM) as part of the transportation investments on target process to plan for transportation improvements. populations’ access to jobs and services, and the availability of transportation Identifying low-income and minority populations is alternatives in each region; and, necessary both for conducting effective public • Document results to aid in decision- participation and for assessing the distribution of making processes, particularly during benefits and burdens of transportation plans and development of the LRTP. projects. Component 1 includes maps that illustrate the Source:www.fdot.gov/research/completed_proj/s most recent data and highlight where Communities of ummary_pl/fdot_bdk84_977-12_rpt.pdf Concern are located.

Component 2. How do we engage with Communities of Concern?

The MPO ensures and documents early, continuous, and meaningful opportunities for people living in Communities of Concern to get involved in the planning process. By identifying and communicating with stakeholders, such as neighborhood associations or community groups, each project’s outreach efforts may be customized to meet that community’s needs. Component 2 highlights our successful outreach and engagement efforts, which may be appropriate in future planning efforts.

Component 3. How do we determine plan equity?

Historically, the negative impacts of large transportation projects have fallen more heavily on lower- income and minority neighborhoods. One well-known example of this is construction of the federal interstate system, which displaced thousands of low-income and minority families in urban core areas, eroded the existing communities and socioeconomic networks, and exposed remaining

2 What is included in this document? PART I: Title VI Components residents to higher emission levels. Those communities were often less able to take advantage of the benefits of the new interstate highways, which have a limited number of access points; and further, because urban-core neighborhoods typically have a greater share of zero vehicle households.3 These issues played out in central Tampa around both the interstate highways and the Selmon Expressway, erasing minority neighborhoods such as the Central Avenue District and Dobyville. To better understand what is happening in Hillsborough County today, and to strive for transportation equity going forward, analyses should be conducted to document the relationship between today’s Communities of Concern and now-proposed transportation projects to ensure no community receives unfair burden or benefit from transportation investments in the future. Component 3 outlines potential strategies for evaluating equity by using tools such as the TBRPM.

Component 4. How do we evaluate effectiveness?

Simple tools can measure the success of the MPO’s outreach and engagement. Component 4 highlights some successful MPO results and recommendations and shares some useful best practices from other regions.

Part II of the document contains fact sheets for the MPO’s primary plans and other projects and its Title VI best practices.

3 Shelton, T. and A. Gann. (2014). Urban Interstate Rights-of-Way as Sites of Intervention. Conference Proceedings of the 102nd ACSA Annual Meeting. Miami Beach, FL.

3 What is included in this document? PART I: Title VI Components

PART I: TITLE VI COMPONENTS The following components establish methodologies that can be replicated and applied to future plans and projects. The components contain strategies which may guide planners to:

1. Identify the impacted Communities of Concern; 2. Establish outreach and engagement strategies; 3. Ensure that equity in service delivery is considered; and, 4. Measure the effectiveness of engagement strategies.

COMPONENT 1: WHERE ARE THE COMMUNITIES OF CONCERN? Identifying the location of low-income and minority populations is necessary for conducting effective public participation and for understanding the distribution of benefits and burdens of transportation plans and projects.

Community Characteristics Title VI protects residents of Hillsborough County from being discriminated against based on race, income, or national origin. Having this demographic information, as well as where there is a prevalence of households with disabilities, limited

English proficiency, children under 18, elderly over 65, Methodology for Establishing and those without access to vehicles, leads to more Thresholds to Identify Communities of effective outreach efforts and allows plans to be more Concern responsive to the needs of communities. 1. Calculate the median for each characteristic described in this There is no universally accepted practice for identifying component. communities with higher concentrations of households 2. Highlight the census block groups that which may need special consideration. One technique are greater than one standard deviation which has been used with some success identifies above the median. communities where the proportion of at least one 3. Identify census block groups that have characteristic is greater than the proportion of the entire more than one characteristic highlighted as Communities of Concern. planning area. Using this technique, if the countywide proportion of adults over 65 years of age is 15 percent, 4. Identify census block groups that are two standard deviations greater than the then a community with 16 percent adults over 65 would median as Communities of High Concern. have a higher concentration. The Hillsborough MPO, The median, as opposed to the mean or however, uses a more precise method of identifying the average, identifies the exact middle of the countywide median and highlighting areas where the group and is less impacted by data outliers. proportion of a characteristic is at least one standard deviation greater.

Block groups with two or more characteristics meeting the criteria are identified as Communities of Concern. Block groups in which the proportion of two characteristics is at least two standard deviations above the median are Communities of High Concern, with one exception: low-income areas that are two standard deviations above the median are Communities of High Concern even if that is the singular highlighted characteristic. See Appendix B for more information on Communities of Concern methodology.

4 Where are the communities of concern? PART I: Title VI Components

Minority Populations Hillsborough County is historically diverse; its historic human settlements included Seminole Indians, Cubans, Spaniards, Italians, other Europeans, and African Americans. Today, Hillsborough County continues to be a diverse mix of cultures, races, and ethnicities, as illustrated in the following pages.

National Snapshot The United States (US) Census Bureau estimates that 316,515,000 people lived in the US in 2015. Of that population, 17.1 percent identify as Latin, 13.8 percent identify as African American, and 6.1 percent identify as Asian.4

Hillsborough County Snapshot In that same time, the US Census Bureau estimates that 1,303,000 people lived in Hillsborough County. Of that population, 26.1 percent identify as Latin, 18.2 percent identify as African American, and 4.6 percent identify as Asian. The proportion of each of those characteristics is greater in Once Tampa’s oldest and largest African Hillsborough County than for the US overall. American neighborhood, The Scrub, traces Hillsborough County ranked 40th in diversity out of its history to just after the Civil War when 2,631 US counties according to the 2017 Most Diverse newly-freed slaves built homes in a scrub 5 palmetto thicket outside the Town of Tampa. Counties in America study. The Central Avenue Business District, with Figure 1 shows the census block groups in Hillsborough more than 200 African American businesses, and a thriving music scene, rose from this County with greater proportions of minority populations neighborhood’s modest beginnings. The than the proportion for the county overall. The map construction of I-4 and urban renewal shows the areas greater than the median (23 percent), projects in the 1960s followed by the 1967 those that are one standard deviation above the median riots disrupted businesses and dislocated customers and eventually led to the demise (46 percent), and those that are two standard of the district. The last business on Central deviations above the median (69 percent). Avenue closed in 1974, and the street south of I-275 has completely vanished. African American Population African Americans represented 18.2 percent of the Hillsborough County population, according to the 2015 American Community Survey. Within the City of Tampa limits, African Americans represent 25.3 percent of the jurisdiction's population. The African American population of Hillsborough County is clustered mostly within the City of Tampa, such as the neighborhoods of East Seminole Heights, Tampa Heights, Jackson Heights, and Sulphur Springs.

A parade on Central Avenue in 1940.

4 US Census, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-year estimates, 2015. 5 Niche. (2017). 2017 Most Diverse Counties Methodology. https://about.niche.com/methodology/most- diverse-counties.

5 Where are the communities of concern? PART I: Title VI Components

Figure 1: Areas with High Concentrations of Minority Populations

6 Where are the communities of concern? PART I: Title VI Components

Hispanic Population In the 2000 Census, Spanish speakers accounted for Definitions 24.9 percent of the County’s total population; there was a slight increase in this population between 2000 and Hispanic. Hispanic refers to Spanish- speaking populations; the term “Hispanic” 2015. The census block groups that include Town ‘n’ excludes those from Brazil, where Country, West Tampa, and some adjacent areas have Portuguese is spoken. historically had higher concentrations of Spanish- Latin. Latin (or Latino/Latina) refers to speaking residents. one’s country of origin; Latin countries include the Americas and the Caribbean, but Outside the City of Tampa, large Spanish-speaking exclude Spain. communities can be found to the north of Plant City and in southern Hillsborough County which includes Palm River, Gibsonton, Ruskin, and Wimauma. These populations are not homogenous and represent communities that have both resided in the county for many decades (or over a century in some cases) and some burgeoning communities. There is also great diversity within this population of people hailing from the Caribbean, Central America, and South America.

Limited English Proficient Households Limited English Proficient (LEP) refers to any person age five and older who reported speaking English less than Ybor City "very well" as classified by the US Census Bureau. The Possibly one of Hillsborough County’s most Hillsborough MPO considers an LEP household to be one multicultural neighborhoods, Ybor City was in which at least one individual does not speak English founded in 1885 by renowned cigar as their primary language AND has limited ability to manufacturer, Vicente Martinez-Ybor. Ybor was born in Spain and moved to Cuba, then read, speak, write, or understand English. Key West and finally, Tampa. In 1886, he brought more than 3,000 workers from Cuba National Snapshot to roll cigars in his factories; his cigar and In 2013, approximately 61.6 million individuals in the home construction businesses then US, both foreign- and US-born, spoke a language other flourished and thrived for decades. For its than English at home. While the majority of these importance to the nation’s immigration movement, the National Park Service individuals also spoke English with native fluency or declared Ybor City a National Historic very well, about 41 percent (25.1 million) were Landmark District in 1990. considered LEP. Though most LEP individuals are foreign-born, nearly 19 percent (4.7 million) were born in the US, most to foreign-born parents. Overall, the LEP population represented 8 percent of the total US population age five and older.

Hillsborough County Snapshot The LEP population in Hillsborough County consists of many different cultural communities speaking many different languages. Several are well-known, but others Inside an Ybor City cigar factory in 1920. may require specialized engagement. The ten largest

7 Where are the communities of concern? PART I: Title VI Components language groups are shown in Table 1 below. Together, these groups represent nearly 10 percent of the county’s population and show the diversity of languages spoken in Hillsborough County.

Table 1: Limited English Proficiency Population by Language in Hillsborough County

Number of Number of Speakers Language Speakers Who Do Not Speak English “Very Well” Spanish 273,082 107,434 Vietnamese 7,833 4,983 French Creole 9,527 2,363 Arabic 7,741 2,377 French 6,945 1,457 Chinese 3,005 1,474 Korean 2,574 1,215 Other Asian 5,812 1,279 Languages Portuguese 3,248 989 German 3,863 697 Total: 310,707 121,303 Source: American Community Survey 2010-2014.

Figure 2 (page 9) shows the highest concentrations of LEP residents; the map shows the areas greater than the median (3 percent), those that are one standard deviation above the median (11 percent), and those that are two standard deviations above the median (19 percent). The areas with the highest concentrations of LEP households are in West Tampa, Town ‘n’ Country, Sun City Center, Plant City, and the University area, although LEP residents also live in other areas throughout the county.

Figures 3 and 4 (pages 10 and 11) are for informational purposes and show concentrations of Spanish speakers of limited English proficiency, and speakers of all other languages with limited English proficiency.

8 Where are the communities of concern? PART I: Title VI Components

Figure 2: Areas with High Concentrations of Limited English Proficiency Households

9 Where are the communities of concern? PART I: Title VI Components

Figure 3: Areas with High Concentrations of Limited English Proficiency Spanish-Speaking Households

10 Where are the communities of concern? PART I: Title VI Components

Figure 4: Areas with High Concentrations of Limited English Proficiency, Other than Spanish

11 Where are the communities of concern? PART I: Title VI Components

Low-Income Population

National Snapshot The US Census Bureau estimated that 43 million Americans (about 14 percent) lived below the poverty level in 2015. The national median household income was $53,889.

Hillsborough County Snapshot Who Are the Low-Income in the US? For the same time period, the US Census Bureau In 2010-2014, about one out of seven, or estimated that 15 percent of the people living in 15.6 percent, US residents lived in poverty. Hillsborough County were below the poverty level. The There were an estimated 47.7 million persons in poverty in the US - the third median household income in Hillsborough County was consecutive annual increase in the number just $50,600, only six percent less than the national of people in poverty and the largest number median household income. of people ever reported in poverty since estimates were first published in 1959. Figure 5 (page 13) shows the areas with the highest Hispanics and African Americans. concentrations of poverty. The map shows the areas Hispanics and African Americans accounted greater than the median (40 percent), those that are for 38.2 percent and 26 percent, one standard deviation above the median (63 percent), respectively, of all persons in poverty in 2014. Hispanics and African Americans and those that are two standard deviations above the suffer from persistently higher rates of median (85 percent). There is a high concentration of poverty than non-Hispanic Whites. households living in poverty in Apollo Beach, Children and youth. Many persons in Gibsonton, west of the main USF campus, and poverty are children and youth. More than Northwest Tampa (east and south of Tampa one out of five children live in poverty. International Airport). Seniors. People aged 65 and older account for 9.1 percent of persons in poverty, but Persons with Disabilities their poverty rate is proportionately less The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 than for children and adults age 18 to 64 extends the nation’s body of civil rights laws and the years. principles of equal protection and nondiscrimination to Single-parent, female-headed families. persons with disabilities. The ADA defines persons with These households are among the most vulnerable to falling into poverty, disabilities, in part, as those who have “a physical or particularly those with children under 18 mental impairment that substantially limits one or more years old. Single-parent female-headed major life activities” and mandates that those persons families account for 14.8 percent of all be afforded legal protections and be provided with families, but 38.8 percent of all families in poverty. For White women (non-Hispanics) essential public services. Other federal laws that offer with children, there has been a rise in guidance on issues affecting persons with disabilities poverty levels over this same period, include the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Individuals thereby diminishing the income gap among racial groups. with Disabilities Education Act, the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, and the Telecommunications Foreign born. In 2009, foreign-born residents were more likely to be in the US Act of 1996. labor force and, when employed, tended to work in lower-income industries such as construction, production, and services in greater numbers than those born in the US.

12 Where are the communities of concern? PART I: Title VI Components

Figure 5: Areas with High Concentrations of Low-Income Households

13 Where are the communities of concern? PART I: Title VI Components

National Snapshot The US Census Bureau estimates that nearly 20 million people, or approximately 6.6 percent of the population, lived with disabilities in the US in 2015.

Hillsborough County Snapshot For the same time, the US Census Bureau estimates that 11.7 percent of the people in Hillsborough County lived with disabilities. Disabilities can impact individuals’ ability to access meaningful employment, health care, and other essentials to quality of life.

Figure 6 (page 14) shows the Census block groups with the highest concentrations of An Aging Population residents with disabilities. The map shows the Often, as people age, they encounter more difficulties areas greater than the median (23 percent), in accessing transportation. The Transportation those that are one standard deviation above the Disadvantaged Service Plan estimates that one-third median (36 percent), and those that are two of Hillsborough County’s population is Transportation Disadvantaged and, as Baby Boomers age into standard deviations above the median (48 retirement, that population may increase to 50 percent). The areas with the highest percent. concentrations are in Sun City Center, Little Source: Hillsborough MPO. 2016. 2016 State of the System Manatee South, and Plant City. There are also Report. Hillsborough County: Tampa, FL numerous small pockets of persons with disabilities living along the Interstate 275 corridor from downtown Tampa toward Interstate 75.

Zero Vehicle Households Households may not have a vehicle due to choice, inability to obtain a driver’s license, disability, or economic circumstances. Members of carless households rely on public transit or active transportation, such as biking or walking, to access jobs, school, health services, and grocery stores. Both nationally and locally, transit service often falls short of connecting households to ample job opportunities. Commuting to work without a car remains a significant challenge to overcome.

National Snapshot The US Census Bureau estimates that in 2015, slightly more than 10 million people, or approximately 9.1 percent of the population, lived in households with no vehicles in the US.

14 Where are the communities of concern? PART I: Title VI Components

Figure 6: Areas with High Concentrations of Households Living with a Disability

15 Where are the communities of concern? PART I: Title VI Components

Hillsborough County Snapshot For 2015, the US Census Bureau estimates that 7.1 percent of the people in Hillsborough County lived in households with no vehicles. Despite having higher rates of poverty and disability than the national average, Hillsborough County has substantially fewer households with no vehicles. One explanation for this is that other metro areas may have more robust transit service, thereby allowing more people to conveniently live without a car. The MPO maintains and regularly updates a Figure 7 (page 17) shows the concentrations of list of neighborhood and civic groups active residents living in households with no vehicles; the map in areas of higher concentrations of shows the areas greater than the median (5 percent), protected population groups. Examples of those that are one standard deviation above the median civic groups include: (15 percent), and those that are two standard • Carver City/Lincoln Gardens Civic Association; deviations above the median (26 percent). The areas • Drew Park CRA; with the highest concentrations are near the main • West Tampa CDC; campus of USF and surrounding neighborhoods, and • Tampa Heights Civic Association; Valrico. • V.M. Ybor Civic Association; • Southeast Seminole Heights Civic Communities of Concern Association; • Sulphur Springs Civic Association; Communities of Concern are geographic areas which • University Square Civic Association; have two or more indicators falling one standard • University Area CDC; deviation above the county’s median. Residents of these • East Tampa Community Revitalization areas face unique and sometimes overwhelming Partnership; • Highland Pines Civic Association; obstacles related to transportation and engagement. • Palm River POINT; Areas with multiple indicators of potential disadvantage • Redlands Christian Migrant Association/ may benefit from targeted outreach to identify both San Jose Mission; and, needs and solutions and may require targeted • Florida Institute for Community Studies, Town ‘n’ Country. transportation services based on the communities’ characteristics. Please see Appendix E for a complete list.

Figure 8 (page 18) shows the Communities of Concern with high concentrations of multiple indicators (no areas in Hillsborough County have high Alternative Indicators to Identify concentrations of more than six indicators). Communities of Concern

To reiterate, block groups with two indicators meeting Other MPOs have selected other or the criteria are identified as Communities of Concern. additional Census-derived characteristics to ensure those with disadvantages are Block groups in which the proportion of two included in the planning process and their characteristics is at least two standard deviations above needs are met. Some of these the median are Communities of High Concern, with one characteristics include: exception: low-income areas that are two standard • Single parent households; deviations above the median are also Communities of • Female head of household with a child; High Concern even if that is the singular highlighted • Educational attainment (no high school indicator. diploma); and,

• Foreign-born.

16 Where are the communities of concern? PART I: Title VI Components

Figure 7: Areas with High Concentrations of Zero Vehicle Households

17 Where are the communities of concern? PART I: Title VI Components

Figure 8: Communities of Concern

18 Where are the communities of concern? PART I: Title VI Components

Environmental Justice Order Whereas Title VI of the Civil Rights Act was designed to prevent discrimination on the basis of race, income or national origin, Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 was issued to focus federal attention on the environmental and human health conditions in minority and low-income communities; to promote nondiscrimination in federal programs substantially affecting human health and the environment; and, to provide minority and low-income communities’ access to public information on, and an opportunity for public participation in, matters relating to human health or the environment.6

Figure 9 (page 20) shows the "top quintile" areas for concentrations of race, ethnicity, and low- income -- the categories used to identify Environmental Justice populations. The associated Travel Analysis Zones are identified in Appendix D for use in the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Model.

6 www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-02/documents/title-vi-ej-comparison.pdf.

19 Where are the communities of concern? PART I: Title VI Components

Figure 9: Top Quintile of Environmental Justice Protected Populations

20 Where are the communities of concern? PART I: Title VI Components

Additional Resources for Understanding Community Characteristics Currently, Hillsborough MPO uses mappable data and GIS analysis to identify the locations of Communities of Concern. This data is valuable, but there are other resources that can provide a clearer picture of the challenges facing the county’s residents. The three resources listed below are accessible to planners as well as citizens.

The Environmental Protection Agency developed a web-based tool to provide nationally consistent datasets, which allows users to access high-resolution environmental and demographic information to better understand their communities. The tool, EJSCREEN, also allows users to compare their selected locations to the rest of the state, EPA region, or the nation. The tool can be accessed at www.epa.gov/ejscreen.

As stated in the description of the tool, it helps users identify areas with:

• Minority and/or low-income populations; • Potential environmental quality issues; • A combination of environmental and demographic indicators that is greater than usual; and, • Other factors that may be of interest.

Figure 10: Screenshot of EPA's EJSCREEN Tool

21 Where are the communities of concern? PART I: Title VI Components

AARP’s Public Policy Institute developed a tool called the Livability Index, which assesses a ZIP code’s livability score based on seven categories:

• Housing. Affordability and access; • Neighborhood. Access to life, work, and play; • Transportation. Safe and convenient options; • Environment. Clean air and water; • Health. Prevention, access, and quality; • Engagement. Civic and social involvement; and, • Opportunity. Inclusion and possibilities.

The Livability Index helps residents and policymakers understand their Figure 11: Screenshot of AARP's Livability Index Tool community and make decisions about future needs. The tool can be accessed at livabilityindex.aarp.org.

FDOT’s Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) Environmental Screening Tool (EST) is intended to efficiently analyze the effects of proposed projects on the human and natural environment. The EST brings together information about a project and provides analytical and visualization tools that help synthesize and communicate that information. For over five years of operation with a user community of 1,200 practitioners representing staff from eight DOT Districts, 26 MPOs, 24 federal and state resource agencies, two Tribal Governments, and countless representatives from the public, the EST has proved successful in supporting the ETDM process.

22 Where are the communities of concern? PART I: Title VI Components

COMPONENT 2: HOW DO WE ENGAGE WITH COMMUNITIES OF CONCERN? Planning for growth and change is a collaborative effort inclusive of all members of the community, from government providers of services to community organizations, developers and financiers, transportation agencies, and residents. Best Practice An inclusive approach relies on the principle that all Before beginning the public involvement groups are adequately informed of the planning activity process, the Miami-Dade MPO uses a web- based tool to prepare a customized and can therefore participate in the transportation demographic profile report with social, planning process. economic, and geographic characteristics for a project, enabling better identification of Public involvement is an integral part of transportation vulnerable communities. planning and project development decision-making. Public participation in planning and access to information extends to limited English-speaking populations, and consultation with Federally-recognized Indian Tribes on a government-to- government basis. The MPO’s PPP provides a broad range of strategies to inform the community, and engage with and respond to community concerns. A related document, the PPP Measures of Effectiveness report, evaluates how well the MPO is doing in this regard and is discussed more fully in Component 3.

Community Partners Locating and mapping Communities of Concern is a Growing Stronger critical first step in the inclusion process. The next step Continue to use the MPO's inventory of civic is to connect with those communities for the sake of groups and neighborhood associations to understanding their needs and helping to develop a engage affected communities in the vision of transportation that works for community transportation decision-making process, members. Successful outreach can be conducted from the beginning of each plan or study. Update the inventory on a regular basis. efficiently by using established civic and social service groups to communicate. Community members can then inform the plans and stay informed about projects and plan updates.

Plan Hillsborough maintains and regularly updates a list of neighborhood and civic groups that are active in the areas of higher concentrations of protected population groups. A few examples of civic groups that serve the county include:

• Tampa Bay Organization of Black Affairs; • Council on American Islamic Relations; • Hillsborough County Diversity Advisory • Alliance for Citizens with Disabilities; Council; • Tampa Lighthouse for the Blind; • The Homeless Coalition; • Yes! Of America; and, • NAACP of Hillsborough County; • Health Equity Coalition of Hillsborough • Hispanic Services Council; County.

The Seminole Tribe of Florida is engaged during major updates of the Long Range Transportation Plan. The Seminole Tribe owns a casino in Hillsborough County, yet has no tribal members living on- site.

23 How do we engage with communities of concern? PART I: Title VI Components

Steps for Limited English Proficiency and Persons with Disabilities As part of its dedication to reduce and/or remove barriers to participation, the MPO provides translation and interpretation services for those who are less than proficient in English, and produces materials using plain language that is reasonably understandable by proficient speakers. The MPO also makes accommodations to ensure citizens with disabilities can access information and meaningfully participate in decision-making.

Translation Executive Order 13166 requires sub-recipients of federal funding to develop plans for people for whom English is not their native language or who have limited ability to read, speak, write, or understand English. As a sub-recipient of federal funding, the Hillsborough MPO takes reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to the information and services it provides. Based on guidance from the USDOT, the MPO utilizes a four-factor analysis to determine which language assistance services are appropriate to address the needs of the LEP population. The factors to be considered include:

• Number and proportion of LEP persons in the eligible service area; • Frequency with which LEP persons come in contact with the program; • Importance of the service provided by the program; and, • Resources available and overall MPO cost.

The MPO analyzes the four factors in conjunction with the area demographics, Public Participation Plan, Measures of Effectiveness report, community partner feedback, and funding to determine when and to what extent LEP services are required.

For written documents, the analysis should focus on identifying persons with limited English proficiency using Safe Harbor thresholds to determine whether it is necessary to proactively translate documents into other languages, or simply to provide this service on an as needed basis. Under the Safe Harbor provision, if a recipient or sub-recipient of federal funds creates a plan for the provision of written translations under a specific set of circumstances, such action will be considered strong evidence of compliance with written translations obligations under Title VI. The Safe Harbor thresholds are as follows:

• A recipient or sub-recipient of federal funds provides written translations of vital documents for each eligible LEP that constitutes 5% of 1,000, whichever is less, of the population of persons eligible to be served or likely to be affected or encountered, as determined by the Four Factor Analysis noted above. Translation of other documents, if needed, can be provided orally; or,

• If there are fewer than 50 persons in a language group that reach the 5% trigger (above), the recipient or sub-recipient does not have to translate vital written materials but provides written notice in the primary language of the LEP group of the right to receive competent oral interpretation of those written materials, free of cost.

24 How do we engage with communities of concern? PART I: Title VI Components

The US DOT guidance indicates that once an agency has decided to provide language services, it is important that the recipient notify LEP persons of services available free of charge in a language that LEP persons would understand. Example methods for notification include:

• Signage when free language assistance is available with advance notice; • Stating in outreach documents that language services are available; • Working with community-based organizations and other stakeholders to inform LEP individuals of the MPO’s services and the availability of language assistance; • Using automated telephone voicemail attendant or menu to provide information about available language assistance services; • Including notices in local newspapers in languages other than English; • Providing notices on non-English- language radio and television about MPO services and the availability of language assistance; and, • Providing presentations and/or notices at schools and faith-based organizations.

Notices for public hearings are currently placed in two newspapers that serve minority audiences. La Gaceta is a weekly publication with circulation over 21,000 with predominantly Spanish-speaking readership; it is the nation’s only tri- language newspaper (English, Spanish, and Italian). The Florida Sentinel newspaper has a large, local, mostly African-American readership and is Figure 12: Spanish Translation of an MPO Newsletter published semi-weekly with a circulation of over 30,000 readers.

25 How do we engage with communities of concern? PART I: Title VI Components

The MPO will continue to identify community organizing agencies and advocacy groups that represent LEP populations and invite them to participate in the transportation process.

On the MPO’s website there is a catalogue of plans and documents available in Spanish, as shown in the website screenshot below.

The MPO also hosts a page on its website dedicated to providing easy access to its plans and documents translated to Spanish (see above), from the LRTP to a Citizen’s Guide and MPO newsletters (page 26). Planning assistance is offered in Spanish, and a staff member’s contact information is readily available, as well as a Spanish language telephone number and extension. The website also has a prominent Google Translate function with more than 100 languages available. New mobile technologies also provide opportunities to translate speech in real-time in order to interact more easily with persons with limited English proficiency.

The MPO has initiated an extensive program to make interpreter services available free of charge, upon request at least three business days prior to a wide variety of meetings and events. This service includes MPO Board and committee meetings, workshops, forums, and all noticed events.

Disability Accommodations The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination and ensures equal opportunity for persons with disabilities. The MPO is committed to reducing barriers, both online and in-person, for those with and without physical or mental disabilities. The MPO recognizes that persons with mobility impairments often have difficulty traveling to meeting locations. Therefore, all meetings are held in locations which are accessible by those with mobility impairments and specialized transportation, such as wheelchair lift-equipped vans, may be scheduled to pick them up and return them home.

26 How do we engage with communities of concern? PART I: Title VI Components

Other options, such as hosting events where there is likely to be a large presence of disabled persons in attendance, may allow us to hear directly from the disabled or groups which speak on their behalf.

Best Practices

The City of St Petersburg's 2017 Transition Plan documents several effective steps to include persons with a disability or LEP in the planning process: • Schedule public meetings in accessible locations whenever possible, and when a fully accessible site is not available, then make reasonable modification so that an individual with a disability can participate. • Make information available to City staff on the types of modification requests that may be made by individuals with different types of disabilities. Display a notice on meeting agendas indicating the availability of accessibility modifications, including providing assistive listening devices at public meetings, when requested. • Provide agendas in alternative formats, when requested. • Provide flexibility in the time limit on speaking for individuals with communication difficulties. • Publicize the availability of American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters in all meeting announcements. • Maintain a list of on-call American Sign Language interpreters who may be brought to meetings to assist individuals with hearing impairments. • Develop a checklist for creating accessible meetings and selecting accessible meeting spaces, and make the list available to City departments and programs. • Prepare a list of already accessible meeting spaces to facilitate the scheduling of meetings and/or the location of meetings upon request. Ongoing MPO service standards include:

• Transportation to and from MPO meetings and events for the transportation disadvantaged; • Coordination with the Planning Commission and Hillsborough County’s Citizen Action Center to provide an interpreter for phone-in and walk-in customers; • Coordination with partner agencies and special needs organizations to meet requests; • Alternative publications for persons with seeing or hearing impairments, upon request, in formats such as audio transcription or Braille (may be limited to Executive Summaries of larger documents); • Maintenance of the MPO website to be accessible under WAI-AA and US Section 508, making use of World Wide Web Consortium standards, including XHTML and CSS; and, • Scheduling many hearings and project workshops in the evenings to encourage attendance.

Each meeting notice includes the following language: Persons planning to attend the public meeting in need of special accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act, or who require interpreter services (free of charge), should contact Johnny Wong, 813/273-3774 x370, or by emailing [email protected], at least three business days in advance.

Standing Committees of the MPO The MPO has nine diverse committees to advise, assess, and provide expertise for the decision- making process. Several of these standing committees include seats set aside for historically underrepresented groups, including racial and ethnic minorities, youth, and persons with disabilities.

Further, demographic data are collected from committee members, to track committees’ similarity to the county population. MPO board members are regularly encouraged to nominate Citizens

27 How do we engage with communities of concern? PART I: Title VI Components

Advisory Committee candidates from historically underrepresented populations, and staff members reach out to community groups to find candidates as well. A summary of these efforts, and results, is provided with each quadrennial certification of the MPO.

All committee meetings are open to the public and opportunity for public comment is provided; actions are publicly noticed; and anyone may add themselves to the agenda mailing lists through the MPO's online subscription service or by contacting the MPO. The standing committees of the MPO are as follows:

Citizens Advisory Committee. The committee consists of 23 citizen volunteers and is responsible for providing information on community values and needs into the transportation planning program of the MPO; evaluating and proposing solutions from a citizen's perspective, concerning alternative transportation proposals and critical issues; providing knowledge gained through the CAC into local citizen group discussions and meetings; and establishing comprehension and promoting credibility for the MPO program.

Committee members are nominated by MPO board members or serve at-large as representatives of racial, ethnic, age, and gender-based minority groups; these at-large seats were created specifically for this purpose within the last few years. The Transportation Disadvantaged Coordinating Board also nominates a member of the CAC; for more than a decade the nominee has been a person with disabilities. Currently, the committee is 70 percent Caucasian, 12 percent African American, and 18 percent Hispanic/Latino with no representation by Asian Americans, persons with disabilities, or the elderly.

Transportation Disadvantaged Coordinating Board. Composed of 18 members representing disadvantaged citizens, citizen boards, and social service agencies, the Transportation Disadvantaged Coordinating Board (TDCB) focuses on transportation challenges affecting protected demographic groups. The TDCB assists the MPO in identifying local transportation service needs and providing information, advice, and direction to the Community Transportation Coordinator on coordinating services provided to the transportation disadvantaged pursuant to Section 427.0157, Florida Statutes.

A sample of the agencies represented includes the Workforce Development Board, Blind Services, Children and Families, Elder Affairs, and Veteran's Affairs, among others. Currently, the committee is 82 percent Caucasian, 12 percent African American, 6 percent Hispanic/Latino, 29 percent persons with disabilities, and 23 percent elderly. There is no representation by Asian Americans.

Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee. The committee is comprised of up to 25 citizens who serve at-large or represent local agencies, and is responsible for making recommendations on matters concerning the planning, implementation, and maintenance of a comprehensive bikeway and pedestrian system, as well as the safety, security, and regulations pertaining to bicyclists and pedestrians. This group meets in the evening to provide greater access to the general public, has many at-large seats open to the public, and frequently discusses the nexus between public health and safe, sustainable transportation facilities. Currently, the committee is 79 percent Caucasian, 5

28 How do we engage with communities of concern? PART I: Title VI Components percent African American, 11 percent Hispanic/Latino, 5 percent Asian American, 5 percent persons with disabilities, and 16 percent elderly.

Technical Advisory Committee. Composed of representatives of local government transportation departments and transportation agencies operating in Hillsborough County, the TAC is responsible for assisting in the development of transportation planning work programs; coordinating transportation planning and programming; review of all transportation studies, reports, plans and/or programs, and making recommendations to the MPO based upon technical sufficiency, accuracy, and completeness. Currently, the committee is 72 percent Caucasian, 28 percent African American, and 17 percent elderly. There is no representation by Hispanic/Latino, Asian Americans, or persons with disabilities.

Livable Roadways Committee. An interdisciplinary group of volunteers from the public and private sectors who represent local governments, citizen groups and professional associations, the committee makes recommendations to create a transportation system that balances design and aesthetics with issues of roadway safety and function; ensures that public policy and decisions result in a transportation system that supports all modes of transportation, with a special emphasis on pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and transit infrastructure and service; and provides information and assistance to the MPO, local governments and transportation agencies relating to the MPO's Livable Roadways Guidelines. Currently, the committee is 79 percent Caucasian, 21 percent African American, and 5 percent persons with disabilities. There is no representation by Hispanic/Latino, Asian Americans, or the elderly.

Intelligent Transportation Systems Committee. The committee is composed of technically qualified representatives of agencies involved in the planning, programming, engineering and/or implementation of advanced traffic management systems locally. Currently, the committee is 57 percent Caucasian, 29 percent African American, 14 percent Asian American, and 14 percent elderly. There is no representation by Hispanic/Latino or persons with disabilities.

Tampa Bay Transportation Management Area Leadership Group. An advisory committee to the Pinellas and Pasco MPOs as well as Hillsborough MPO, the Leadership Group engages in collaborative facilitated discussions that focus on major cross-county transportation markets and traffic movements. The committee also helps the Tampa Bay metropolitan area speak with one voice in discussions of regional transportation prioritization issues and financial resources.

29 How do we engage with communities of concern? PART I: Title VI Components

COMPONENT 3: HOW DO WE DETERMINE PLAN EQUITY? The MPO prepares system-wide plans and studies Why are we concerned with equity in for the entire 1,000+ square mile metropolitan transportation? planning area, as well as corridor and sub-area Equity in transportation planning is complex and studies that focus on the needs of particular factors to consider include: communities. These studies may result in the • The quality of transportation available affects delivery of transportation projects. How equitable is people’s economic and social opportunities and the distribution of projects and investments? Who can impact (in terms of time savings, comfort, benefits, and who is excluded from public and safety) access to employment and income investments and future opportunities? are opportunities, education, and health services; important questions to consider. The emphasis on • Transportation expenditures represent a major equitable plans and their delivery has increased, as share of most household, business, and government expenditures. Projects can affect have the variety of methods with which to measure the travel costs of households differently; equity. This component has recommendations for • Transportation facilities require significant future methodology based on best practices, and public resources (such as tax funding and road provides snapshots of current equity analyses by rights of way), the allocation of which can favor the MPO. some people over others; and, • Transportation planning decisions can affect Typically, at the system-wide level, the primary development location and type, and therefore tools to determine plan equity through place-based accessibility, land values, and local economic accessibility are: GIS overlay analysis, shown activity. through maps; and the regional planning model -- known locally as the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Model or TBRPM -- which provides snapshots of future traffic patterns based on urban growth trends.

Using the Regional Planning Model A good example of using a regional planning model for equity analysis is provided by the Boston Region MPO, which used its model to analyze the cumulative impact of all the transportation projects proposed in its most recent LRTP, Charting Progress to 2040.7 Statistics produced by the model helped describe future conditions in 2040, including potential disparate impacts upon minority populations and disproportionate burdens upon low-income populations. The Boston MPO defines a “disparate impact” as disproportionately affecting members of a group identified by race, color, or national origin, while a “disparate burden” disproportionately affects low-income populations more than non-low-income populations. In the process of assessing impacts and burdens, the Boston MPO developed a draft disparate impact and disproportionate burden policy.

Impacts and burdens were evaluated using seven metrics related to accessibility, mobility, and air quality. The MPO used the model to forecast results for the region as a whole, and also for low- income and minority areas in particular. Potentially disparate impacts and burdens were flagged where the 2040 outcomes were significantly different for low-income and minority areas. The metrics used by the Boston MPO were:

7 http://www.ctps.org/data/pdf/plans/lrtp/charting/2040_LRTP_Full_final.pdf.

30 How do we determine plan equity? PART I: Title VI Components

• Within a 40-minute transit ride, the average number of: industrial, retail, and service jobs; institutions of higher education (weighted by enrollment); and, hospitals (weighted by number of beds); • Within a 20-minute drive, the average number of: industrial, retail, and service jobs; institutions of higher education (weighted by enrollment); and, hospitals (weighted by number of beds); • Average transit and highway travel times for trips to/from each TAZ; • Average congested vehicle-miles traveled (VMT); • Average VMT; and, • Carbon monoxide emitted per square mile.

The Boston Region MPO uses GIS to compare its transit projects in the TIP to “Transportation Equity” populations

Similar to Boston, the Hillsborough MPO uses the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Model (TBRPM) to estimate the cumulative impacts of transportation investments on minority and low-income populations, as forecast for the 20-year horizon. Areas with a high concentration of minority and low-income populations are flagged as Environmental Justice (EJ) Areas in the TBRPM, so that the benefits and burdens to those populations can be compared to the county as a whole. A summary of the EJ vs. county-wide statistics is provided in Table 2 (page 32). Data is from the TBRPM v8.0 Measures of Effectiveness Report,8 except as otherwise noted.

An increase in highway lane-miles may be considered either positive or negative, depending upon the preferences of the community. The Hillsborough MPO’s top priority project in the late 1990s, for example, was the widening of 40th Street in East Tampa. On the one hand, many community members supported the project for addressing a long-standing crash problem and improving access to the community. On the other hand, expanding the Downtown Interchange has been opposed by the Tampa Heights community which has voiced concerns about noise, air quality, right-of-way, and other impacts. Whether highway expansion is considered positive or negative, the increase in

8 Tampa Bay Regional Planning Model v8.0. Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) Report, 2015.

31 How do we determine plan equity? PART I: Title VI Components highway lane-miles in the Imagine 2040 Plan is nearly identical in both EJ areas and the county as a whole.

Table 2: Effects of the Imagine 2040 Plan

EJ Areas County as a Whole

Highway lane-miles 22% increase 21% increase

Bus route-miles 34% increase 144-174% increase

Percent of residents who have access 41% increase 52% increase9 to bus routes operating with at least 30-min frequency (where “access” is defined as living within ¼ mile)

Total number of trips using transit, 240% increase 459% increase typical weekday

Commute trip average time 3% decrease 9% increase10

Other trips from home, 6% increase average time

Time spent in congestion by all 182% increase travelers, typical weekday

Source: Tampa Bay Regional Planning Model v8.0. Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) Report, 2015.

The above performance outcomes also reflect a significant investment in expanding the transit system, including more frequent bus service; a new passenger rail line in the urban core; and, geographically expanding the bus system across underserved suburban communities, which would significantly increase bus route-miles outside EJ neighborhoods. If Hillsborough County moves forward with this investment in transit, the time it takes to travel to jobs could actually decrease in EJ neighborhoods, while county-wide, time spent in congestion grows 182%.

The Hillsborough MPO decided to support this significant investment in transit when it adopted the Imagine 2040 Plan, which was based on creating a new funding source for transportation equivalent to a one-percent sales tax. The plan included asking the public for feedback on various scenarios of future growth and infrastructure investment and is, to date, the MPO’s most extensive public engagement effort ever conducted. Access to jobs from EJ areas was one of 12 wide-ranging criteria used to evaluate the scenarios. The scenario analysis revealed that as Hillsborough County grows outward, the ability for disadvantaged populations to access jobs will worsen unless the transit system is expanded. The Imagine 2040 Plan therefore charts a different course. For future use of the TBRPM, additional statistics such as average travel times, by driving and by transit for trips

9 2040 Long Transportation Plan Needs Assessment: Real Choices When Not Driving, Appendix A: Transit Performance Measures, Investment Impacts, and Costs. 10 Tampa Bay Regional Transportation Analysis, Year 2010 Base Validated Network>Trip Distribution and Year 2040 Cost Affordable No KBar Roads>Trip Distribution.

32 How do we determine plan equity? PART I: Title VI Components to/from EJ areas vs the county as a whole could be calculated. It is recommended that this be added to the TBRPM standard measures of effectiveness report and other measures be explored.

Using GIS Tools At the system-level, the Hillsborough MPO uses GIS tools and the TBRPM to perform overlay analyses, which map the locations of protected populations and the location of proposed transportation improvements. This technique has been used to identify improvements in the walk/bike network, which can improve health outcomes, and expand the transit network to improve accessibility to jobs and life-sustaining services. GIS overlay analyses can also be used to estimate the number of people within the service area of a proposed transportation improvement, and the proportion of those people who also reside in an Environmental Justice area.

The connectivity of the transportation network Other Tools on Hand and between modes is another measurement of The Hillsborough MPO has utilized several tools that equity, as well as land use proximity which refers can make identifying benefits and burdens less to the mix of uses and the distance between labor- and data-intensive. destinations. Travel costs, either based on travel Planning Information Map App (PIMA), created by time or distance, are indicators of access and Plan Hillsborough, is an interactive, web-based, modal options. mapping application that allows planners and citizens to view land use, transportation, Access to transit, trails, and safe pedestrian environmental, and other planning-related map networks provide true transportation options for layers and data. transportation-disadvantaged residents. Figure Sugar Access, created by Citilabs, is another web- 13 (page 37) shows the adopted priorities for the based mapping tool that can calculate multimodal access and conduct simple scenario planning. greenways and trails network at investment levels of one, two, and three. The level one investment represents trails with the highest priority for funding. These trails are the first to be programmed when any funds are made available, and will primarily serve communities located within the top quintile of environmental justice areas. As shown in Figure 14 (page 38), the adopted priorities for transit level of service are also intended to serve EJ protected populations within Tampa’s urban core. Trails and transit priorities are particularly Growing Stronger important for EJ communities, as those Continue to investigate the relationship between populations tend to rely heavily on both modes of transportation systems and community health outcomes in Hillsborough County, building on the transportation. past year's partnership with Florida Department of Health. Grow the scope of analysis from the corridor Additional Tools for Equity Analysis level (the 2016 George Road Complete Streets Traditional analyses may not be enough to fully Project Health Impact Assessment pilot study) to the understand the impacts that plans and projects system-wide level. can have on vulnerable communities. It is recommended that the forthcoming LRTP update continue to utilize the available modeling tools to identify potential disparate and negative impacts to disadvantaged communities, and seek to improve by exploring new analytical tools and by identifying performance targets for equity. This section discusses additional analytical tools which may help better identify disparate impacts in the future.

33 How do we determine plan equity? PART I: Title VI Components

Equity in Traffic Safety According to the Smart Growth America and National Complete Streets Coalition’s 2014 Dangerous by Design report, racial and ethnic minorities, the young, and the elderly are disproportionately represented in pedestrian deaths.11 This is particularly troubling, given that the MPO’s 2016 State of the System Report identified that pedestrian fatalities in Hillsborough County have increased dramatically over the past decade.12 While there are many areas in Hillsborough County with limited multimodal infrastructure, it is particularly important to maintain a safe, comfortable, and convenient active transportation network in low-income and minority communities.

Equity in Access to Basic Needs Providing households with access to basic needs -- such as jobs, healthcare, schools, food, and healthcare – ensures the ability to support themselves with dignity. Sugar Access, built by Citilabs, is a mapping application used by the Hillsborough MPO to measure accessibility to points-of-interest for specific COCs by specific modes of travel. These images show examples of the equity analysis Figures 15 and 16 (pages 39 and 40), for data available for Hillsborough County through example, show the percentage of jobs cnt.org. accessible from a given point in the county by car within a 30- and 40-minute travel-time, respectively. Figure 15 shows that more than 80 percent of total jobs in Hillsborough County are accessible within a 30-minute drive from Tampa’s urban core. The Westshore area, in particular, has the greatest accessibility to jobs due to dense employment within that area and close proximity to job centers in Pinellas County. As one moves further from the job centers of downtown Tampa and the Westshore area, fewer jobs are accessible within the 30-minute driving timeframe. For example, fewer than 20 percent of jobs in the Tampa Bay area are accessible within a 30- minute drive from Ruskin, but between 20 and 40 percent of jobs are accessible within a 40- minute drive.

The accessibility metrics used for this analysis were calculated using network travel times from a set of origins to a set of destinations across the region and tallying the number of points-of-interest (jobs, in this example)

11 Smart Growth America, Dangerous by Design 2014. smartgrowthamerica.org/resources/dangerous-by- design-2014/. 12 Hillsborough MPO. 2016. 2016 State of the System Report. Hillsborough County: Tampa, FL.

34 How do we determine plan equity? PART I: Title VI Components accessible during the AM peak period. Sugar Access These images are examples of the equity allows us to consider specific modes of travel and analysis available through AllTransit. The map other conditions, such as time of day. depicts overall transit scores as measured by connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of Equity in Household Out-of-Pocket Costs service. The greatest expenditures for the typical American household are housing and transportation costs. Compact and dynamic neighborhoods with walkable streets and high access to jobs, transit, and a wide variety of businesses are more efficient, affordable, and sustainable. Housing is conventionally deemed affordable when it consumes no more than 30 percent of household income. Transportation costs are usually the second-largest expense for households. Typically, the combined costs should be <40 percent of total income to be considered affordable. Figure 17 (page 41) shows the overall H+T analysis results in Hillsborough County, highlighting areas where block groups spend more than 77 percent, or households greater than one standard deviation above the county average, of their total income on housing and transportation.

The Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) develops innovative tools to quickly deliver useful data. One mapping tool is the H+T Index, which evaluates housing and transportation costs through variables such as households per acre, average block size, transit connectivity index, job density, average commute, income, household size, and workers per household. This tool easily allows the MPO to evaluate the affordability of housing and transportation and incorporate these analyses into the LRTP.

CNT also hosts a tool that measures the cost of driving on the average Hillsborough County household. The typical household in the region owns 1.66 cars and drives them 19,471 miles a year. Between gas costs and car ownership, the typical household is spending $11,925 each year on transportation. Transportation costs are considered affordable if they are 15 percent or less of household income, or $7,063 a year for the typical household.

35 How do we determine plan equity? PART I: Title VI Components

Another CNT tool is AllTransit, which measures access to transit by ZIP code or municipality. Accessibility is scored using six metrics: jobs, economy, health, transit equity, transit quality, and mobility network.

According to CNT, Hillsborough County residents, on average spend 58 percent of their income on housing and transportation. None of its neighborhoods are considered location efficient, meaning they are neither compact, nor close to jobs and services.

According to AllTransit, in July 2017, Hillsborough County scored an overall 3.3 Performance Score out of a possible 10. It describes the conditions with “low combination of [transit] trips per week and number of jobs accessible, enabling few people to take transit to work.” The tool can be accessed at alltransit.cnt.org.

36 How do we determine plan equity? PART I: Title VI Components

Figure 13: Imagine 2040 Needs Assessment: Trails and Sidepath Network at Three Levels of Investment

37 How do we determine plan equity? PART I: Title VI Components

Figure 14: Imagine 2040 Needs Assessment: Transit Level of Service at Low Level of Investment

38 How do we determine plan equity? PART I: Title VI Components

Figure 15: Percent of Jobs Within a 30-Minute Drive

39 How do we determine plan equity? PART I: Title VI Components

Figure 16: Percent of Jobs Within a 40-Minute Drive

40 How do we determine plan equity? PART I: Title VI Components

Figure 17: Block Groups with High Housing and Transportation Costs

41 How do we determine plan equity? PART I: Title VI Components

COMPONENT 4: HOW DO WE EVALUATE OUTREACH EFFECTIVENESS? The MPO thoroughly documents its public Growing Stronger outreach efforts and results as part of the PPP Include more explicit discussion and detail about Measures of Effectiveness report. This component protected demographic groups, and how their includes a summary of the existing interests are taken into consideration, in MPO documentation and recommendations from best documents. practices for future tools. The most recent PPP Measures of Effectiveness report from April 2016 documented visibility and productivity, participation opportunities, public interest and feedback, and public input results, as shown on Table 2 (page 43).

The MPO documents a wide variety of outreach metrics to measure its overall visibility and productivity, from agendas distributed (70 communications sent to 8,651 addresses in 2015) to newsletter subscribers (more than 50,000 in 2015).13 Few of the metrics focus solely on Title VI or Environmental Justice outreach. However, of the 168 public MPO meetings and events conducted in 2014 and 2015, at least 36 (21 percent) meetings or events were held in locations or involved groups associated with Environmental Justice areas. Altogether for 2014 and 2015, more than 2,473 of 14,009 total attendees, or 18 percent of all participants, were identified as from Environmental Justice areas, compared to 16 percent in the previous reporting period. The report includes recommendations to enhance the overall public participation program. The following recommendation relates specifically to Title VI:

Increase public participation efforts with minorities, low-income individuals, and the transportation disadvantaged. FDOT updated Chapter 9: Title VI and Nondiscrimination Program Guidance for MPOs of the MPO Program Management Handbook in October 2015. The MPO will therefore update the PPP to reflect the following requirements:

• Ensure the Measures of Effectiveness report details representative public involvement; • Develop a map with updated community characteristics showing the MPO’s geographic area broken down by socioeconomic factors; and, • List all MPO committees’ members by race, ethnicity, age, and whether or not disabled.

13 www.planhillsborough.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/PPP-MOE-CH3_Visibility-Productivity.pdf.

42 How do we evaluate outreach effectiveness? PART I: Title VI Components

Table 3: Measures of Effectiveness for the Public Participation Plan (2016)

Metrics Number of MPO newsletters and brochures distributed, such as Bicycle Suitability Maps, Ride Number of MPO publications produced Guides and Citizens Guide to Transportation Planning Number of newspaper advertisements Media inventory of newspaper articles, television and public notices placed in Measuring and radio coverage Visibility and publications with minority audiences Productivity Number of West Central Florida MPO Number of MPO sponsored maps distributed, as Chairs Coordinating Committee well as any other sponsorship or advertisement brochures distributed opportunity Number of publications available on the MPO Number of meetings broadcast on website, at a minimum to include the LRTP, TIP, Hillsborough County Television and an annual list of obligated projects Number of MPO public forums, workshops and community meetings at Number and origin of participants at such public which displays, presentations, forums, workshops, and community meetings discussions, and feedback occurred Number of participants at public forums, workshops and community Number of participation opportunities offered to Measuring meetings held in historically American Indian entities, such as the Seminole Participation underserved areas or with such Tribe of Florida Opportunities populations Number and origin of participants at Number of persons on the MPO mailing list monthly MPO and committee meetings receiving regular agendas Number of draft plans, reports, other preliminary documents or surveys

posted to MPO website for public comment

Increasing Developing maps with updated, community- Public Ensuring the MOE report details specific demographic and socioeconomic data Participation representative public involvement within the MPO’s geographic boundaries at the Efforts with census tract, block group, or zip code level Minorities, Low-Income Listing all MPO committee members’ demographic data, including race, Individuals, & Transportation ethnicity, age, and whether or not they Disadvantaged are disabled Number of returned comment cards Number of verbal comments received at open distributed with Newsletters and other forum discussions, public hearings, and at any Measuring MPO publications other opportunities for public interaction Public Interest Number of phone, fax, mail, and email Number of visitors to the MPO website & Feedback inquiries or comments cards received Seeking feedback that is immediate

and project specific Number of issues identified through Measuring Documented revisions to plans based on citizen public input and responded to by the input Input Results MPO Periodic public involvement process Update the PPP in conjunction with, and at the Refining PPP surveys outset of, each LRTP update Process Recommendations to enhance the PPP

43 How do we evaluate outreach effectiveness? PART I: Title VI Components

Best Practice from Miami-Dade

To maintain up-to-date and effective General Outreach Strategies (GOS), the Miami-Dade MPO continuously evaluates the effectiveness of Public Involvement strategies. GOS, such as community events, the Annual and Quarterly MPO newsletters, the MPO website, general information brochures, etc., require an annual evaluation to assess effectiveness. Each tool is evaluated against performance indicators and targets, to identify the tools most helpful for reaching traditionally underserved communities and LEP citizens. Establishing indicators and targets documents outreach success and identifies deficiencies early in the process. Table 3 shows the MPO’s outreach methods and targets.

Table 4: Miami-Dade MPO's Targets for Effective Outreach

Tool Task Target Description Coordinate with local transportation agencies and MPO Conduct Community 24 events Board to participate in their outreach events in the Community Outreach Events community Outreach Events Input MPO Outreach Input stats within 5 Verify that community outreach event evaluation forms Events in Database days are complete and properly record in database Work with Miami-Dade County Communications Produce/air MPO materials 9 radio and/or TV Department and local radio and TV stations to produce on Radio and TV Stations segments interviews in English, Spanish, and Creole Produce/air Public Service Work with MDTV along with local colleges and high schools Media Relations Announcements (PSAs) in 2 PSAs to produce public service announcements about the MPO English, Spanish & Creole and the transportation system Produce and distribute one Press Release per month for all Press Releases 12 press releases major MPO activities Enhance MPO Website users’ experience by Update information Continue to advertise the MPO program and make it easy Website creating a more user- regularly for citizens to efficiently access information friendly Website Distribute 6,000 Produce Three Seasonal copies each; Develop quarterly newsletters to coincide with the “hot Newsletters translate into topic” of the quarter Spanish & Creole Distribute 700,000 Newsletters Produce an Annual copies; translate Prepare a themed Annual Newsletter with a year in review Newsletter into Spanish & of various transportation initiatives Creole Post Newsletters on MPO 100% of Update website to reflect latest Newsletters and up-to- Website newsletters date information Input comments into MPO Increase by 5% Track all correspondence that comes into the office Database yearly Public Track how comments were Email Mail Phone Fax Outreach Event LRTP Workshop 100% Involvement Received Walk In Database Establish a protocol Take comment cards to outreach events, input Maintain 10-day promoting prompt information from the public into the database, and response rate response to comments respond in a timely manner Public Involvement Coordinate quarterly PIMT Coordinate Public Involvement Team meetings to discuss Quarterly Meetings Management meetings transportation issues with various transportation agencies Team Develop agendas, resolutions, and back-up information; prepare minutes after each meeting, ensure issues are Prepare CTAC Materials Citizens 20 Meetings addressed; respond to inquiries regarding agenda items and Minutes Transportation w/in 1 business day; respond to/acknowledge all written Advisory correspondence of agenda items w/in 3 business days Committee Follow-up on all CTAC Resolutions by ensuring the (CTAC) agencies affected by the Resolutions take action and that Track all Resolutions 100% of resolutions their responses are communicated back to the Committee in a timely manner

44 How do we evaluate outreach effectiveness? PART II: Title VI Work in MPO Program Areas

PART II: TITLE VI WORK IN MPO PRIMARY PROGRAM AREAS Considerations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act are made throughout the MPO's planning and programming activities. The Hillsborough MPO receives federal transportation planning grants to develop transportation plans and to coordinate technical and policy studies on a wide range of transportation topics. It is the MPO's responsibility to ensure that these federally-supported plans do not have disproportionate negative impacts on minority or other protected communities. The primary products of the transportation planning process include:

• Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP); • Transportation Improvement Program (TIP); • Congestion Management/Crash Mitigation Process (CM/CMP); • Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan (TDSP); • Public Participation Program (PPP) and Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) Report; and, • Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program.

45 Title VI Work in Primary Program Areas PART II: Title VI Work in MPO Program Areas

LRTP: THE IMAGINE 2040 TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Geographic Scale: Hillsborough County

Timeframe: 2015-2040

Communities of Concern within area of All impact:

Outreach and engagement strategies:

• Invitations were emailed to groups such as the local branch of the NAACP, Hispanic Services Council, and Seminole Tribe of Florida, promoting the Imagine 2040: Part 2 survey and offering to make a presentation to their members. • Counter cards were distributed to organizations serving these population segments, notably including HART’s entire fleet of vehicles, Hispanic Service Council, and Seminole Tribe of Florida. • Meeting and event locations were tracked, ensuring that communities and organizations representing these populations had ample opportunities to participate. • A Spanish interpreter was secured from the Hillsborough County Community Affairs Department for an Imagine 2040: Part 2 Survey event sponsored by the Good Samaritans in Wimauma, where there is a concentration of persons with limited English proficiency.

Engagement Statistics:

• More than 2,400 surveys were collected; • 18 of the 65 (28%) of all meetings either engaged with or were held in EJ groups and areas; and, • Staff interacted with more than 6,800 meeting attendees, and approximately 1,500 were from Communities of Concern populations.

Summary:

The LRTP is the MPO’s primary responsibility and includes the most extensive public engagement program performed by the agency. In accordance with federal requirements, the LRTP assesses the multimodal transportation needs of Hillsborough County and sets forth goals, objectives, policies, and improvements necessary to address those needs over a 20-year period. The Hillsborough MPO includes Environmental Justice and other equity measures in its analysis for the LRTP. This includes tracking of vehicle and transit trips originating and terminating in Environmental Justice areas as well as determining the levels of service for all transportation modes within these areas. The modeling also determines outcomes for underserved communities, including access to jobs and services based on transportation priorities and decisions. The MPO ensures that all major new projects for specific corridors are pre-screened through the Efficient Transportation Decision-Making process before being added to the LRTP. This web-based tool allows dozens of State and Federal agencies and MPOs to share geographic data and provide preliminary comments about potential impacts of projects. The pre-screening process results in a degree-of-effect determination about issues spanning from social

46 LRTP: The Imagine 2040 Transportation Plan PART II: Title VI Work in MPO Program Areas effects, land-use, relocations, mobility impacts, economic, aesthetics, and secondary/cumulative effects.

Beginning in 2013, the Hillsborough MPO began The 2040 LRTP evaluated three different updating its LRTP to the 2040 horizon year, and used a growth scenarios: scenario planning process that included access to jobs from Environmental Justice communities as one of its performance measures. Three alternative scenarios of 2040 growth and transportation were produced for public information and discussion. These were somewhat exaggerated sketch-plans of the implications of growth management and transportation investment decisions, to facilitate a communitywide conversation about values. The results would guide policy for the LRTP and local comprehensive plans, and enable the creation of a more nuanced "hybrid" The scenarios were evaluated with different growth/transportation scenario reflecting the metrics: community's informed preferences. The scenario planning exercise is described in more detail in the technical memoranda of the Imagine 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan.

Access to jobs from Environmental Justice communities was one of four transportation performance measures for the scenarios, out of 12 total measures that also included environmental, energy, infrastructure cost, and other considerations. The scenario planning exercise showed that as Hillsborough County grows, disadvantaged populations' access to jobs will be worse if the transit system is not expanded. Growth continues to push farther out, covering more geographic area, and if bus service does not grow similarly, transit dependent populations will be limited to those jobs located nearby. Images pictured here, among others, were published in a special eight-page insert in the Sunday edition of the Tampa Bay Times; displayed in an interactive webpage soliciting feedback; and, hand-distributed to civic groups around the county by MPO staff.

The "Bustling Metro" scenario illustrated 2040 conditions if all of Hillsborough County's growth were contained within the current urban services boundary and there was significant investment in bus and passenger rail service. The other two scenarios did not expand transit, but focused on collector and arterial roads in the Suburban Dream scenario and on interstate highway express toll lanes in the New Corporate Centers scenario. Outcomes for Environmental Justice communities were better than today in the Bustling Metro scenario, while the other scenarios were worse than today.

As a result of this exercise, the cost-feasible LRTP and the 2040 comprehensive plans that have since been adopted by three of the four local governments are based on a hybrid scenario that includes only very limited expansion of the urban service boundary and a significant investment in transit.

47 LRTP: The Imagine 2040 Transportation Plan PART II: Title VI Work in MPO Program Areas

As a follow-up activity, the MPO developed financial Varying levels of investment resulted in scenarios for various levels of investment in bus service; varying levels of service: paratransit service; the trail/sidepath network; and roadway safety improvements (including wholesale application of "Complete Street" treatments in high- crash corridors); among other programs. These investment options, with associated price tags, were developed for public information, discussion and feedback as part of the Imagine 2040: Part 2 outreach exercise; two levels of investment in “Real Choices When Not Driving” are shown in the box to the right.

The performance measures for the bus, paratransit, and trail/sidepath programs were based on providing good Distribution of outreach activities: levels of service to as much of the population as possible, and the highest priority was placed on centrally located improvements.

Imagine 2040: Part 2 outreach brought a user-friendly interactive web-survey to neighborhood groups and civic organizations at 65 different meetings and events around the county.14

Consistent with its mandate to reach out to all segments of Hillsborough County’s diverse populations, the MPO sought out and involved groups that traditionally have not been represented in transportation decision-making.

These population groups include low-income, minority populations, and people with limited English proficiency.

During the interactive web-based survey exercise, respondents had the option of defining themselves by race or ethnicity and provided the following breakdown.

Regarding outreach to traditionally under‐represented population groups, 18 out of 65 events or meetings (28 percent) engaged Environmental Justice groups or areas, with an estimated attendance of 1,523 out of a total of 6,830 (22 percent).

14 http://www.planhillsborough.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/NeedsAssessment- PublicEngagement_FINAL_Nov_2014.pdf.

48 LRTP: The Imagine 2040 Transportation Plan PART II: Title VI Work in MPO Program Areas

Tampa General Hospital "Healthpark" Event Eastern Heights Civic Association monthly meeting

Good Samaritan Mission Back-to School Festival Ybor City Rotary Club meeting

Self-reported outreach results from the Imagine 2040 "Campo YMCA" festival planning exercise

49 LRTP: The Imagine 2040 Transportation Plan PART II: Title VI Work in MPO Program Areas

TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP)

Geographic Scale: Hillsborough County

Timeframe: Updated every 5 years

Communities of Concern within area of All impact:

Outreach and engagement strategies:

The TIP is a five-year plan that identifies, prioritizes, and allocates funding for transportation projects across the county. In June of each year, the MPO Board must adopt the annual update of the TIP to program money for projects. Similar to the LRTP planning process, the TIP adoption also requires a major public outreach effort to inform county residents of new projects added to that year’s TIP, solicit their feedback on those projects, and encourage them to attend the adoption hearing. The great diversity of Hillsborough County residents is reflected in the approach to public engagement. While the specific techniques may change from year to year, the strategy remains the same: to use a combination of high-tech and low-tech approaches; publicize the event in multiple languages; utilize direct mailers to inform communities of new projects near their homes; and run advertisements in both mainstream and special interest periodicals.

Engagement Statistics:

The inclusive approach to outreach has been a major success in recent years. At the June 2016 TIP public hearing, several participation records were set as 281 total emails and over 70 Facebook comments were received, and 132 speakers signed up to leave public comment. To encourage that level of participation, more than 6,000 direct mail flyers were sent out to property- and business owners near major projects. Nearly 20 brightly-colored notice signs were also posted near community centers like libraries, coffee shops, and post offices to inform renters. Two designated phone lines, one in English and one in Spanish, and a Facebook event page were created for residents to leave comments either on the phone or online.

Summary:

The MPO is responsible for the development and maintenance of the five-year TIP. Annual updates of the TIP consolidate the funded work programs of FDOT, local governments and transportation authorities. The TIP also includes a priority listing of projects for Surface Transportation Program, Transportation Alternatives Program, and other funds.

Public participation for development of the TIP is implemented primarily through the committee structure of the MPO. The MPO also provides summaries in its quarterly newsletters, which have a wide audience. The agency uses social media to alert the public as implementing agencies move forward with projects and hold community meetings or provide online information. They also use direct-mail, road signs, and evening meeting times when there is public interest in a TIP update. The

50 Transportation Improvement Program PART II: Title VI Work in MPO Program Areas

TIP is a year-by-year implementation of the LRTP, so the public outreach and technical analysis conducted for the LRTP applies to the implementation of the LRTP through the TIP.

An additional measure of inclusion is the TIP Tool, a web based interactive map, developed by the MPO that allows the public to query any project of interest to them.

TIP public hearings TIP public hearings

Screenshot of the interactive online tool for the TIP TIP public hearings

51 Transportation Improvement Program PART II: Title VI Work in MPO Program Areas

CM/CMP: COLUMBUS DR AND 17/18/19TH AVENUES STUDY

Geographic Scale: Neighborhood

Timeframe: 2014-2015

Communities of Concern within area of Minorities and low-income impact:

Outreach and engagement strategies:

Unlike many other Communities of Concern, the affected neighborhood has a relatively high rate of home ownership. To take advantage of this anomaly, the study team elected to mail out flyers to 947 addresses inviting residents to attend the Open House and participate in the discussion. Recognizing that some residents may be unfamiliar with the planning process, the project team listed some preliminary conceptual designs in the flyer and requested residents attend to provide feedback.

Engagement Statistics:

The first public meeting was held on the evening of September 17, 2014, at the Academy Prep Center of Tampa with more than 50 participants in attendance. A second public meeting was held January 5, 2015, at the same location with more than 40 participants in attendance. The first meeting introduced the project to the residents and solicited broad, preliminary suggestions for improving the corridor, while the second meeting served to present the work efforts to the community and capture their final thoughts on the study’s final recommendations. In addition to the in-person meetings, the study team also solicited project feedback via paper and electronic surveys to accommodate those who had no means of attending the meetings.

Summary:

The MPO studied the option of returning the one-way pairs of Columbus Drive and 17/18/19th Avenues to two-way operations, after requests were made by civic groups in the corridor. The one- way pair runs through a historically African American neighborhood in East Tampa. Historical injustices perpetrated against Tampa’s African American community make it especially important for planners to thoroughly assess the community’s feedback with respect to transportation plans. To establish rapport with residents, the project team created a Transportation Advisory Group which included representatives from the local business community and civic associations. Advisory Group members played an integral role in disseminating information and soliciting feedback from their respective groups.

At the public meetings, participants were asked to complete a survey to share their experiences and concerns on Columbus Drive and 17th/18th/19th Avenues and to assess support for the corridor being switched to two-way traffic. There was significant support for changing the roadways to two- way operations, adding on-street parking where possible, shifting the bulk of traffic to Columbus

52 CM/CMP: Columbus Dr and 17/18/19th Avenues Study PART II: Title VI Work in MPO Program Areas

Drive, and transforming 17th/18th/19th Avenues into neighborhood streets with slower traffic for safer walking and cycling.

Before–and-after visualization of the project’s design results Comments collected at the two outreach meetings had a direct impact on the final recommended project design. Initially, the study team considered converting to two-way traffic on the more residential 17/18/19th corridor and using the additional pavement for buffered bicycle lanes or a separated bi-directional trail. The residents, however, preferred that the additional pavement be repurposed for on-street parking. Parking is in high demand for residents who front 17/18/19th Avenues, as many of the lots are not large enough to allow a driveway, and existing driveways are often too shallow for more than one car to fit. The design was thus changed to include on-street parking alternating from side-to-side, which has an added benefit of calming traffic. Slower traffic in combination with midblock crossings and shared lane markings makes cycling safer and gives the neighborhood its much-needed parking.

With strong public support and traffic analyses showing little to no impact on the circulation system, it was recommended that Columbus Drive and 17/18/19th Avenues be converted to two-way operations with pedestrian, bicycle and/or on-street parking amenities within the existing right-of- way. Because the cost to install traffic signals would have exceeded the available funding, stop signs were proposed on 17/18/19th Avenues.

53 CM/CMP: Columbus Dr and 17/18/19th Avenues Study PART II: Title VI Work in MPO Program Areas

At a public meeting in January 2015 with more than 40 attendees, improvement options were presented for feedback

54 CM/CMP: Columbus Dr and 17/18/19th Avenues Study PART II: Title VI Work in MPO Program Areas

CM/CMP: TAMPA ST/HIGHLAND AVE AND FLORIDA AVE CORRIDOR STUDY

Geographic Scale: Corridor and Neighborhood

Timeframe: 2015-2016

Communities of Concern within area of Minorities and low-income impact:

Outreach and engagement strategies:

The Tampa Street/Highland Avenue and Florida Avenue Corridor Study (Florida-Tampa Study) is an example of the community enthusiastically seeking to provide input to the transportation planning process. Whereas the original study scope included only limited opportunities for the community to offer feedback, the study quickly gained recognition among residents of affected neighborhoods after a presentation was provided to the MPO’s Citizens Advisory Committee. Once residents learned of the study, they began requesting presentations be made to civic associations and neighborhood groups. The study team effectively utilized time offered by civic groups to make public presentations and solicited feedback from the community. This strategy was economical and advantageous to both the study team and neighborhood groups.

Engagement Statistics:

Invitations to present to civic associations and digital surveys are two effective, low-cost options to collect valuable community feedback. After receiving requests and invitations, presentations were made to the Tampa Heights Civic Association, the Old Seminole Heights Neighborhood Association, the Business Guild of Seminole Heights, and the Downtown Partnership Transportation Committee. Surveys were also provided to community members and nearly 200 were returned with comments and suggestions.

Summary:

At the City of Tampa’s request and working closely with FDOT, the MPO kicked off a study in February 2015 to evaluate various design options for the one-way pair of Florida Avenue and Tampa/Highland Street. The study area is roughly from I-275 north to Hillsborough Avenue.

The Florida-Tampa Study began in February 2015. The purpose of the study was to identify and evaluate potential alternative configurations of the Florida Avenue and Tampa Street/Highland Avenue one-way pair, including two-way and road diet options. The study provided a technical review of how the options address the needs of a wide range of people using this corridor. The corridor passes through several Environmental Justice area neighborhoods.

55 CM/CMP: Tampa St/Highland Ave and Florida Ave Corridor Study PART II: Title VI Work in MPO Program Areas

The evaluation of the alternatives included how each provides safe access between Downtown and surrounding neighborhoods for transit users, walkers and cyclists; how the corridors would function as a “main street” and commercial district; if the alternatives allow them to continue to function as a regional transportation corridor; and, how well the configurations contribute to the City’s public realm.

A project advisory group of local and state representatives developed criteria to compare the benefits of the alternatives. After reviewing the existing conditions on the two corridors, a number of different road configurations were identified for evaluation.

Existing conditions in the study area

56 CM/CMP: Tampa St/Highland Ave and Florida Ave Corridor Study PART II: Title VI Work in MPO Program Areas

131ST AVENUE AND 46TH STREET COMPLETE STREETS STUDIES

Geographic Scale: Corridor

Timeframe: 2014

Communities of Concern within area of Minorities and low-income impact:

Outreach and engagement strategies:

The 131st Avenue and 46th Street Complete Streets studies benefited immensely by raising project awareness via low-cost techniques which ultimately led to four outreach events. The engagement strategies employed by the project team were intentionally low-tech, informal, and based on face- to-face human interaction. This boots-on-the-ground approach was supplemented with public surveys which were distributed throughout the adjacent neighborhoods and at outreach events.

Engagement Statistics:

The first outreach event had the project team hosting an informational booth at an annual walk/bike celebration held at the USF campus in Tampa. Enticing students with free giveaways – slap bracelets, stickers, pamphlets, etc. – approximately 30 students stopped by to learn more about the studies. Coincidentally, many of the students who stopped to chat lived near the study area and took a keen interest in the project moving forward.

The second opportunity for public engagement was facilitated by then-Chairwoman of the MPO’s Livable Roadways Committee (LRC), Lisa Montelione. Lisa was a member of both the LRC and the New North Transportation Alliance, which is a diverse transportation-related interest group based in the USF/New Tampa area representing neighborhood and business interests and several large institutions. Nearly 50 members attended the meeting to provide feedback on the studies and became advocates of the project due to its strong emphasis on connectivity.

The third and fourth meetings were hosted by FDOT and USF Student Government, respectively. The meeting hosted at FDOT District Seven headquarters brought to light a potential safety issue regarding pedestrians and stray golf balls. This issue was mediated by the USF Student Government, which called a special meeting to declare its support for the recommendations coming out of the Complete Streets studies.

Summary:

In 2014, a Complete Streets concept plan was initiated for 131st Avenue and 46th Street/Skipper Road. It was intended to develop an integrated plan for street and landscaping improvements, with particular attention being paid to pedestrian, bicycle, and transit accommodations on both roadways. The project limits on 131st Avenue were from Nebraska Avenue to Bruce B. Downs Boulevard and from Fletcher Avenue to Bruce B. Downs Boulevard on 46th Street/Skipper Road.

57 131st Avenue and 46th Street Complete Streets Studies PART II: Title VI Work in MPO Program Areas

The MPO team worked closely with Hillsborough County’s engineering team to ensure consistency between the efforts and to identify which ideas developed in this study could be implemented with the upcoming corridor modifications.

The study produced conceptual designs for intersections as well as detailed plans

Staff held meetings throughout the study and conducted an on-site corridor visit. A meeting was held with area stakeholders including administrators from University of South Florida, to discuss their vision for these two corridors. Input from stakeholders identified the physical characteristics, distinguishing features, physical constraints, and potential enhancement opportunities of each roadway. Various typical sections were then developed and evaluated by the study team, and the advantages and disadvantages of each were discussed. Once a general consensus had been reached for each corridor, detailed plans were produced for key areas, with detail on potential landscape and hardscape aesthetics and materials.

58 131st Avenue and 46th Street Complete Streets Studies PART II: Title VI Work in MPO Program Areas

TAMPA-HILLSBOROUGH GREENWAYS AND TRAILS PLANS UPDATE

Geographic Scale: Hillsborough County

Timeframe: 2015

Communities of Concern within area of All impact:

Outreach and engagement strategies:

Greenway and trail plans must take special care to solicit input from those potentially affected by the final project, especially the cyclists and pedestrians who actually use the trails regularly. Traditional approaches to outreach may not be sufficient to access either recreational pedestrians and cyclists or those whose primary mode of travel is walking/biking. To account for this, the Tampa-Hillsborough Greenways and Trails Plan Update skirted tradition in favor of a pragmatic approach to gain feedback from key stakeholders. Evening meetings were held to encourage greater participation by low-income community members, and one meeting was even held on-site at the Veterans Memorial Park and Museum.

Engagement Statistics:

Several meetings were held to gain feedback from the community. One particularly successful meeting was held at All People’s Life Center on Sligh Avenue, and saw dozens of attendees from diverse backgrounds show up to offer comments and suggestions. Another meeting was held on-site at the Veterans Memorial Park and Museum. A diverse group of pedestrians, rollerbladers, mountain bikers, road bikers, hikers, and environmentalists attended the night meeting to voice their ideas about connecting trails across the county. That strategy worked so well that the project team remained at the park after dark, with people continuing to show up long after the original schedule time had passed.

Summary:

Work began in February 2015 when MPO staff, together with Hillsborough County and City of Tampa staff, updated and integrated trails and greenways plans for the City of Tampa and the Hillsborough County. The update had two major objectives: 1) Update the County's Greenways Master Plan by integrating recent pedestrian, bicycle, and multi-use trail projects and initiatives into the Plan; and 2) Identify opportunities to improve the region's multimodal networks providing further trail connections to Pasco, Manatee, and Polk counties as potential components of Florida’s Shared Use Non-motorized Trails (SUNTrail) system.

59 Tampa-Hillsborough Greenways and Trails Plans Update PART II: Title VI Work in MPO Program Areas

Staff working with the volunteer Greenways and Trails Committees identified priority gaps critical to the completion of an overall trail network. This project unifies the planning documents and refines some of the opportunities defined in the Hillsborough County Greenways Master Plan (1995) and the City of Tampa’s Greenways and Trails Master This effort also combined the plans of Tampa and Hillsborough County to create one coordinated plan. Plan (2000).

On May 19, 2015, 50 people attended the Tampa Hillsborough Greenways and Trails Committee meeting at the All Peoples Life Center. This provided a valuable opportunity for staff and committee members to provide feedback and help prioritize the proposed trails.

The key trails identified by this study were:

• Interstate 275 Greenway; • Selmon Greenway Connector; • Kirby Creek Trail; • NW Hillsborough/Upper Tampa Bay Trail Connector; • South County Greenway Connector; • USF/Tampa Bypass Canal Connector; • Memorial Bikeway /Oldsmar-Pinellas County Connection; • US 301/Pasco County Connection; and, • Plant City/Polk Connection.

60 Tampa-Hillsborough Greenways and Trails Plans Update PART II: Title VI Work in MPO Program Areas

GEORGE ROAD COMPLETE STREETS FEASIBILITY AND HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Geographic Scale: Corridor and Neighborhood

Timeframe: 2013-2015

Communities of Concern within area of Minorities and low-income impact:

Outreach and engagement strategies:

The public outreach efforts for the George Road Complete Streets Study included four meetings: three at the Town ‘n’ Country Regional Public Library and one at the Hillsborough County Sports Authority complex at Raymond James Stadium. Because of the high percentage of Hispanic residents, a Spanish translator attended the three meetings at the library.

Engagement Statistics:

Public participation grew over the course of the study. The first meeting saw more than 30 people in attendance to learn about the project and identify a route for a north-south trail connection from the Upper Tampa Bay Trail to Skyway Park. Four potential routes were considered. One particularly controversial corridor would have run through a predominantly upper-middle income community with a median home value comparatively higher than the surrounding communities. At the second meeting, approximately 40 people attended, with several residents vociferously opposing the proposed trail. The study team painstakingly reviewed the potential connections and alternative routes, and came back with a new proposal based on improving existing walk/bike facilities along George Road. Sidewalks, crosswalks, lighting, and traffic calming on George Road -- which suffers from cut-through traffic avoiding the Veteran’s Expressway -- will improve the lower income neighborhood’s access to recreational facilities such as Skyway Park. This concept was presented to the community at the final meeting, and with community support, was selected as the preferred alternative. The concept was further evaluated for its health impacts the following year, and determined by a Department of Health panel of subject matter experts to be likely to result in positive community health outcomes.

Summary:

The George Road Connector Study took place over a two-year period from February 2013 to February 2015. The task of the study was to recommend a connecting trail or other walk/bike facility that would provide links to neighborhood assets in the Town ‘n’ Country (TNC) community and close a gap between the regionally significant Upper Tampa Bay Trail and the new Courtney Campbell Trail. The George Road Connector Study Team was specifically tasked to investigate a proposed north- south connection between the existing TNC Greenway and the north end of the U-path Trail at

61 George Road Complete Streets Feasibility and Health Impact Assessment PART II: Title VI Work in MPO Program Areas

Skyway Park, which connects to the Courtney Campbell Trail. The U-path, on the west side of the Veterans Expressway, runs south to the City of Tampa’s Cypress Point Park and the Westshore area.

Over the course of the study, several routes were examined and input was received from residents, community groups, and stakeholders in the area. After evaluating the input received, George Road was selected as the preferred alternative.

Based on the constrained nature of the road, the proposal is to modify George Road to include sidewalks and bicycle facilities to connect the U- path Trail to the TNC Greenway. The resulting proposal is identified as the George Road Complete Street. Based on community input received during the two meetings, the complete streets project provided recommendations along the corridor to address bike and pedestrian activated crosswalks, address the feasibility of a Proposed modifications to George Road include safer multimodal facilities pedestrian/bicycle overpass at Hillsborough Avenue, evaluate the possibility of optimizing the traffic signal timings at Hillsborough Avenue. Lighting, gateway treatments, traffic circles and raised intersections, and other pedestrian friendly treatments were also assessed. The design process was completed in April 2016.

62 George Road Complete Streets Feasibility and Health Impact Assessment PART II: Title VI Work in MPO Program Areas

TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED SERVICE PLAN

Geographic Scale: Hillsborough County

Timeframe: 2016-2021

Communities of Concern within area of All impact:

Outreach and engagement strategies:

The MPO conducts an annual public hearing through the Transportation Disadvantaged Coordinating Board (TDCB). The Hillsborough MPO discusses with the TDCB the needs and characteristics of persons with disabilities and the elderly, and considers how best to adapt transportation planning activities to ensure access to work, health, and recreational activities in Hillsborough County and across the Tampa Bay region.

Engagement Statistics:

The following lists the statistics for the engagement during the update of the Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan (TDSP):

• 4,000 people engaged; The 2016 Transportation Disadvantaged Summit • 1,340 comments received; received an award from the Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged; the Transportation • 1 online tool used; Disadvantaged Coordinating Board also received an • 1 project-specific meeting; and, award for Local Coordinating Board of the year. • 1 community meeting.

Summary:

The MPO produces an annual update to the TDSP15 to address the needs of elderly, disabled, and/or economically disadvantaged populations. While the TD population may include anyone less than capable of traveling or managing safe travel on their own, some common challenges this population faces can be summarized as follows:

Access to Employment and Education. The TD population has the desire and ability to work if transportation is available. However, the fixed-route transit service area is limited in Hillsborough County. The 2016 TDSP Human Services Transportation Survey found that over 70 percent of TD clients are unable to get to work.

Access to Healthcare. Many individuals of the TD population have medical needs requiring frequent and specialized visits for healthcare, and may even need to travel outside of Hillsborough County for treatment. Respondents to the 2016 TDSP Human Services Transportation Survey stated that almost 60 percent of their clients are unable to access healthcare.

15 http://www.planhillsborough.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/TDSP_06-30-16_ADA-Compliant.pdf

63 Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan PART II: Title VI Work in MPO Program Areas

Access to Shopping. The TD population, by definition, has few transportation options to reach supermarkets. The 2016 TDSP public involvement effort estimated that approximately 50 percent of clients were unable to access basic groceries.

Access to Recreation. Recreation is a vital part of health and wellbeing. The 2016 public involvement effort estimated that approximately 50 percent of clients are unable to access recreational activities.

Access to Transportation for Children-at-Risk. Special needs noted in the report are access to afterschool activities, school, faith-based activities, and therapy and psychiatry appointments.

64 Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan PART II: Title VI Work in MPO Program Areas

2016 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS REPORT

Geographic Scale: Hillsborough County

Timeframe: Updated every two years – latest update in 2016

Communities of Concern within area of All impact:

Outreach and engagement strategies:

The Public Participation Plan Measures of Effectiveness Report (PPP MOE) lists all of the known strategies which may be used to successfully engage communities in the transportation planning process. As such, it serves as a comprehensive toolbox of engagement strategies, techniques, tips, and technologies to solicit feedback from the public. Recognizing that each transportation plan may require a unique approach to engagement, the PPP MOE toolbox is not a list to be pared down or abbreviated over time – the value of the toolbox is that it provides planners with a comprehensive menu of options to reach residents.

Engagement Statistics:

The PPP MOE16 is a biennial review of the MPO’s performance in facilitating outreach. Contained within the document are statistics related to the visibility & productivity of the agency, participation opportunities, public’s interest in the agency and feedback on its work products, and evaluation of the content of public comments received.

Summary:

Inclusive public participation is a priority consideration in all MPO activities, as it is well-understood that impacts of transportation projects affect all residents. Therefore, the Hillsborough MPO provides language and comprehension assistance for planning materials and seeks public input related to the LRTP, UPWP and TIP. In 2016, the MPO began providing Spanish versions of the LRTP, UPWP, TIP, Public Participation Plan, and select other documents. Future activities will include fact sheets and summaries in both English and Spanish.

The PPP MOE Report documents the MPO's proactive outreach, which includes attending meetings of civic groups and providing display tables at community events. The outreach logs in that report's appendix provide a complete listing of the public events and meetings that the MPO sponsored, spoke at, or displayed at, over the two-year reporting period between 2014 and 2015. Of the 168 total meetings and events (not including the GoHillsborough outreach workshops organized by county administration), at least 36, or 21 percent, were held in locations or involved groups associated with

16 www.planhillsborough.org/public-participation-plan-evaluation-report

65 2016 Public Participation Plan Measures of Effectiveness Report PART II: Title VI Work in MPO Program Areas

Environmental Justice areas. The perspectives of protected demographic groups were sought out and incorporated into plans and studies.

66 2016 Public Participation Plan Measures of Effectiveness Report PART II: Title VI Work in MPO Program Areas

UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM & DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE UTILIZATION

Summary:

The Unified Planning and Work Program (UPWP) is a document which lists all of the tasks for which the MPO is responsible, including administrative tasks, short- and long-range planning, and special projects (as needed). The MPO is responsible both for completing these tasks and communicating its efforts with numerous stakeholders, including the public. Constant two-way communication and facilitating public participation are critical to MPO success in planning. In fact, some planning studies are initiated due to proposals from the public. Vision Zero, for example, is an ongoing major MPO project which is led by community activists with MPO support. Furthermore, the following planning studies were initiated with strong community support in Environmental Justice areas:

• 131st Avenue and 46th Street Complete Streets Studies; • East Hillsborough Avenue Corridor Study; • USF Area Multimodal Study; and, • Busch Boulevard Accessibility Evaluation.

It is important for the MPO and its stakeholders to work together to ensure that tasks and projects listed in the UPWP will not cause disproportionately high or adverse effects to specific population groups.

The Hillsborough MPO has established a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program in accordance with regulations of the US Department of Transportation (USDOT), 49 CFR Part 26. The DBE program awards contracts to certified businesses which meet the federal criteria for “socially and economically disadvantaged.” The MPO’s assurance is recorded in the UPWP.

67 Unified Planning Work Program & Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Utilization PART II: Title VI Work in MPO Program Areas

ORGANIZATION STAFFING AND STRUCTURE

Summary:

The Executive Director is responsible for ensuring the implementation of the MPO’s Title VI Plan. The MPO Title VI Coordinator, under supervision of the Executive Director, is responsible for coordinating the overall administration of the Title VI program, plan, and assurances. The Executive Director is responsible for ensuring that her/his staff understand and adheres to the various Title VI requirements and produce a report documenting compliance annually to the federal agencies, from which the MPO receives financial assistance. The organizational chart for Plan Hillsborough is included below.

The Title VI Coordinator is responsible for overseeing compliance with applicable nondiscrimination authorities in each of the metropolitan transportation planning and programming areas. Other staff members are expected to provide information and support to assist the Title VI Coordinator perform her or his tasks pertaining to nondiscrimination regulations and procedures set forth in federal guidance and in accordance with the MPO Title VI Plan. The Title VI Coordinator will:

• Identify, investigate, and work to eliminate discrimination when found to exist; • Process discrimination complaints received by the MPO. Any individual may exercise her or his right to file a complaint with the MPO, if that person believes that she or he or any other program beneficiaries have been subjected to discrimination, in their receipt of benefits/services or on the grounds of race, color, national origin, sex, (dis)ability, age, or income status; • Make a concerted effort to resolve complaints in accordance with Discrimination Complaint Procedures; • Meet with appropriate staff members to monitor and discuss progress, implementation, and compliance issues related to the MPO Title VI Plan; • Keep current with the Title VI requirements, attend training when needed and provide training to the MPO staff, board, committees and the public if they have questions; • Periodically review the MPO Title VI Plan to assess whether administrative procedures are effective, staffing is appropriate, and adequate resources are available to ensure compliance; • Work with staff involved with Consultant Contracts and if the sub-recipient is found to be noncompliant, resolve the deficiency status and write a remedial action if, necessary, as described in the Consultant Contracts section of this document; • Review important issues related to nondiscrimination with the Executive Director, as needed; • Maintain a list of Interpretation Service Providers; • Assess communication strategies and address additional language needs when needed; • Disseminate information related to the nondiscrimination authorities. The MPO Title VI Plan is to be disseminated to MPO employees, contractors, the general public, and any of the MPO sub- recipients; and, • Coordinate with appropriate federal, state, and regional entities to periodically provide MPO employees with training opportunities regarding nondiscrimination.

The Title VI Coordinator, with involvement and assistance from other members of the MPO staff, is responsible for ensuring these elements of the plan are appropriately implemented and maintained. If information produced by the MPO is needed in another language or if there are questions about

68 Organization Staffing and Structure PART II: Title VI Work in MPO Program Areas the information contained within this document, please contact Johnny Wong, Title VI Coordinator at (813) 273-3774 or e-mail at [email protected].

All MPO staff members involved in public involvement are responsible for evaluating and monitoring compliance with Title VI requirements in all aspects of the MPO's public involvement process. Staff will:

• Ensure that all communications and public involvement efforts comply with Title VI/LEP and Environmental Justice requirements; • Develop and distribute information on Title VI programs to the general public and provide information in languages other than English, as needed; • Disseminate information to minority media and ethnic/gender related organizations, to help ensure all social, economic, and ethnic interest groups in Hillsborough County are represented in the planning process; • Include the Title VI Notice to the Public, full or abbreviated versions in relevant press releases and on the MPO website; • Notify affected, protected groups of public meetings regarding proposed actions, and make the meetings accessible to all residents, including the use of interpreters when requested, or when a strong need for their use has been identified; • Collect statistical information voluntarily from attendees of public meetings using zip codes if possible to track how well different segments of the population are represented; and, • Encourage Hillsborough MPO's committees to include representation from Title VI-relevant populations.

69 Organization Staffing and Structure PART II: Title VI Work in MPO Program Areas 70

Hillsborough Metropolitan Planning Organization Page 70 Nondiscrimination Report October 2017 PART II: Title VI Work in MPO Primary Program Areas

RECOMMENDATIONS Equitable transportation decision-making depends upon identifying and properly addressing the needs, cultural perspectives, and financial limitations of different socioeconomic groups who use transportation or are affected by transportation decisions. In that spirit, this plan has provided a profile of Hillsborough County’s population, highlighting key patterns, trends, and other factors that governing institutions and transportation practitioners should understand to work in accordance with the core nondiscriminatory principles and laws which are an important foundation of this civil society. Several topics and considerations are presented relevant to identifying the basic socioeconomic conditions and concerns of traditionally underserved populations, including minority populations, low- income populations, foreign-born residents and LEP persons, low-literacy populations, transit- dependent households, seniors, children-at-risk, and persons with disabilities.

The MPO has a number of public information, public engagement, and analytical tools in place to promote inclusivity and equity and address environmental justice. Recommendations for continued, future progress include:

• Continue to use the MPO's inventory of civic groups and neighborhood associations to engage affected communities in the transportation decision-making process, from the beginning of each plan or study. Update and expand the inventory on a regular basis; • Include more explicit discussion and detail about protected demographic groups, and how their interests are taken into consideration in MPO planning documents; • Explore the use of new analytical tools that display travel time contours by driving, walking, biking, and transit, to help graphically illustrate how various investment decisions affect access to jobs and life-sustaining services; • Continue to investigate the relationship between transportation systems and community health outcomes in Hillsborough County, building on the past year's partnership with Florida Department of Health. Grow the scope of analysis from the corridor level (the 2016 George Road Complete Streets Project Health Impact Assessment pilot study) to the system-wide level; • Consider incorporating equity-based considerations and/or performance targets into the State of the System Report. The report should include benchmarks and track progress; • Continue to use the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Model to evaluate the cumulative impacts of the Long Range Transportation Plan, and consider expanding the measures that are calculated by the model to include new measures; • Consider incorporating equity as a criterion in the Transportation Improvement Program prioritization methodology; and, • Develop a Checklist/Scorecard for each project. The checklist should provide steps to guide planners when beginning the outreach and analysis for a project. The checklist should include coordinating with a GIS and/or modeling professional to clearly understand the population demographics and which communities of concern to engage and/or are likely to be impacted by the project and its components. The scorecard should document the communities of concern engaged and outreach and engagement strategies and statistics. When possible, benefit and burden impacts should also be calculated and summarized.

71 Recommendations

Board & Committee Agenda Item

Agenda Item Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Amendment – HART Fowler Ave/Nebraska Ave/Florida Ave Corridor Analysis Presenter

Sarah McKinley, MPO Staff

Summary This TIP amendment is to modify the description of Federal Project Number (FPN) 440742-1 East-West MetroRapid Project Development & Environmental (PD&E) to reflect a request by Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority (HART) to use the $2.5 million in programmed funds to focus on the Fowler Ave/Nebraska Ave/Florida

Ave corridor.

HART requests an evaluation of the following sections of the corridor between University Area Transit Center (UATC) and downtown Tampa:

• MetroRapid corridor along Nebraska Avenue • Existing and potential services along Florida Avenue between downtown Tampa and Fletcher Avenue • Fowler Avenue between University Area Transit Center and Interstate 275.

The evaluation will analyze existing and future options along these corridors including but not limited to; exclusive BRT guideway, bus only lanes, queue jump lanes,

intersection modifications, traffic signal priority, traffic signal preemption, park and ride locations, station spacing, station location, cost, and ridership projections. Also, the evaluation should analyze existing roadway typical cross sections and recommendations for newly designed typicals in support of findings and recommendations for any of the above.

There is no change to the funding for this project.

Recommended Action Recommend approval of the TIP Amendment Prepared By

Sarah McKinley, MPO Staff Plan Hillsborough Attachments planhillsborough.org [email protected] 813 - 272 - 5940 Comparative Report 601 E Kennedy Blvd 18th floor Tampa, FL, 33602 FDOT Adopted FY 2017/18 - 2021/22 TIP

FDOT 5 Year TIP Hillsborough County, District 7

FLP: TRANSIT

Status Adopted Adopted Date: 6/22/2016 Amendment Number: 18 Item Number: 440742 1 Description: EAST-WEST BRT CORRIDOR STUDY LRTP: Choices when not driving, p. 166 Related Project: 4407421 Extra Description: PROJECT DEVELOPMENT-METRO RAPID Project Length: 0 *NON-SIS* Type of Work PTO STUDIES Fund <2018 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 >2022 All Years P D & E - MANAGED BY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY Initial DS $0 $214,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $214,700 Modified DIH $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 Initial DDR $0 $2,285,300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,285,300 Totals: $0 $2,501,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,501,000 Item 440742 1 Totals: $0 $2,501,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,501,000

Status Amended Amendment Date: 3/6/2018 Amendment Number: 26 Item Number: 440742 1 Description: HART Fowler Ave/Nebraska Ave/Florida Ave Corridor Analysis LRTP: Choices when not driving, p. 166 Related Project: 4407421 Extra Description: PROJECT DEVELOPMENT-METRO RAPID Project Length: 0 *NON-SIS* Type of Work PTO STUDIES Fund <2018 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 >2022 All Years P D & E - MANAGED BY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY Initial DS $0 $214,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $214,700 Modified DIH $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 Initial DDR $0 $2,285,300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,285,300 Totals: $0 $2,501,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,501,000 Item 440742 1 Totals: $0 $2,501,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,501,000

C - 37

Board & Committee Agenda Item

Agenda Item Tampa Bay Next Quarterly Update Presenter

FDOT Representative

Summary Tampa Bay Next is a program to modernize Tampa Bay’s transportation infrastructure and prepare for the future. FDOT will provide an update on recent activities.

Recommended Action

None; for information only Prepared By Wanda West

Attachments

Website: tampabaynext.com

Plan Hillsborough planhillsborough.org [email protected] 813 - 272 - 5940 601 E Kennedy Blvd 18th floor Tampa, FL, 33602

Board & Committee Agenda Item

Agenda Item Regional Transit Feasibility Plan Presenter

Jacobs Engineering Representative

Summary The Regional Transit Feasibility Plan builds on decades of planning, to clarify Tampa Bay’s vision for transit throughout the region, and define the transit projects that are most competitive for federal grant funding. An evaluation process using clearly defined criteria identifies the top transit corridors in the region, and ultimately one “catalyst project” that can be implemented first, followed by other projects around the region. Recommended Action None; for information only

Prepared By Wanda West Attachments

Presentation to the Tampa Bay TMA Leadership Group, January 19, 2018

“Bus-only shoulders move you past congestion” (MetroTransit webpage) - “A big return with a smaller price tag” - “When is traffic congested enough for shoulder use?” - “Safety first! Shoulder use is up to the driver”

Plan Hillsborough planhillsborough.org [email protected] 813 - 272 - 5940 601 E Kennedy Blvd 18th floor Tampa, FL, 33602

Board & Committee Agenda Item

Agenda Item Unified Planning Work Program FY18/19 & FY19/20 – Call for Projects Presenter

Allison Yeh, MPO Staff Summary The MPO’s transportation planning functions are supported primarily by federal and state grants. These functions must be identified in advance for two fiscal years and encompass the surface transportation planning efforts to be undertaken by FDOT, HART, local jurisdictions, and other agencies. These activities, products and budgeted funds are documented in the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP). The new UPWP for FY18/19 & FY19/20 will become effective July 1, 2018 and cover the next two fiscal years.

This month, staff is soliciting planning tasks from our partner agencies and citizen groups. Projects will be considered for inclusion in a draft document to be submitted th to FDOT by March 15 . In April/May, a final document will be presented for approval to the MPO committees and Board. The currently adopted UPWP for FY 16/17 & FY 17/18 is available on the MPO website. http://www.planhillsborough.org/unified- planning-work-program/

The UPWP planning task categories eligible for candidate projects are System & Corridor Planning; Long Range Transportation Plan & Data Monitoring; Transportation Improvement Program; Public Participation; and Local & Regional

Coordination and Planning.

Recommended Action None; for information only Prepared By Allison Yeh, AICP, LEED GA Attachments None

Plan Hillsborough planhillsborough.org [email protected] 813 - 272 - 5940 601 E Kennedy Blvd 18th floor Tampa, FL, 33602

Board & Committee Agenda Item

Agenda Item Tampa Bay Partnership Regional Competitiveness Report Presenter

Dave Sobush, CEcD, Director of Policy and Research for the Tampa Bay Partnership

Summary The Tampa Bay Partnership, in collaboration with United Way Suncoast, the Community Foundation of Tampa Bay, and other business and philanthropic partners throughout the region, led the development of the Regional Competitiveness Report for Tampa Bay. The 2018 Regional Competitiveness Report was released in November 2017.

Published annually, this comprehensive research tool benchmarks the community against peer and aspirational markets nationwide and provides an unbiased and contextual account of the economic performance, competitiveness, and prosperity of the region. The report enables the leaders of Tampa Bay to prioritize issues and resources, and measure community progress toward shared goals.

Committee members will be presented an overview of the report.

Recommended Action None. For information only.

Prepared By

Gena Torres Attachments 2018 Regional Competitiveness Report

Plan Hillsborough planhillsborough.org [email protected] 813 - 272 - 5940 601 E Kennedy Blvd 18th floor Tampa, FL, 33602 REGIONAL 2018 COMPETITIVENESS REPORT

ECONOMIC VITALITY INNOVATION INFRASTRUCTURE TALENT CIVIC QUALITY

in collaboration with THE REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT examines the Tampa Bay region’s relative performance across a variety of economic competitiveness and prosperity indicators. What then, exactly, is the Tampa Bay region? The data presented in this report is for the eight counties of Citrus, Hernando, Hillsborough, Manatee, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, and Sarasota. The region can also be described as the combination of four Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs): Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater (Hernando, Hillsborough, Pasco, Pinellas), Homosassa Springs (Citrus), Lakeland- Winter Haven (Polk) and North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton (Manatee, Sarasota). In instances where we combine county-level data, or MSA-level data, to create a regional value, we do so by weighting the component values by an appropriate factor – population, number of households, etc. – and it should be noted that, in most instances, the regional value remains close to the “core” value of the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater MSA. TALLAHASSEE JACKSONVILLE A data appendix, detailing – as available – the indicator values at the county and MSA level is available at regionalcompetitiveness.org. TAMPA BAY REGION

Citrus

Hernando

Pasco

4 Pinellas Hillsborough Polk

Manatee

METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS (MSAs): Sarasota  Tampa-St. Petersburg- Clearwater  Homosassa Springs  Lakeland-Winter Haven  North Port-Sarasota Bradenton

REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 Talent 34 Share of 3 & 4 Year Olds REPORT DEVELOPMENT Enrolled in School 36 Best Practices 4 High School Graduation Rate 36 Process Overview 6 High School Graduation Rate: Framework for Economic Competitiveness Economically Disadvantaged 37 and Prosperity 8 Share of Population Age 16-24 Neither Comparison Communities 10 Employed nor Enrolled in School 37 Degree Production per 10,000 Residents 38 REGIONAL DRIVERS AND INDICATORS STEM Degree Production per Economic Vitality 12 10,000 Residents 38 Job Growth Rate 14 Educational Attainment Rate: Average Wage 15 AA/AS+ 39 Average Wage Service Sector 15 Educational Attainment Rate: Business Establishment Start Rate 16 BA/BS+ 39 Median Household Net Worth 16 Educational Attainment Rate: Median Household Income 17 Graduate/Professional 40 Mean Household Income Lowest Quintile 17 Age 25-34 Educational Attainment Rate: TABLE OF CONTENTS Advanced Industry Jobs Share 18 BA/BS+ 40 Advanced Industry GRP Growth Rate 19 Labor Force Participation Rate: Age 25-64 41 Merchandise Exports Growth Rate 20 Florida Talent Indicators 42 Existing Home Sales Price Growth Rate 21 Civic Quality 44 Innovation 22 Crime Rate per 100,000 Residents 46 University R&D Expenditures 24 Violent Crime Rate per 100,000 University Technology Licensing 24 Residents 46 Patents per 10,000 Residents 25 Median Daily Air Quality Index 47 SBIR/STTR Awards Per Capita 25 Housing and Transportation Affordability 48 Cultural and Recreational Establishments Infrastructure 26 per 10,000 Residents 50 Pedestrian and Cyclist Fatalities Primary Care Physicians per 100,000 Residents 28 per 10,000 residents 50 Pavement Condition Rated Fair or Good 28 Health Insurance Coverage Rate 51 Walkability 29 Share of Children in Foster Care 51 Average Commute Time 29 Share of Commuters with Outcomes 52 1+ Hour Commutes 30 Youth Poverty Rate & Poverty Rate 54 Transit Vehicle Revenue Miles Per Capita 30 Full-Time Worker Poverty Rate 54 Transit Ridership Per Capita 31 Net Migration 55 Driving Time Spent in Congestion 31 Millennial In-Migration 55 Airline Passenger Traffic Growth 32 Annual Gross Regional Product Growth Rate 56 Per Capita Gross Regional Product 57 Unemployment Rate 57

Disclaimer: The Tampa Bay Partnership has, to the best of its ability, SUMMARY OF INDICATORS 58 compiled the information contained within and used to produce this publication and it is believed to be the latest available at time of production, accurate, and from reliable sources. The Tampa Bay CLOSING THOUGHTS Partnership welcomes constructive criticism and corrections of the errors that may appear in a project of this complexity. Next Steps 60 Acknowledgements 61

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org 1 WELCOME TO THE INAUGURAL Regional • In just about every other driver and indicator Competitiveness Report. This project provides a (exception noted below) Tampa Bay performs in data-based assessment of Tampa Bay’s strengths and the middle of the pack of 20. weaknesses across a diverse set of indicators that, • The indicators that define the quantity and quality together, serve as a framework for prosperity. Most of talent available in the market also mark the importantly, the report benchmarks Tampa Bay against region’s greatest challenge. In general, the labor 19 other peer and/or aspirational areas in the US, force participation rate is very low, meaning the selected because of generally similar attributes. population base is here but not enough people are actively employed or seeking jobs. In addition, Before one starts to draw definitive conclusions from levels of educational attainment among the the data in this report, consider this caveat: good adult population are relatively low. If the region research asks more questions than it answers. If this wants higher-wage, higher-skilled jobs, it will report is doing its job, it will provoke further discussion need a strategy to develop, retain and attract the and analysis that will help develop strategies for educated workforce that these jobs demand — improved performance. whether it’s certificates or traditional academic credentials such as associate, bachelor, and Some highlights from the Regional advanced degrees. Competitiveness Report: The publishers of this report ask readers and users • Tampa Bay performs very well in the following to understand that this is the FIRST edition of the areas: job growth (2nd), net migration (3rd), levels Regional Competitiveness Report. As critical as we are, of congestion (3rd), gross regional product growth we have already identified many ways in which the (3rd), and the growth of our advanced industries as report can and will be improved. We look forward to a share of our economy (3rd). hearing directly from you how we can do a better job of presenting Tampa Bay by the numbers.

THE COMPETITIVE SPIRIT OF TAMPA BAY is on full display. Whether it’s the cranes in the sky, new international flights or national conventions and Super Bowls, our community projects an undeniable optimism. Tampa Bay’s core, represented by the Tampa-St. Pete-Clearwater MSA, is the 18th largest metro area in the United States; when one takes into account the greater Tampa Bay region, with its eight counties (see inside front cover), our national ranking becomes even more profound. The more we aspire to greatness, the more we understand that we’re competing — for people, companies, jobs and investment — with other metro areas across the nation. With any effort to improve and compete, we first need to identify what drives our competitive spirit, quantify where we stand and then develop a way to measure — and benchmark — our progress. That, in a nutshell, is the purpose of this inaugural Regional Competitiveness Report, presented in collaboration with our partners at the Community Foundation of Tampa Bay and United Way Suncoast. The data begins to show us where we are doing well, and where there’s room for improvement. We hope INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY that this annual report helps to drive collaborative and collective action towards efforts to be the best we can be. Future editions will report our success in that regard. Sincerely,

Rhea Law, Chuck Sykes, Rick Homans, Chair, Florida Offices, President and President & CEO, Buchanan, Ingersoll CEO, Sykes Tampa Bay & Rooney PC Enterprises, Inc. Partnership Chair,Tampa Bay Chair, Regional Partnership Indicators Task Force

2 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT AS TWO OF THE CORNERSTONE PHILANTHROPIC organizations in the Tampa Bay region, we are steadily adopting the tenets of “collective impact,” a collaborative approach allowing multiple organizations to coordinate efforts through a common agenda. By working together in this way, we can address complex issues of regional importance more effectively. Though each of our organizations and our partners have different operating frameworks and missions, our common goal is regional prosperity. The underlying principles of collective impact are: • Choosing a common goal for change • Collecting data and measuring results • Mutually reinforcing activities • Engaging in continuous communication • Identifying a backbone organization to staff and coordinate the effort The Regional Competitiveness Report is a real-life example of collective impact. It results from a collaborative effort with the Tampa Bay Partnership and conversations with more than 90 public, private and nonprofit organizations throughout the Tampa Bay region. It identifies key metrics that matter to all of us, and it delivers data that benchmarks our community’s performance against 19 other communities that we consider peer, or aspirational. This report provides a platform for us as we develop our common agenda and work collaboratively to solve the complex challenges our community faces. We look forward to continuing this partnership and achieving results that can only be achieved together. Sincerely,

Suzanne McCormick, Marlene Spalten, President & CEO President & CEO United Way Suncoast Community Foundation of Tampa Bay

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org 3 “If you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it.”

So said management guru Peter Drucker.

Whether the improvement effort is personal, a public or private organization or a community, best practices show that measuring key data plays a critical role in establishing strategies and achieving success.

From a review of the nation’s top 20 metro areas, a Tampa Bay Partnership study found that each BEST PRACTICES one has some kind of a “dashboard” or “peer review” or “economic indicator” project. Most of these efforts started at some time since 2000. Further analysis reveals common features among the projects:

COLLABORATIVE COMMON APPROACH FRAMEWORK, Identification of the metrics is the DRIVERS result of intensive community In general, each community uses outreach and collaboration. The a similar framework to drive report, in the end, is “owned” by prosperity. Each community multiple stakeholders, groups customizes the titles, but common and, in principle, the community themes include: Economic at large. Leaders of the efforts Vitality, Talent, Quality of Life, are usually one or more business Infrastructure, Innovation and organizations, but in some cases Governance. Within these drivers it is the local newspaper or a there are specific indicators, government or quasi-government and these are often customized organization. depending on the specific issues and needs of the community. A relatively new development is the creation of the World Council on City Data (WCCD) which has created ISO 37120, a method for collecting, measuring and reporting on 100 indicators measuring a city’s social, economic and environmental performance.

4 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT METRICS: PEER AND INDICATORS PUBLIC, ASPIRATIONAL DRIVE TRANSPARENT, MARKETS STRATEGIC ACCESSIBLE Most reports compare the INITIATIVES source community to peer The data sources are clearly More and more, and aspirational markets. identified, and the data itself communities are tying Some communities pick a is transparent and relatively strategic initiatives to the few economic development accessible. It’s important results of the indicator competitors for comparison that the public has complete reports. Minneapolis/ purposes, while others confidence in the metrics St. Paul is a leader in this (including Austin, Dallas, and results so the report regard, and a notable talent Atlanta, Charlotte, Phoenix, has the highest level of development initiative, San Diego, Boston integrity and credibility. “Make it MSP,” resulted from and Denver) compare identification of a looming themselves to 10 or more and critical workforce communities. shortage.

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org 5 THE IDEA TO DEVELOP the Regional Competitiveness In addition, the group developed a unique partnership Report came out of the Tampa Bay Partnership’s with the USF Muma College of Business and its own benchmark efforts in 2015, as it shifted its Center for Analytics and Creativity. The business organizational focus from a 20+ year history focused on school embarked on a parallel project - that had business development and marketing to a new mission already been in development - to create an economic based on public policy and advocacy. forecast, including a way to model the indicators in the competitiveness report to understand correlations. The Partnership staff researched peer organizations in Minneapolis/St. Paul, Columbus, Pittsburgh, The Partnership team, led by Director of Policy and Cleveland and Charlotte. They found that each of Research Dave Sobush, proceeded to follow the best these communities — and many others — published practices from other communities and reached out to a comprehensive dashboard of regional economic 150+ public and private organizations and stakeholders indicators. These indicators provided an important in Tampa Bay to seek feedback. Sobush, along resource to determine the community’s greatest needs, with University of Tampa intern Michael Hartman, and served to prioritize the community’s resources. proceeded to meet — in groups and individually — with over 80 of these organizations over a four-month In 2016, the Partnership joined with the Community period. In each meeting, participants offered definitions Foundation of Tampa Bay and United Way Suncoast of their “customers” and they described the metrics to research, develop and publish the Regional they use to define success. They also offered their PROCESS OVERVIEW Competitiveness Report. own ideas as to what metrics should be included in the report, and suggestions for which markets to The Council of Governors of the Partnership chartered benchmark against. the Regional Indicators Task Force in October 2016. With Chuck Sykes, CEO of Sykes Enterprises in Tampa, Hartman researched and produced a detailed study as Chairman, the task force began to meet regularly to of 33 community indicator reports across the U.S., provide support and advice to the project. including best practices, common features and lessons learned. He documented all of the indicators that these Sykes brought to the effort his passion and experience communities study, and the cities with which they with organizational frameworks and community compare themselves. building. He became intimately involved with the process, questioning the indicators, challenging Thanks to the dedication of the volunteers and staff assumptions and presenting alternative viewpoints and of the Partnership, the Community Foundation of fresh perspectives on the framework. Tampa Bay and United Way Suncoast, the Regional Competitiveness Report came off the press and into the Bob Trigaux, business columnist and reporter for the hands of the public and private leaders of Tampa Bay in Tampa Bay Times, embedded himself with the task November 2017. force in an off-the-record capacity, and he was invited to attend all meetings related to the indicator effort.

OCTOBER 2016 DECEMBER 2016 DECEMBER 2016 JANUARY 2017 FEBRUARY TO MARCH TO Task Force Community Foun- First Task Force Partnership and MAY 2017 MAY 2017 chartered by dation of Tampa meeting addresses USF Muma College Partnership Partnership Tampa Bay Bay and United the project of Business agree researches more engages more Partnership Way Suncoast objectives and to align respective than three dozen than 80 stakeholder Council of engage as primary customer needs Indicators and community bench- organizations in Governors collaborators focus Economic Forecast marking reports over 20 meetings projects; the for best practices to gain a better second Task Force in accessibility, understanding of meeting: address- independence, customer needs es the framework, and indicator and inform the PROJECT MILESTONES indicators, and selection process indicator selection comparison process cohort

6 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT STAKEHOLDERS To obtain diverse and comprehensive geographic perspective and subject area knowledge, we convened multiple gatherings of stakeholders – meeting as both residents and civic change agents – throughout Tampa Bay. We are indebted to the following organizations for their contributions of time and talent to this effort:

211 Tampa Bay Cares Florida Department of Transportation - Sarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Arts Council of Hillsborough County District 7 Planning Organization Associated Builders and Contractors Florida Healthy Kids SMARTstart BioFlorida Sarasota-Bradenton Florida Philanthropic Network South Tampa Chamber of Commerce BioFlorida Tampa Bay Florida SBDC at USF St. Petersburg Area Chamber of Commerce Boys and Girls Club Sarasota Forward Pinellas St. Petersburg College Boys and Girls Club Tampa Foundation for a Healthy St. Petersburg St. Petersburg/Clearwater International Airport Bradenton Area EDC Greater Dade City Chamber of Commerce Tampa Bay Area Regional Transit Authority CareerEdge Funders Collaborative Greater Hernando County Chamber of Commerce Tampa Bay Network to End Hunger CareerSource Pasco/Hernando Greater Plant City Chamber of Commerce Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council CareerSource Suncoast Greater Tampa Association of Realtors Tampa Bay Technology Forum Catholic Charities, Diocese of St. Petersburg Greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce Tampa Bay WaVE Central Pinellas Chamber of Commerce Gulf Coast Community Foundation Tampa Hillsborough EDC Children’s Board of Hillsborough County Hillsborough Area Regional Tampa Innovation Alliance /Innovation Transit Authority Place Citrus County Chamber of Commerce Helios Education Foundation Tampa International Airport City of Brooksville Hernando County Office of TEC Garage City of Sarasota Business Development United Way Central Florida Clearwater Regional Chamber Hillsborough Metropolitan United Way Hernando of Commerce Planning Organization United Way Suncoast Community Foundation of Sarasota County Junior Achievement Creative Pinellas University Area Community Juvenile Welfare Board Development Corporation CREW Tampa Bay Manatee Chamber of Commerce University of South Florida Crisis Center of Tampa Bay Metropolitan Ministries University of Tampa Daystar Life Center NAIOP Urban Land Institute Early Learning Coalition of Non Profit Leadership Center of US Green Building Council Hillsborough County Tampa Bay USF Research Foundation Early Learning Coalition of Sarasota County Pasco EDC Visit Tampa Bay EDC of Sarasota County Pinellas County Economic Development YMCA - Sarasota Feeding Tampa Bay Pinellas Realtor Organization YMCA - St. Petersburg Florida Blue Foundation Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority YMCA - Tampa Florida Defense Contractors Association Sarasota Manatee Manufacturers Florida Department of Transportation - Association District 1

APRIL 2017 JUNE 2017 JULY 2017 AUGUST 2017 OCTOBER 2017 NOVEMBER 2017 2018 AND Marek Gootman Third Task Council of Task Force Council of Regional BEYOND of Brookings Force meeting Governors receives and Governors Competitiveness Indicators drive Institution presents the approves Task reviews data formally accepts Report released community emphasizes to recommended Force recom- findings, and Regional at State of the forums, leader- regional leaders framework, mendations, recommends Competitiveness Region luncheon ship priorities, the importance indicators, and including the publication Report and collective of community comparison com- framework, the format impact initiatives measurement munities that indicators, and and attention to are discussed, comparison inclusive calibrated, and communities economic forwarded to PROJECT MILESTONES development Partnership’s and prosperity Council of Gover- nors for approval

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org 7 THIS FRAMEWORK represents visually the complex ITY system that is a regional economy. The UAL IC Q outer ring lists the “drivers” or groups CIV of leading indicators examined in this report. Working inward, the next ring lists citizens T FRAMEWORK and companies as the two A “customers” of a region, L S E and the arrowheads D N E depict the symbiotic E T N relationship between S these two groups. E R N People need the E U Z jobs, goods and T I

services provided C T I S U

by companies, and C

R D

T companies require ECONOMIC E

both workers and E A

markets for their R

F COMPETITIVENESS S

goods and services.

N E I AND PROSPERITY These customers OUTCOMES I N make a choice to A locate in a region, and P Y T I meeting their needs M O L - many of which are A C T represented by the drivers I V - improves the likelihood a IC region will retain its existing M customers, and attract new ones. O IN N At the center are the outcomes that N O EC indicate the extent to which a region’s OV AT economy is growing, that the growth is ION enjoyed by all, and that a region is retaining and attracting customers.

8 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT UALITY ECONOMIC VITALITY (pg. 12) – measures the quantity IC Q and quality of jobs, the relative incomes that its CIV residents earn, wealth they attain, and the economic opportunities seized by entrepreneurs.

INNOVATION (pg. 22) – measures the extent to which a T A region and its institutions are generating new ideas, and L the market’s reception of these ideas. S E D N E E T N INFRASTRUCTURE (pg. 26) – the level of infrastructure investment and quality of its performance S communicates loud and clear the intent of the N community to invest in its long-term future, and plays a E critical role in the ability of the community to compete Z I for new residents and jobs.

T I S

C D CIVIC QUALITY (pg. 44) – a healthy citizenry, safe ECONOMIC E and clean environment, and availability of recreational E opportunities all impact the quality of life within

N a region.

COMPETITIVENESS S E AND OUTCOMESPROSPERITY I TALENT (pg. 34) – building a strong pipeline of talent, N from early childhood through advanced degrees, is A arguably the most critical factor in regards to a P Y T community’s ability to compete and prosper. I M L O A C T I V OUTCOMES (pg. 52) – represents lagging indicators of economic competitiveness and prosperity. They reflect IC the growth of the economy on the whole and on a per M O person basis, the extent to which economic growth is being enjoyed by everyone, and the attractiveness of IN N N O an area for current and potential residents. How our O EC community performs relative to these key data points VA will clearly signal the progress we are making towards TIO our ultimate goal — to create a competitive and N prosperous region.

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org 9 THROUGH AN ITERATIVE and collaborative process, interdependence, as determined by commuting our Task Force and participating stakeholders selected patterns. For brevity, and ease of reading, we generally a group of communities with which to compare. refer to each MSA in its entirety by its principal city. Factors such as population and the size of the Exceptions to this are the notable “duet” metros of economy, regional assets such as ports and research Dallas-Ft. Worth and Minneapolis-St. Paul, and the universities - as well as our frequent competitors for Miami-Ft. Lauderdale-West Palm Beach area which

COMPARISON COMMUNITIES economic development projects - were part of the we refer to as South Florida. Another exception is the decision process. The base geographic unit used in combination of the Raleigh and Durham (NC) MSAs - this report is the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), the “Research Triangle” - into one comparison region, which we refer to interchangeably as a market, region, using the same methodology applied to the four or metro. MSAs can be a single county or a group of Tampa Bay MSAs and described on page 2. counties that demonstrate a high level of economic

GROSS REGIONAL PRODUCT Aggregate Output ¹/Relative Output² ¹ Real Gross Regional Product - Bureau of Economic Analysis ² Real Per Capita Gross Regional Product - Bureau of Economic Analysis

Austin Nashville $125.816B/$61,138 Portland (OR) $109.379B/$58,639 $151.817B/$62,606 Raleigh-Durham Charlotte $109.113B/$58,585 $140.815B/$56,911 St. Louis Orlando Jacksonville San Antonio $140.712B/$50,129 $62.552B/$42,316 $109.348B/$45,006 $111.767B/$45,783

$50 Billion $75B $100B $125B $150B

10 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT REGIONAL DATA AND ASSETS

¹ POPULATION DEMOGRAPHY SE US Climate⁵ Military Seaport (Millions) Median Age ² Diversity Index Coastal Top 50 Research U⁶ Tourism⁷ Atlanta 5.8 36.1 68.4 Austin 2.1 34.0 71.6 Baltimore 2.8 39.1 60.8 Charlotte 2.5 37.4 60.6 Dallas 7.2 34.6 75.3 Denver 2.9 36.9 62.5 Houston 6.8 34.3 80.4 Jacksonville 1.5 38.6 57.2 Minneapolis 3.6 37.3 44.5 Nashville 1.9 37.2 48.6 Orlando 2.4 37.2 72.2 Phoenix 4.7 35.8 71.4 Portland 2.4 38.0 51.0 Raleigh-Durham 1.9 36.2 63.7 San Antonio 2.4 35.2 72.2 San Diego 3.3 35.6 78.1 Seattle 3.8 37.9 60.4 South Florida 6.1 41.0 73.7 St. Louis 2.8 39.3 43.3 Tampa Bay 4.6 44.5 56.5

¹ 2016 Population Estimates, U.S. Census Bureau ⁵ Based on Trewartha Climate Classification System ² ESRI Business Analyst, 2017 Estimates ⁶ Based on 2015 National Science Foundation data ³ ESRI Business Analyst, 2017 Estimates. Value represents the likelihood that ⁷ Based on location quotient of NAICS 721 (Accomodation) employment two persons, chosen at random from the same area, belong to different relative to all employment, comparing metro to U.S. Average race or ethnic groups.

$80,000 Baltimore Seattle Dallas $75,000 $164.545B/$58,789 $293.551B/$77,273 $471.278B/$65,154 $70,000 Denver $180.446B/$63,246 Minneapolis $65,000 Houston $217.566B/$61,268 $60,000 San Diego $442.458B/$65,332 South Florida $55,000 $190.656B/$57,465 Atlanta $287.775B/$47,438 $50,000 $320.171B/$55,300 Tampa Bay Phoenix $45,000 $172.736B/$37,305 $203.253B/$43,602 $40,000 $35,000 $175B $200B $300B $400B $500B

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org 11 Economic Vitality

WHAT: Sitasition ped et harita soloribus eume corposa eror- est, culpa pro mi, apellen temporrum hilita quo volores dolum accum es natatur?

WHY: Ullabo. Namus, quam cus maiorepedit magnate mpor rum fuga. Lic te sitae velibusa vereic te porum diatis eribus estianihic tet ma con re quas minvell oribus aliqui di

OF NOTE: dolum dolorpos rent et rest qui namet eum lignatis sant voluptatibus pediti berchitatqui ipis suntin eat archicia qui simaio. Est, unt. ECONOMIC VITALITY

ONE CAN ASSESS THE ECONOMIC STRENGTH of a also monitors this indicator for the poorest 20% of the community by looking closely at the quantity and quality of population. Why? As the community creates new economic jobs and the relative incomes that its residents earn and the opportunities, leaders should ensure that the growth wealth they attain. Together, these factors drive the demand is inclusive and reaches all segments of the population. for – and the ability of – government to provide key services Likewise, as the community grows jobs, it should pay close and they create the disposable income for residents to attention to the types of jobs it is adding. If a community enhance their quality of life. wants to increase its household incomes, and overall prosperity, then it has to ensure it increases jobs in the all- While it’s important to report these numbers at a high level, important and higher-wage “advanced industries,” and that it’s critical to dive deeper. For example, one should certainly goal requires a very clear and deliberate strategy. monitor median household income, but this report

LIST OF INDICATORS “Leaders should  1 Job Growth Rate ensure that the growth  2 Average Wage is inclusive and  3 Average Wage Service Sector  4 Business Establishment Start Rate reaches all segments  5 Median Household Net Worth of the population.”  6 Median Household Income 7 Mean Household Income Lowest Quintile  Rank 1-4 BEST 8  Advanced Industry Jobs Share Rank 5-8 9 Advanced Industry GRP Growth Rate Rank 9-12 10 Merchandise Exports Growth Rate Rank 13-16 11 Existing Home Sales Price Growth Rate Rank 17-20 WORST

12 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT Economic Vitality SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC VITALITY INDICATORS

INDICATORS (as listed on previous page)

 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 9 10 11

Tampa Bay

Atlanta

Austin ECONOMIC VITALITY

Baltimore

Charlotte

Dallas-Ft.Worth

Denver n/a

Houston

Jacksonville

Mpls-St. Paul

Nashville

Orlando

Phoenix

Portland (OR)

Raleigh-Durham

San Antonio

San Diego

Seattle

South Florida

St. Louis

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org 13 JOB GROWTH RATE

WHAT: The net number of payroll jobs created in a region in a one year period, divided by the number of jobs existing at the start of the period.

WHY: A critical component of economic growth and prosperity is the addition of new jobs. It’s important to measure job growth relative to previous months and years to determine whether the economy is expanding or contracting.

OF NOTE: Orlando and Tampa Bay, Florida’s Super Region, rank 1st and 2nd in this category, highlighting Florida’s relatively strong performance in job creation.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Survey, Total Non-Farm Employment June 2016-June 2017 (not seasonally adjusted) ECONOMIC VITALITY JOBS (000s) CHANGE

Jun-16 Jun-17 # %

Orlando 1,192 1,239 47,200 3.96% Orlando 3.96%

Tampa Bay 1,816 1,882 66,900 3.68% Tampa Bay 3.68%

Nashville 941 975 34,100 3.62% Nashville 3.62%

Jacksonville 662 685 23,600 3.57% Jacksonville 3.57%

Atlanta 2,666 2,760 94,100 3.53% Atlanta 3.53%

Dallas-Ft. Worth 3,509 3,624 115,300 3.29% Dallas-Ft. Worth 3.29%

Mpls-St. Paul 1,974 2,038 64,400 3.26% Mpls-St. Paul 3.26%

South Florida 2,545 2,626 80,800 3.17% South Florida 3.17%

Phoenix 1,927 1,985 58,000 3.01% Phoenix 3.01%

Raleigh-Durham 905 932 27,000 2.99% Raleigh-Durham 2.99%

Charlotte 1,149 1,182 33,500 2.92% Charlotte 2.92%

Austin 1,003 1,031 28,000 2.79% Austin 2.79%

Denver 1,442 1,479 36,900 2.56% Denver 2.56%

Portland 1,147 1,176 28,900 2.52% Portland 2.52%

Seattle 1,964 2,013 49,300 2.51% Seattle 2.51%

San Antonio 1,017 1,041 24,300 2.39% San Antonio 2.39%

San Diego 1,422 1,449 27,800 1.96% San Diego 1.96%

Houston 3,003 3,059 56,100 1.87% Houston 1.87%

St. Louis 1,374 1,391 16,600 1.21% St. Louis 1.21%

Baltimore 1,402 1,417 15,700 1.12% Baltimore 1.12%

14 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT AVERAGE WAGE AVERAGE WAGE SERVICE SECTOR

WHAT: The average wage earned by non-farm employees in WHAT: The average wage earned by “service” sector workers the region. in the region, defined here as workers in the Leisure and Hospitality industry and Retail Trade industry. WHY: Lower wages may indicate a preponderance of retail, tourism and other service jobs. Wage growth may indicate indus- WHY: Analysis of the average wage of “service” sector workers tries are competing more for employees, or the economy may – a major sub-sector of the Tampa Bay economy – enables be adding new kinds of jobs paying higher wages, particularly in leaders to better understand, in context, the region’s comparative advanced industries. economic performance.

OF NOTE: Despite strong job growth, average wages paid to OF NOTE: Tampa Bay’s relative performance in service wages, Florida workers lag the other markets, taking four of the bottom which includes tip income, is more competitive than the overall five spots. The four Florida communities also have the distinction average wage. Data not available for the Denver metro. of also being among the five metros with sub-$50,000 average Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and wages in the cohort. ECONOMIC VITALITY Wages, 2016 Private Employer Annual Data Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, 2016 Private Employer Annual Data

Seattle $70,129 Seattle $42,695

Houston $65,336 Nashville $29,352

Denver $60,662 South Florida $29,351

Dallas-Ft. Worth $59,728 San Diego $28,490

Mpls-St. Paul $59,291 Phoenix $28,467

Austin $57,986 Dallas-Ft. Worth $27,984

Atlanta $57,739 Austin $27,589

San Diego $56,612 Orlando $27,415

Baltimore $55,718 Baltimore $26,939

Raleigh-Durham $55,434 Houston $26,830

Portland $55,378 Mpls-St. Paul $26,805

Charlotte $54,723 Portland $26,513

Nashville $53,022 Tampa Bay $26,305

St. Louis $50,819 Atlanta $26,199

Phoenix $50,509 Charlotte $25,807

South Florida $49,906 San Antonio $25,664

Jacksonville $47,258 Jacksonville $25,585

San Antonio $45,522 St. Louis $24,176

Tampa Bay $45,434 Raleigh-Durham $23,351

Orlando $44,335 Denver n/a

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org 15 BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENT MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD NET WORTH START RATE

WHAT: Measures the number of new businesses with em- WHAT: Assets minus liabilities equals net worth. The median ployees started in a year, divided by the number of businesses houshold net worth is the figure in the middle, meaning half the with employees in the previous year. households have a higher net worth and the other half have a lower net worth. WHY: Small and medium size businesses account for a disproportionately large share of new jobs created, and tracking WHY: This indicator provides another way to view the financial this indicator provides insight into a community’s entrepre- health of the population. The main factors that impact median neurial environment, regulatory structures and availability of net worth are the value of real estate, the amount of savings financing. and the accumulation of debt. As the population ages, median net worth helps gauge retirement income available and/or the OF NOTE: The Florida regions rank in the top 10, with Orlan- dependency on some level of government support. do and South Florida taking the top two spots. Source: ESRI Business Analyst, 2016 Estimate

ECONOMIC VITALITY Source: Census Bureau, Business Dynamic Statistics, Establishment Characteristics Data Tables 2014

South Florida 14.2% Mpls-St. Paul $170,968

Orlando 13.6% Baltimore $152,395

Austin 13.1% Seattle $131,412

Denver 12.4% Denver $125,694

San Diego 12.4% St. Louis $120,143

Tampa Bay 12.0% Tampa Bay $100,085

Atlanta 11.9% Atlanta $99,881

Dallas-Ft. Worth 11.9% Houston $98,489

Phoenix 11.9% Portland $98,455

Jacksonville 11.8% Dallas-Ft. Worth $97,853

Houston 11.7% Raleigh-Durham $93,702

St. Louis 11.4% Nashville $93,555

Charlotte 11.1% Phoenix $89,002

Seattle 11.1% Charlotte $88,305

San Antonio 11.0% Austin $87,670

Raleigh-Durham 11.0% San Antonio $85,034

Nashville 10.7% Jacksonville $83,100

Mpls-St. Paul 9.7% San Diego $82,849

Baltimore 9.5% South Florida $72,636

Portland 8.9% Orlando $66,498

16 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT MEAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME LOWEST QUINTILE

WHAT: This figure divides the household incomes in the region WHAT: Measures the average household income for the into two equal groups: half of the household incomes are above households that have income in the lowest 20% of all house- this amount, and the other half are below. holds.

WHY: The level of household earnings is another indicator of WHY: By tracking the lowest 20% of household incomes, one the relative prosperity of a community, its buying power and re- can see whether economic gains in the community are being liance on the social safety net. Rising household incomes enable spread across the spectrum of the population, including the higher living standards. A change in this figure might indicate poorest households in this bottom quintile. changes in household size, hours worked or wages being paid. OF NOTE: The Florida regions all rank in the bottom quarter, OF NOTE: The Florida regions take four of the bottom five with Tampa Bay ranked 19th. spots in this indicator, with Tampa Bay ranked last. Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey

2016 1-Year Estimates, Table B19081 ECONOMIC VITALITY Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2016 1-Year Estimates, Table S1903

Seattle $78,612 Seattle $18,217

Baltimore $76,788 Denver $18,082

Mpls-St. Paul $73,231 Mpls-St. Paul $17,811

Denver $71,926 Austin $17,153

Austin $71,000 Portland $16,601

San Diego $70,824 San Diego $16,394

Portland $68,676 Raleigh-Durham $16,251

Raleigh-Durham $66,831 Baltimore $15,890

Dallas-Ft. Worth $63,812 Dallas $15,793

Atlanta $62,613 Nashville $15,083

Houston $61,708 Atlanta $14,463

Nashville $60,030 St. Louis $14,289

Charlotte $59,979 Houston $14,221

St. Louis $59,780 Charlotte $14,156

Phoenix $58,075 Jacksonville $13,748

Jacksonville $56,840 Phoenix $13,347

San Antonio $56,105 San Antonio $13,192

Orlando $52,385 Orlando $12,401

South Florida $51,362 Tampa Bay $12,382

Tampa Bay $50,540 South Florida $11,201

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org 17 ADVANCED INDUSTRY JOBS SHARE

WHAT: The percentage of non-farm jobs that are in “advanced industries,” characterized by high levels of technology research and development (R&D) and STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) workers. According to the Brookings Institution, “the sector encompasses 50 industries ranging from manufacturing industries such as auto-making and aerospace to energy industries such as oil and gas extraction to high-tech services such as computer software and computer system design, including for health applications.”

WHY: As advanced industries grow as a share of the economy, research shows that the sector has the most consequential impact on regional competitiveness and prosperity. As Brookings noted, looking at the national impact of advanced industries, “their dyna- mism is going to be a central component of any future revitalized U.S. economy. As such, these industries encompass the country’s best shot at supporting innovative, inclusive, and sustainable growth.”

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, 2016 Private Employer Annual Data ECONOMIC VITALITY EMPLOYMENT Advanced Total Advanced Industry Share

Seattle 282,035 1,631,878 17.28% Seattle 17.28%

San Diego 175,913 1,177,782 14.94% San Diego 14.94%

Raleigh-Durham 100,503 729,327 13.78% Raleigh-Durham 13.78%

Austin 90,251 788,455 11.45% Austin 11.45%

Houston 284,231 2,496,182 11.39% Houston 11.39%

Mpls-St. Paul 177,203 1,639,739 10.81% Mpls-St. Paul 10.81%

Dallas-Ft. Worth 309,589 2,956,948 10.47% Dallas-Ft.Worth 10.47%

Atlanta 212,152 2,185,783 9.71% Atlanta 9.71%

Baltimore 97,885 1,091,635 8.97% Baltimore 8.97%

St. Louis 92,085 1,149,242 8.01% St. Louis 8.01%

Jacksonville 44,888 561,120 8.00% Jacksonville 8.00%

Denver 89,801 1,221,756 7.35% Denver 7.35%

Nashville 56,251 790,849 7.11% Nashville 7.11%

Portland 66,669 982,664 6.78% Portland 6.78%

Tampa Bay 101,870 1,559,978 6.53% Tampa Bay 6.53%

South Florida 141,014 2,177,309 6.48% South Florida 6.48%

San Antonio 52,399 812,811 6.45% San Antonio 6.45%

Orlando 65,190 1,042,387 6.25% Orlando 6.25%

Charlotte 59,628 983,072 6.07% Charlotte 6.07%

Phoenix 95,479 1,709,715 5.58% Phoenix 5.58%

18 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT ADVANCED INDUSTRY GRP GROWTH RATE

WHAT: Measures the output of “advanced industries” by calculating the value of the goods and services produced in this important economic sector. According to the Brookings Institution, the advanced industry sector “encompasses 50 industries ranging from manufacturing industries such as auto-making and aerospace to energy industries such as oil and gas extraction to high-tech services such as computer software and computer system design, including for health applications.”

WHY: As many advanced industries are more capital intensive versus labor intensive, measurement of the industry’s output provides another lens with which to track performance of this sector, which is considered a vital component of any strategy for a region to be more competitive and prosperous.

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Data, Real GDP in Chained Dollars, 2013-2014

ADVANCED INDUSTRY GRP CHANGE ECONOMIC VITALITY (MILLIONS OF DOLLARS) 2013 2014 $ %

Dallas-Ft. Worth $38,136 $60,508 $22,372 58.66% Dallas- Ft.Worth 58.66%

Baltimore $4,277 $6,596 $2,319 54.22% Baltimore 54.22%

Tampa Bay $5,680 $7,771 $2,091 36.81% Tampa Bay 36.81%

Austin $10,733 $14,395 $3,662 34.12% Austin 34.12%

Atlanta $16,789 $20,082 $3,293 19.61% Atlanta 19.61%

Denver $18,041 $21,328 $3,287 18.22% Denver 18.22%

San Antonio $9,953 $11,732 $1,779 17.87% San Antonio 17.87%

Nashville $8,861 $9,926 $1,065 12.02% Nashville 12.02%

San Diego $18,849 $20,874 $2,025 10.74% San Diego 10.74%

Mpls-St. Paul $25,744 $28,022 $2,278 8.85% Mpls-St. Paul 8.85%

Orlando $4,222 $4,561 $339 8.03% Orlando 8.03%

Seattle $36,015 $38,099 $2,084 5.79% Seattle 5.79%

Jacksonville $1,454 $1,525 $71 4.88% Jacksonville 4.88%

South Florida $9,572 $9,286 $(286) -2.99% South Florida -2.99%

Raleigh-Durham $10,595 $10,211 $(384) -3.62% Raleigh-Durham -3.62%

Portland $35,857 $34,412 $(1,445) -4.03% Portland -4.03%

St. Louis $13,172 $12,603 $(569) -4.32% St. Louis -4.32% Charlotte Charlotte $7,693 $7,177 $(516) -6.71% -6.71% Houston -13.56% Houston $159,304 $137,701 $(21,603) -13.56% Phoenix -19.11% Phoenix $7,278 $5,887 $(1,391) -19.11%

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org 19 MERCHANDISE EXPORTS GROWTH RATE

WHAT: Measures exports of goods produced within the region to foreign nations.

WHY: Manufacturing exports are an indicator of global competitiveness. Selling into global markets can add growth in revenues and employment. Research from the Institute for International Economics has determined that companies that export products generally have higher employment growth and last longer especially through down business cycles. Strong exports also exert positive economic impacts on key assets in Tampa Bay, including our ports and airports.

OF NOTE: The US dollar strengthened globally between 2014 and 2015, making US exports generally less attractive to world markets.

Source: Commerce Department, International Trade Administration, Metropolitan Export Series, 2014-2015 ECONOMIC VITALITY MERCHANDISE EXPORTS CHANGE (MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)

2014 2015 $M %

Charlotte $12,885.34 $13,985.77 $1,100.43 8.54% Charlotte 8.54%

Seattle $61,938.43 $67,226.36 $5,287.93 8.54% Seattle 8.54%

Phoenix $12,764.44 $13,821.53 $1,057.09 8.28% Phoenix 8.28%

Austin $9,400.02 $10,094.50 $694.48 7.39% Austin 7.39%

Jacksonville $2,473.66 $2,564.42 $90.75 3.67% Jacksonville 3.67%

Portland $18,667.23 $18,847.80 $180.57 0.97% Portland 0.97%

Orlando $3,134.81 $3,082.67 $(52.14) -1.66% Orlando -1.66%

Nashville $9,620.89 $9,352.99 $(267.89) -2.78% Nashville -2.78%

Atlanta $19,870.28 $19,163.94 $(706.34) -3.55% Atlanta -3.55%

Dallas-Ft. Worth $28,669.43 $27,372.90 $(1,296.54) -4.52% Dallas- Ft.Worth -4.52%

Raleigh-Durham $5,647.07 $5,360.65 $(286.42) -5.07% Raleigh-Durham -5.07%

Baltimore $6,441.58 $6,047.17 $(394.41) -6.12% Baltimore -6.12%

San Diego $18,585.67 $17,439.73 $(1,145.93) -6.17% San Diego -6.17%

Mpls-St. Paul $21,198.21 $19,608.61 $(1,589.60) -7.50% Mpls-St. Paul -7.50%

Tampa Bay $8,821.11 $7,756.01 $(1,065.10) -12.07% Tampa Bay -12.07%

South Florida $37,969.45 $33,258.55 $(4,710.91) -12.41% South Florida -12.41%

St. Louis $10,359.83 $8,913.71 $(1,446.12) -13.96% St. Louis -13.96%

Houston $118,965.99 $97,054.33 $(21,911.67) -18.42% Houston -18.42%

Denver $4,958.57 $3,909.54 $(1,049.03) -21.16% Denver -21.16%

San Antonio $25,781.76 $15,919.23 $(9,862.53) -38.25% San Antonio -38.25%

20 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT EXISTING HOME SALES PRICE GROWTH RATE

WHAT: Measures the annual percentage increase in the average sales price of a single-family home.

WHY: Rising home values increase prosperity for many citizens, and home equity is one of the primary drivers of household net worth — another important driver of regional prosperity. For the population at-large, changes in home sales prices play a major role in consumer sentiment. Most importantly, rising homes sales prices reflect a perceived increased value of the market and rising prices indicate increasing demand, a sign of economic and population growth.

Source: Redfin Research, 2016-2017 ECONOMIC VITALITY MEDIAN SALES CHANGE PRICE June 2016 June 2017 $ %

Nashville $250,000 $285,000 $35,000 14.00% Nashville 14.00%

Seattle $463,000 $525,000 $62,000 13.39% Seattle 13.39%

San Diego $499,000 $555,000 $56,000 11.22% San Diego 11.22%

Charlotte $222,000 $246,000 $24,000 10.81% Charlotte 10.81%

Orlando $209,000 $230,000 $21,000 10.05% Orlando 10.05%

Jacksonville $200,000 $220,000 $20,000 10.00% Jacksonville 10.00%

-1.66% Portland $345,000 $379,000 $34,000 9.86% Portland 9.86%

-2.78% Tampa Bay $201,000 $220,000 $19,000 9.45% Tampa Bay 9.45%

-3.55% Denver $358,000 $389,000 $31,000 8.66% Denver 8.66%

-4.52% South Florida $260,000 $282,000 $22,000 8.46% South Florida 8.46%

-5.07% Mpls-St. Paul $240,000 $260,000 $20,000 8.33% Mpls-St. Paul 8.33%

-6.12% Dallas-Ft. Worth $248,000 $267,000 $19,000 7.66% Dallas-Ft. Worth 7.66%

-6.17% Atlanta $213,000 $227,000 $14,000 6.57% Atlanta 6.57%

-7.50% Phoenix $232,000 $247,000 $15,000 6.47% Phoenix 6.47%

-12.07% Raleigh-Durham $257,000 $272,000 $15,000 5.84% Raleigh-Durham 5.84%

-12.41% San Antonio $206,000 $218,000 $12,000 5.83% San Antonio 5.83%

-13.96% Austin $295,000 $310,000 $15,000 5.08% Austin 5.08%

-18.42% Houston $229,000 $239,000 $10,000 4.37% Houston 4.37%

-21.16% Baltimore $270,000 $275,000 $5,000 1.85% Baltimore 1.85%

-38.25% St. Louis $180,000 $180,000 $0 0.00% St. Louis 0.00%

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org 21 Innovation INNOVATION

REGIONS ACROSS THE US, and the globe for that matter, ideas, ability to take risks and the availability of a support are racing to innovate. Leaders view innovation as the infrastructure to start new companies. foundation of their respective efforts to strengthen and sustain their economic prosperity. While certain industries, The innovation process involves key steps, most of which such as biopharma, are innovative in themselves, innova- can be measured and tracked — research and develop- tion also drives increased productivity in existing, legacy ment, development of intellectual property, technology industries,such as logistics and distribution. Innovative commercialization, investment of capital at various stages economies support the creation and commercialization of and, ultimately, the number of companies that start-up, new products, processes, and services. Innovation can be survive, prosper and stay in the community in which they felt in the culture of a community and its openness to new were born.

LIST OF INDICATORS “Innovative  1 University R&D Expenditures economies support  2 University Technology Licensing  3 Patents per 10,000 Residents the creation and  4 SBIR/STTR Awards per Capita commercialization of new products, processes, and services.”

22 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT Innovation SUMMARY OF INNOVATION INDICATORS

INDICATORS (as listed on previous page)

 1  2  3  4 INNOVATION Tampa Bay

Atlanta

Austin n/a

Baltimore One way in which we seek to improve future editions of the Charlotte Regional Competitiveness Report is through an expanded set Dallas-Ft. Worth of innovation measurements, including attraction of venture Denver and other capital, trademark registration, and start-up rate of Houston technology-based companies.

Jacksonville For example, comprehensive and detailed venture capital data at Mpls-St. Paul the metro level - in terms of the number and value of deals - could Nashville not be obtained in a reliable, accurate, and cost-effective format. Other indicators reflecting Orlando the performance of business incubators were in development Phoenix and not available at the time of publication. Portland

Raleigh-Durham Rank 1-4 BEST n/a San Antonio Rank 5-8

San Diego Rank 9-12 Rank 13-16 Seattle Rank 17-20 WORST South Florida Many results reported by state university St. Louis system; regional ranking/value may be understated

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org 23 UNIVERSITY R&D EXPENDITURES UNIVERSITY TECHNOLOGY LICENSING

WHAT: The National Science Foundation (NSF) Survey of WHAT: The annual Association of University Technology Man- Research and Development Expenditures at Universities and Col- agers (AUTM) U.S. Licensing Activity Survey collects information leges is conducted annually. The survey collects information on on technology licensing – monetary considerations provided to a R&D expenditures by academic field as well as by source of funds. university for the use of its intellectual property. The results of the survey are primarily used to assess trends in R&D expenditures across the fields of science and engineering. WHY: Licensing income reflects the market value, as opposed

INNOVATION to the strict uniqueness, of intellectual property developed at WHY: There is a strong correlation between the presence of one research universities. or more successful research universities, and the proliferation of patents, trademarks and commercially viable technology and the OF NOTE: Texas and California university systems provide resulting companies and jobs. Quantifying the collective and a system-wide response to the survey. Figures listed for those relative levels of R&D expenditures by universities in the market communities include non-system institutions and represent the is an important gauge of the level of innovation in that market. minimum value of licensing activity within a region.

Source: National Science Foundation, Higher Education Research and Source: AUTM Licensing STATT (Statistics Access for Tech Transfer), 2015 Development Survey, FY 2015, Table 16

($000s)

Baltimore $2,801,116 Raleigh-Durham $47,317,904

Raleigh-Durham $2,475,969 Seattle $42,840,261

Atlanta $1,535,658 St. Louis $29,715,064

San Diego $1,206,124 Houston $24,498,895

Seattle $1,193,263 Mpls-St. Paul $18,526,963

Mpls-St. Paul $884,902 Baltimore $18,419,744

Dallas-Ft. Worth $736,728 Atlanta $9,634,676

St. Louis $725,181 Nashville $7,966,115

Austin $699,024 South Florida $6,719,027

Nashville $694,877 Tampa Bay $2,455,127

Tampa Bay $495,690 Portland $2,163,020

Houston $488,091 Orlando $1,582,117

Phoenix $458,412 Phoenix $1,436,333

Denver $426,451 San Diego $584,536

Portland $388,387 Denver $121,217

Orlando $215,979 Charlotte $37,298

South Florida $200,522 Dallas-Ft. Worth $6,983

San Antonio $59,100 Jacksonville $0

Charlotte $37,403 Austin n/a

Jacksonville $3,689 San Antonio n/a

24 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT PATENTS PER 10,000 RESIDENTS SBIR/STTR AWARDS PER CAPITA

WHAT: The number of patents issued per 10,000 residents of WHAT: Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and the Small the community. Business Technology Transfer (STTR) fund “proof-of-concept” research and development through a highly competitive grant WHY: Innovation is one of the keys to prosperity, and innovation program to companies with less than 500 employees. This can’t happen without intellectual property, in the form of pat- measure reports the dollar value of a region’s awards divided by ents. This indicator helps to determine, on a relative basis, which the population.

communities are generating ideas which could be converted into INNOVATION commercial products and companies. The detail behind the data WHY: Prevalence of these federal funding sources provides indicates which fields are most active and suggests a community’s an indication of the level of commercial innovation within an comparative strengths in knowledge creation. economic market. These programs are intended to provide seed capital to support scientific excellence and technological inno- Source: US Patent and Trademark Office, Full-Text and Image Database, 2016 vation. A high amount of awards may signify a high level of innovation in a market. Participants in the SBIR and STTR program are often able to use this grant program to design commercial products and to attract strategic partners and investment capital.

Source: Small Business Administration, 2016 Award Information

Austin 21.43 Raleigh-Durham $22.56

Seattle 21.21 San Diego $21.63

San Diego 20.02 Austin $17.76

Raleigh-Durham 19.24 Denver $11.64

Portland 16.83 Seattle $10.57

Mpls-St. Paul 13.19 Portland $8.89

Denver 7.74 Mpls-St. Paul $7.93

St. Louis 6.32 Baltimore $7.87

Dallas-Ft. Worth 6.27 Phoenix $5.46

Phoenix 6.03 Orlando $5.27

Atlanta 5.57 Nashville $4.61

Houston 4.83 St. Louis $3.42

Baltimore 4.51 Houston $3.12

Charlotte 3.90 Atlanta $2.33

South Florida 3.46 San Antonio $2.24

Orlando 3.35 South Florida $1.70

Tampa Bay 3.32 Dallas-Ft. Wort $1.44

San Antonio 3.06 Jacksonville $0.66

Jacksonville 2.15 Charlotte $0.24

Nashville 2.02 Tampa Bay $0.13

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org 25 Infrastructure INFRASTRUCTURE

THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF A COMMUNITY provides the ports and airports and ensure that its residents are able to foundation for so much of its efforts to compete and pros- walk and bike safely. per. Infrastructure is, literally, everywhere: water and sewer These infrastructure assets and improvements require pipes, broadband, roads, public transit, sidewalks, ports, substantial investments and coordinated commitment airports…the list goes on. Just to keep pace, the community by local, state and federal agencies as well as the private must maintain this infrastructure — but that’s not good sector. The level of infrastructure investment and quality of enough in this day and age. A competitive community its performance communicates loud and clear the intent of insists this infrastructure performs at a high level. For a the community to invest in its long-term future, and plays a community to grow, it must ensure an efficient, multi-modal critical role in the ability of the community to compete for transportation infrastructure, expand and modernize its new residents and jobs.

LIST OF INDICATORS “The level of infra-  1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety structure investment  2 Pavement Condition  3 Walkability and quality of its  4 Commute Time performance  5 Commuters with > 60 minute Commute communicates the  6 Transit Vehicle Revenue Miles Per Capita community’s intent to  7 Transit Ridership Per Capita invest in its  8 Driving Time Spent in Congestion future.” 9 Airline Passenger Traffic Growth

26 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT Infrastructure SUMMARY OF INFRASTRUCTURE INDICATORS

INDICATORS (as listed on previous page)  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 9

Tampa Bay

Atlanta INFRASTRUCTURE

Austin

Baltimore

Charlotte

Dallas-Ft. Worth

Denver

Houston

Jacksonville

Mpls-St. Paul

Nashville

Orlando

Phoenix

Portland

Raleigh-Durham

San Antonio

San Diego Rank 1-4 BEST Seattle Rank 5-8

South Florida Rank 9-12 Rank 13-16 St. Louis Rank 17-20 WORST

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org 27 PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLIST FATALITIES PAVEMENT CONDITION RATED PER 100,000 RESIDENTS FAIR OR GOOD

WHAT: Measures the number of pedestrian and cyclist WHAT: A measurement of the quality of the roadway fatalities per 100,000 population. A pedestrian is defined as any systems, performed by TRIP, a Washington D.C.-based person on foot — i.e. walking, running, jogging, hiking — and national transportation research group. a cyclist is defined as a person on a vehicle powered solely by pedals. Crashes that occurred on private property, including WHY: The quality of roadways has a direct impact on parking lots and driveways, are excluded. household and business expenses and represents the safety, efficiency and desired state of repair of a community’s WHY: Pedestrian deaths disproportionately impact low- transportation infrastructure. income residents. They are generally viewed as a result of poor urban planning, lack of sidewalk infrastructure, and user Source: TRIP 2016 Urban Roads Report, Appendix A behavior. Nearly half of these fatalities involve alcohol. INFRASTRUCTURE

OF NOTE: Florida benchmark communities perform worst in this metric. Fair Good Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Fatality Analysis Reporting System, 2015 ( in percent) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Mpls-St. Paul 0.80 Nashville 78%

Nashville 1.48 Portland 76%

Seattle 1.50 Jacksonville 70%

Portland 1.51 Orlando 68%

Denver 1.53 Raleigh-Durham 66%

Charlotte 1.57 Charlotte 60%

Baltimore 1.61 Phoenix 57%

Raleigh-Durham 1.65 Mpls-St. Paul 56%

Dallas-Ft. Worth 1.96 Atlanta 53%

Atlanta 2.11 Tampa Bay 51%

San Diego 2.22 Austin 47%

Houston 2.27 Dallas-Ft. Worth 47%

St. Louis 2.35 Houston 40%

San Antonio 2.52 St. Louis 39%

Austin 2.60 South Florida 38%

Phoenix 2.76 San Diego 33%

South Florida 3.82 Baltimore 32%

Orlando 3.82 Seattle 25%

Tampa Bay 4.08 Denver 19%

Jacksonville 4.35 San Antonio 18%

28 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT WALKABILITY AVERAGE COMMUTE TIME

WHAT: Walk Score is a private company that has created a large- WHAT: Measures the one-way duration of a trip from home to scale, publicly sourced walkability index that provides a numerical work. score to any address in the United States, Canada, and Australia. Walk Score accounts for the relative distance of amenities WHY: Lower average commute times enhance worker produc- (groceries, services) and the physical characteristics (block length, tivity and satisfaction, and may indicate improved air quality and intersection intensity) of the routes. Walk Score represents a urban planning. Factors that may impact commute times include widely adopted tool to test and promote urban design standards. traffic congestion, dual income families, availability of affordable housing and access to public transit. WHY: More and more, residents are assessing the walkability of a community as a key factor to measure the quality of life a Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2016 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801 community offers. INFRASTRUCTURE

OF NOTE: The Walk Score, while available for MSAs, is more typically used for microlevel analysis, such as a neighborhood or district.

Source: Walk Score, Metro score is population-weighted average of principal cities’ scores.

Baltimore 62.6 Raleigh-Durham 25.5

South Florida 59.0 Mpls-St. Paul 25.3

St. Louis 58.8 St. Louis 26.0

Portland 57.2 San Diego 26.0

Seattle 55.9 Jacksonville 27.5

Mpls-St. Paul 52.2 Phoenix 26.4

Denver 52.2 Tampa Bay 26.8

San Diego 49.5 San Antonio 26.7

Houston 45.7 Austin 27.1

Tampa Bay 42.1 Portland 27.5

Dallas-Ft. Worth 40.4 Charlotte 26.5

Phoenix 40.3 Nashville 27.6

Atlanta 39.5 Denver 27.3

Orlando 38.1 Orlando 28.7

Austin 38.0 Dallas-Ft. Worth 28.6

San Antonio 37.3 South Florida 29.6

Raleigh-Durham 30.1 Houston 30.0

Jacksonville 27.0 Seattle 30.8

Nashville 27.0 Baltimore 31.0

Charlotte 25.3 Atlanta 32.1

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org 29 SHARE OF COMMUTERS WITH TRANSIT VEHICLE REVENUE 1+ HOUR COMMUTES MILES PER CAPITA

WHAT: This figure represents the percentage of the popu- WHAT: Measures, on a per capita basis, the number of miles lation who has reported a travel time of more than one hour traveled by public transit vehicles during revenue service— from home to work. meaning that the vehicle is transporting passengers while on the road. WHY: Long commutes reduce time with family and may decrease job satisfaction and productivity. A high percentage WHY: This figure indicates the availability of public transit, in this category may indicate long distances between afford- the supply of which is both an input to and output of the able residential neighborhoods and job centers, and may demand for transit in a community. As an equity issue, the also mean residents are seeking employment outside of the supply of transit affects access to jobs, healthcare, parental region. participation in school events and a host of other activities.

INFRASTRUCTURE Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Source: Federal Transit Administration, National Transit Database, 2016 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801 2015 Annual UZA Sums

Mpls-St. Paul 5.5% Seattle 34.20

Raleigh-Durham 5.9% Denver 23.50

Charlotte 6.2% Baltimore 23.38

St. Louis 6.3% Mpls-St. Paul 23.16

San Antonio 6.7% Portland 22.78

Jacksonville 6.9% San Diego 20.04

San Diego 7.1% San Antonio 19.83

Denver 7.2% South Florida 17.79

Orlando 7.5% Austin 16.50

Phoenix 7.6% St. Louis 16.19

Tampa Bay 7.8% Raleigh-Durham 16.16

Austin 8.1% Nashville 15.90

Nashville 8.4% Atlanta 14.84

Portland 8.5% Houston 14.73

Dallas-Ft. Worth 9.3% Charlotte 13.89

South Florida 10.7% Orlando 13.84

Houston 11.2% Jacksonville 12.87

Seattle 12.2% Phoenix 12.42

Baltimore 12.3% Dallas-Ft. Worth 11.93

Atlanta 14.5% Tampa Bay 9.65

30 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT TRANSIT RIDERSHIP DRIVING TIME SPENT IN PER CAPITA CONGESTION

WHAT: Measures, on a per capita basis, the number of trips WHAT: The INRIX Traffic Scorecard is a comprehensive study, taken on public transit — meaning that the public has paid a fare using big data, which estimates the annual hours drivers spend to ride on a form of public transit including bus, rail or train or in congestion, providing insights about the health of a trans- some other kind of public transit. portation network. INRIX combines anonymous, real-time GPS probe data with traditional real-time traffic flow information and WHY: High transit ridership indicates the community has hundreds of market-specific criteria that affect traffic in select mobility options. According to the National Transit Database, cities within our comparison markets. “Owning and driving your own vehicle in a dense urbanized area can be both expensive and inconvenient. Choosing public transit WHY: An indicator of the efficiency of roadways at peak vol- over private cars, bicycles, motorcycles, or walking is called a ume. Congestion, defined as the condition of road speeds less “discretionary trip” and indicates a personal choice that is not out than 65% of free flow speeds, negatively affects commerce and of necessity, medical or otherwise.” the environment and it impacts quality of life by using personal INFRASTRUCTURE time for commuting rather than spending time doing other more Source: Federal Transit Administration, National Transit Database, pleasant activities such as being with family and/or friends. 2015 Annual UZA Sums Source: INRIX 2016 Global Traffic Scorecard

Seattle 66.31 Raleigh-Durham 14.9

Portland 61.83 Jacksonville 20.7

Baltimore 49.16 Tampa Bay 21.5

Denver 39.79 St. Louis 21.7

San Diego 37.51 Charlotte 23.4

Mpls-St. Paul 37.19 San Antonio 26.3

Atlanta 31.92 Baltimore 27.1

South Florida 29.59 Orlando 31.7

Austin 25.48 Nashville 33.6

St. Louis 22.89 Denver 36.0

San Antonio 22.52 Phoenix 37.1

Raleigh-Durham 20.12 Mpls-St. Paul 39.6

Phoenix 19.96 San Diego 46.2

Charlotte 18.37 Austin 47.2

Houston 16.89 Portland 47.2

Orlando 16.43 Seattle 48.3

Nashville 15.68 Houston 48.7

Dallas-Ft. Worth 15.44 Dallas-Ft. Worth 54.9

Jacksonville 12.62 South Florida 64.8

Tampa Bay 11.08 Atlanta 70.8

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org 31 AIRLINE PASSENGER TRAFFIC GROWTH

WHAT: Measures the annual growth in the number of airline passengers at all commercial service airports in the region.

WHY: Passenger growth measures a change in the attractiveness of the region for business and leisure visitors, regional business activity and regional household fortunes. This statistic is monitored closely by multiple stakeholder airports as one of their key measurements of service delivery.

Source: Federal Aviation Administration, Air Carrier Activity Information System, 2016 INFRASTRUCTURE

ENPLANEMENTS CHANGE (BOARDINGS) 2015 2016 # %

Nashville 5,715,205 6,327,048 611,843 10.71% Nashville 10.71%

Portland 8,340,252 9,071,154 730,902 8.76% Portland 8.76%

St. Louis 6,239,248 6,782,911 543,663 8.71% St. Louis 8.71%

Seattle 20,148,980 21,887,110 1,738,130 8.63% Seattle 8.63%

Raleigh-Durham 4,954,735 5,378,637 423,902 8.56% Raleigh-Durham 8.56% Orlando Orlando 19,969,320 21,603,913 1,634,593 8.19% 8.19% Denver Denver 26,280,043 28,246,269 1,966,226 7.48% 7.48% Baltimore Baltimore 11,738,845 12,340,183 601,338 5.12% 5.12% Austin Austin 5,797,562 6,090,078 292,516 5.05% 5.05% San Diego San Diego 9,985,763 10,340,164 354,401 3.55% 3.55%

Mpls-St. Paul 17,634,273 18,109,982 475,709 2.70% Mpls-St.Paul 2.70%

South Florida 37,161,572 38,157,924 996,352 2.68% South Florida 2.68%

Atlanta 49,340,732 50,476,272 1,135,540 2.30% Atlanta 2.30%

San Antonio 4,091,434 4,177,076 85,642 2.09% San Antonio 2.09%

Tampa Bay 10,577,881 10,699,201 121,320 1.15% Tampa Bay 1.15%

Dallas-Ft. Worth 38,630,789 38,829,296 198,507 0.51% Dallas-Ft.Worth 0.51%

Jacksonville 2,716,473 2,708,369 (8,104) -0.30% Jacksonville -0.30%

Houston 26,533,871 26,312,089 (221,782) -0.84% Houston -0.84%

Phoenix 22,017,691 21,601,960 (415,731) -1.89% Phoenix -1.89%

Charlotte 21,913,166 21,455,996 (457,170) -2.09% Charlotte -2.09%

32 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT INFRASTRUCTURE

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org 33 TALENT TALENT

BUILDING A STRONG PIPELINE OF TALENT — from early changes, the demand for talent is always evolving. For most childhood through advanced degrees — is arguably the industries, social skills and critical thinking are baseline attri- most critical factor in regards to a community’s ability to butes; other industries require ever-changing certifications; compete and prosper. A skilled workforce will help to retain and other jobs require advanced degrees in specialized the employers who are here, and attract new jobs, compa- areas of study. nies and investment. Similarly, citizens equipped with the skills and credentials required by industry are more likely to As a community targets higher wage industries to improve enjoy prosperity for themselves and their families. outcomes such as household incomes and gross regional product per capita, leaders must understand the skills that The talent pipeline is continuous, and if one part of it breaks these target industries require. Working strategically to down, the rest of it can suffer. Furthermore, as technology evolve the talent pipeline will be key to success.

LIST OF INDICATORS

 1 Share of 3 & 4 Year Olds Enrolled in School  2 High School Graduation Rate  3 High School Graduation Rate: Economically Disadvantaged  4 Share of Population Age 16-24 Neither Employed nor Enrolled in School  5 Degree Production per 10,000 Residents  6 STEM Degree Production per 10,000 Residents  7 Educational Attainment Rate: AA/AS+ Also included in this 8  Educational Attainment Rate: BA/BS+ section, following the 9 Educational Attainment Rate: Graduate/Professional full comparative data, is an examination of 10 Age 25-34 Educational Attainment Rate: BA/BS+ select “Florida-specific” talent indicators. 11 Labor Force Participation Rate Age 25-64

34 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT TALENT SUMMARY OF TALENT INDICATORS TALENT

INDICATORS (as listed on previous page)

 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 9 10 11 Tampa Bay

Atlanta

Austin

Baltimore

Charlotte

Dallas-Ft. Worth

Denver

Houston

Jacksonville

Mpls-St. Paul

Nashville

Orlando

Phoenix

Portland

Raleigh-Durham

San Antonio

San Diego Rank 1-4 BEST Seattle Rank 5-8 Rank 9-12 South Florida Rank 13-16 St. Louis n/a Rank 17-20 WORST

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org 35 SHARE OF 3 & 4 YEAR OLDS HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION RATE ENROLLED IN SCHOOL

WHAT: This indicator includes data from the American WHAT: This indicator reports the share of students earning a

TALENT Community Survey on school enrollment for children ages 3 & regular diploma divided by an “adjusted cohort” for the graduating 4, including both public and private schools. class -- the number of ninth graders four years ago, plus students transferring in, minus those who transferred, emigrated or passed WHY: Early childhood education has been proven to be an away during the four school years. early and predictable determinant of future educational and economic success. Lower enrollment in early childhood educa- WHY: A high school diploma is a key credential for future study tion may represent that challenges exist in terms of accessibil- or to enter the workforce. Individuals lacking this most basic level ity and affordability. of educational attainment also tend to have lower income potential, experience higher rates of incarceration, and are more likely to Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2016 1-Year be dependent on public resources. Estimates, Table S1401 OF NOTE: Individual state requirements for a diploma vary, but the negative consequences associated with not graduating are similar across jurisdictions.

Source: Individual district graduation rates, 2015-2016 Academic Year

South Florida 57.4% Austin 94.26%

San Diego 52.7% Dallas-Ft. Worth 91.83%

St. Louis 52.6% San Antonio 91.10%

Baltimore 51.7% San Diego 90.80%

Jacksonville 51.3% Nashville 89.91%

Austin 51.2% St. Louis 89.09%

Denver 51.2% Houston 88.90%

Raleigh-Durham 50.4% Charlotte 88.74%

Atlanta 50.0% Baltimore 86.99%

San Antonio 48.9% Raleigh-Durham 86.67%

Tampa Bay 48.8% Mpls-St. Paul 86.31%

Portland 48.4% Jacksonville 82.83%

Seattle 47.5% Orlando 82.40%

Mpls-St. Paul 46.9% Atlanta 81.23%

Charlotte 46.1% Seattle 80.50%

Orlando 45.5% South Florida 80.28%

Nashville 43.9% Phoenix 79.46%

Dallas-Ft. Worth 43.7% Tampa Bay 78.92%

Houston 41.2% Denver 78.56%

Phoenix 39.2% Portland 78.28%

36 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION RATE: SHARE OF POPULATION AGE 16-24 NEITHER ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED EMPLOYED NOR ENROLLED IN SCHOOL

WHAT: This indicator reports the share of economically dis- WHAT: This measure reports, as a percentage of the entire advantaged students – those receiving free or reduced lunch, population age 16-24, those individuals neither enrolled in TALENT among other determinants - earning a regular diploma divided school nor employed. by an “adjusted cohort” for the graduating class -- the number of ninth graders four years ago, plus students transferring in, WHY: These “disconnected youth” are missing key educational minus those who transferred, emigrated or passed away during and employment experiences and are at increased risk — the four school years. according to researchers — for a host of negative outcomes, each with significant costs to society: long spells of unemployment, WHY: The graduation rate of this group of students provides a poverty, criminal behavior, substance abuse and incarceration. more comprehensive view of a community’s talent pipeline, and Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2015 1-Year Estimates, removes a barrier to economic mobility. Public Use Microdata Sample Source: Individual district graduation rates, 2015-2016 Academic Year

Austin 90.74% Mpls-St. Paul 7.6%

Dallas-Ft. Worth 89.24% Austin 8.0%

San Diego 87.70% Raleigh-Durham 8.0%

San Antonio 87.14% Nashville 9.3%

Charlotte 85.60% San Diego 9.7%

Houston 85.37% Denver 10.5%

Nashville 84.41% Seattle 10.9%

Raleigh-Durham 77.69% Portland 10.9%

Orlando 77.55% St. Louis 11.1%

Baltimore 77.05% Baltimore 11.6%

South Florida 76.39% Dallas-Ft. Worth 12.0%

Phoenix 75.52% Orlando 12.2%

Atlanta 74.20% South Florida 12.2%

Jacksonville 73.49% Jacksonville 12.3%

Mpls-St. Paul 72.79% San Antonio 13.0%

Portland 70.48% Phoenix 13.2%

Tampa Bay 70.31% Atlanta 13.6%

Seattle 69.43% Houston 13.8%

Denver 67.10% Tampa Bay 13.9%

St. Louis n/a Charlotte 15.6%

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org 37 DEGREE PRODUCTION PER STEM DEGREE PRODUCTION 10,000 RESIDENTS PER 10,000 RESIDENTS

WHAT: The measure reports the number of degrees (asso- WHAT: The measure reports the number of STEM degrees

TALENT ciates and above) awarded by institutes of higher education (associates and above) awarded by institutes of higher education within a community, divided by population. within a community, divided by population. STEM degrees are identified using program codes assigned by the US Departments WHY: An indicator of a region’s performance in producing of Education and Homeland Security. a pipeline of workforce talent. Areas with a steady stream of college graduates are attractive to employers across an array WHY: Provides a closer look at the talent pipeline, focusing of industries. on Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) competencies. STEM jobs have been identified at the national OF NOTE: Another way to examine degree production is and state level as growing in number, paying higher than average in the aggregate, or total number of degrees. From that per- wages, and lacking in available workforce. spective, Tampa Bay would rank fifth with more than 43,000 degrees conferred. OF NOTE: From the aggregate perspective, Tampa Bay’s 14,700 STEM degrees would rank third. Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, 2015-2016 Academic Year Completions Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, 2015-2016 Academic Year Completions

Phoenix 194.6 Raleigh-Durham 72.5

Raleigh-Durham 182.0 Phoenix 64.3

Orlando 144.9 Austin 40.5

Austin 134.2 Baltimore 40.4

St. Louis 116.9 St. Louis 37.4

South Florida 101.7 Orlando 32.3

Nashville 99.1 Tampa Bay 31.9

Baltimore 98.3 Mpls-St. Paul 31.7

San Diego 96.8 San Diego 30.6

Mpls-St. Paul 94.0 Nashville 29.1

Tampa Bay 93.8 Seattle 28.3

San Antonio 90.7 San Antonio 26.3

Dallas-Ft. Worth 88.6 Dallas-Ft. Worth 25.8

Portland 81.7 South Florida 24.1

Jacksonville 81.3 Denver 23.5

Seattle 80.9 Jacksonville 22.0

Denver 79.8 Atlanta 21.8

Houston 64.7 Portland 18.7

Charlotte 62.3 Houston 18.4

Atlanta 59.9 Charlotte 17.9

38 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT RATE: EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT RATE: AA/AS+ BA/BS+

WHAT: Measures the percentage of the population, 25 years WHAT: Measures the percentage of the population, 25 years

or older, who have attained an associate’s degree or higher. or older, who have attained a bachelor’s degree or higher. TALENT

WHY: This indicator provides a broad-based view of the rela- WHY: As many jobs in high-wage and high-skilled industry sec- tive education level of the community. It takes into account that tors require at least a bachelor’s degree, this indicator measures many jobs require the kind of training and educational support the talent pool that is available in the region. that is offered by community colleges and other institutions offering two-year degrees. OF NOTE: The educational attainment rate of the population can be influenced by, but is not dependent upon, degree produc- OF NOTE: The educational attainment rate of the population tion within a region. Students earning a degree may choose to can be influenced by, but is not dependent upon, degree produc- stay or leave, and migration of population - and their associated tion within a region. Students earning a degree may choose to academic credentials - has a significant effect on this metric. stay or leave, and migration of population - and their associated academic credentials - has a significant effect on this metric. Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2016 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501 Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2016 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501

Raleigh-Durham 55.8% Raleigh-Durham 47.2%

Mpls-St.Paul 51.3% Austin 42.8%

Seattle 51.1% Denver 42.5%

Denver 50.1% Seattle 42.0%

Austin 49.2% Mpls-St. Paul 40.5%

Portland 47.8% Baltimore 39.5%

Baltimore 46.2% Portland 38.9%

San Diego 45.3% Atlanta 37.7%

Atlanta 45.0% San Diego 37.4%

Charlotte 43.6% Charlotte 34.4%

St. Louis 43.3% Nashville 34.2%

Orlando 42.0% St. Louis 34.1%

Nashville 41.4% Dallas-Ft. Worth 33.9%

Jacksonville 41.1% Houston 32.0%

Dallas-Ft. Worth 40.7% Orlando 30.9%

South Florida 40.0% Phoenix 30.8%

Phoenix 39.3% Jacksonville 30.7%

Houston 39.1% South Florida 30.5%

Tampa Bay 36.9% San Antonio 27.8%

San Antonio 35.6% Tampa Bay 27.7%

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org 39 EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT RATE: AGE 25-34 EDUCATIONAL GRADUATE/PROFESSIONAL ATTAINMENT RATE: BA/BS+

WHAT: Measures the percentage of the population, 25 years WHAT: This measure looks, specifically, at the 25-34 year old

TALENT or older, who have attained a graduate or professional degree. population and calculates the percentage of this population that has attained a bachelor’s or higher advanced degree. WHY: Many of the most technical and highly-compensated jobs in high-wage and high-skilled industry sectors require WHY: This indicator, measured by dozens of communities, is advanced degrees; this indicator measures the talent pool of regarded as important because it shows how well a community is the most-educated available in the region. doing in its efforts to retain and attract the all-important millennial OF NOTE: The educational attainment rate of the popula- generation — particularly the most educated and talented ones. tion can be influenced by, but is not dependent upon, degree Having a high percentage of this population has been shown to have production within a region. Students earning a degree may a direct correlation with other prosperity outcomes. choose to stay or leave, and migration of population - and OF NOTE: The educational attainment rate of the population their associated academic credentials - has a significant effect can be influenced by, but is not dependent upon, degree production on this metric. within a region. Students earning a degree may choose to stay or Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey, leave, and migration of population - and their associated academic 2016 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501 credentials - has a significant effect on this metric. Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2016 1-Year Estimates, Public Use Microdata Sample

Raleigh-Durham 18.7% Raleigh-Durham 51.7%

Baltimore 17.3% Seattle 46.6%

Seattle 15.9% Austin 45.7%

Denver 15.6% Mpls-St. Paul 45.4%

Austin 15.0% Denver 44.7%

Portland 14.8% Baltimore 43.7%

Atlanta 14.2% Portland 42.5%

San Diego 14.0% Nashville 41.9%

Mpls-St. Paul 13.9% St. Louis 39.7%

St. Louis 13.7% San Diego 39.1%

Nashville 12.0% Atlanta 38.8%

Dallas-Ft. Worth 11.6% Charlotte 38.5%

Houston 11.6% Dallas-Ft. Worth 35.5%

South Florida 11.3% Orlando 34.1%

Charlotte 11.1% Houston 33.2%

Phoenix 11.1% South Florida 31.5%

Orlando 10.5% Jacksonville 30.0%

Jacksonville 10.0% Phoenix 29.4%

San Antonio 9.9% Tampa Bay 28.0%

Tampa Bay 9.9% San Antonio 27.8%

40 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATE: AGE 25-64

WHAT: Measures the percentage of the working-age population that

is either employed, or unemployed but able to work and/or actively TALENT seeking a job.

WHY: This indicator provides a broad-based view of the relative availability of labor in a market. With workforce identified by industry as a key component of growth, availability of a pipeline of prospective talent is important. It is important to look deeper into the labor market, identifying more clearly levels of educational attainment and the percentage of the potential labor force that is currently unemployed.

OF NOTE: Moving Tampa Bay’s performance in this indicator from 74.9% to to the median of the cohort, 79.6%, equates to an additional 110,000 labor force participants.

Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2016 1-Year Estimates, Table S2301

Mpls-St. Paul 85.0%

Austin 82.6%

Denver 82.5%

Raleigh-Durham 81.9%

Baltimore 80.9%

Seattle 80.3% “The talent pipeline is

Dallas-Ft. Worth 80.0% continuous, and if one Atlanta 79.7% part of it breaks down, Portland 79.7% the rest of it can suffer. St. Louis 79.7% Furthermore, as Charlotte 79.5% technology changes, the South Florida 79.1% demand for talent is Nashville 78.9%

San Diego 78.8% always evolving.”

Orlando 78.3%

Houston 78.2%

Jacksonville 77.3%

San Antonio 76.5%

Phoenix 76.2%

Tampa Bay 74.9%

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org 41 FLORIDA TALENT INDICATORS

ONE OF THE TENETS of the Regional Competitiveness WHAT: The indicators measure a collection of capstone and Report is that, to the extent possible, indicators are other assessments generally viewed as markers of academic measured, between communities, on an apples-to-apples progress and content mastery.

TALENT basis. For many key indicators of primary and secondary WHY: Content mastery and passage of the relevant exams education, no national data is available at the metro allows for progression through the education “pipeline.” Con- level. However, due to the importance of regional talent versely, failure to meet these standards may preclude student for economic competitiveness and prosperity, and the advancement, from one grade to the next, from secondary frequency with which certain K-12 education metrics school to an institution of higher education, and from school into were cited as important by subject matter experts and a job with family-sustaining wages.

stakeholders alike, we present select indicators – with a Sources: All Data from Florida Department of Education; EDStats Portal (Flor- focus on STEM – of student performance for the Floridian ida Standards Assessment, and End Of Course exam), 2016-2017 Academic Year; Florida Department of Education, Office of Accountability and Policy markets within the comparison cohort. We look forward to Research (Advanced Placement and SAT Score Data), 2013-2014 Academic Year reporting appropriate and meaningful K-12 education data for metros in different states, should it become available.

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS FLORIDA MATH FLORIDA STANDARDS STANDARDS ASSESSMENT: SCORE OF 3 OR BETTER ASSESSMENT: SCORE OF 3 OR BETTER

WHAT: Measures the weighted average share of 3rd, 8th, WHAT: Measures the weighted average share of 3rd and 10th grade students with a passing score of 3 or better - and 8th grade students with a passing score of 3 or better - maximum score is 5 - on the assessment. Data for maximum score is 5 - on the assessment. Data for 2016-2017 Academic Year. 2016-2017 Academic Year.

Jacksonville 56.8% Jacksonville 59.5%

South Florida 54.8% South Florida 57.8%

Orlando 53.9% Orlando 54.6%

Tampa Bay 52.7% Tampa Bay 53.2%

BIOLOGY 1 END OF COURSE EXAM: COMPOSITE SAT SCORES SCORE OF 3 OR BETTER

WHAT: Measures the share of Biology 1 students (they WHAT: Measures the average score on the SAT college may be in any grade) with a passing score of 3 or better - entrance examinations administered in 2014; maximum maximum score is 5 - on the end of course exam. Data for score 2400. 2016-2017 Academic Year.

Jacksonville 69.45% Orlando 1462

South Florida 63.61% Tampa Bay 1448

Orlando 63.30% Jacksonville 1442

Tampa Bay 60.78% South Florida 1373

42 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT TALENT

ALGEBRA 1 END OF COURSE EXAM: SCIENCE FLORIDA STANDARDS SCORE OF 3 OR BETTER ASSESSMENT: SCORE OF 3 OR BETTER

WHAT: Measures the share of Algebra 1 students (they WHAT: Measures the weighted average share of 5th may be in any grade) with a passing score of 3 or better - and 8th grade students with a passing score of 3 or better - maximum score is 5 - on the end of course exam. Data for maximum score is 5 - on the assessment. Data for 2016-2017 Academic Year. 2016-2017 Academic Year.

Jacksonville 71.4% Jacksonville 55.56%

South Florida 59.3% Orlando 49.97%

Tampa Bay 59.1% Tampa Bay 48.88%

Orlando 53.5% South Florida 47.71%

AP EXAMINATIONS: TESTING RATE AP EXAMINATIONS: PASSING RATE

WHAT: Measures the share of high school students who WHAT: Measures the share of passing scores (defined as a took an Advanced Placement exam in 2014. score of 3 or better out of 5 maximum) on Advanced Place- ment tests - students may take multiple tests in one year - as a percentage of examinations taken.

Orlando 27.17% South Florida 49.27%

Jacksonville 24.45% Orlando 46.33%

South Florida 24.00% Jacksonville 45.97%

Tampa Bay 22.77% Tampa Bay 44.57%

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org 43 CIVIC QUALITY CIVIC QUALITY

A HEALTHY AND INVOLVED CITIZENRY, safe and clean enough to do here after work and on the weekends? What environment and efficient support infrastructure all impact is the availability and affordability of healthcare? the quality of life within a region. Just about everybody who lives in a community has a choice — whether to stay or Together, the indicators presented under “Civic Quality” leave. As they reflect on their quality of life, and consider help to drive a feeling of satisfaction and pride in the com- other communities in comparison, they each ask funda- munity. These indicators directly impact outputs such as mental and personal questions: “net migration,” which measures the ability of a community to retain its existing population and attract new residents Do I feel safe here? Is the air I breathe clean? Are my hous- and, in turn, the companies relying on those citizens as a ing and transportation costs in line with my income? Are market, talent pool, or both. people engaged in the community and its future? Is there

LIST OF INDICATORS

 1 Crime Rate per 100,000 Residents  2 Violent Crime Rate per 100,000 Residents  3 Median Daily Air Quality Index  4 Housing Affordability - Costs as a Percent of Income  5 Transportation Affordability - Costs as a Percent of Income  6 Cultural & Recreational Establishments per 10,000 Residents  7 Primary Care Physicians per 10,000 residents  8 Health Insurance Coverage Rate 9 Share of Children in Foster Care

44 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT CIVIC QUALITY SUMMARY OF CIVIC QUALITY INDICATORS

INDICATORS (numbers refer to list on left)  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 9

Tampa Bay CIVIC QUALITY

Atlanta

Austin

Baltimore

Charlotte

Dallas-Ft. Worth

Denver

Houston

Jacksonville

Mpls-St. Paul

Nashville

Orlando

Phoenix

Portland n/a n/a

Raleigh-Durham

San Antonio

San Diego Rank 1-4 BEST Seattle Rank 5-8

South Florida Rank 9-12 Rank 13-16 St. Louis Rank 17-20 WORST

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org 45 VIOLENT CRIME RATE CRIME RATE PER 100,000 RESIDENTS PER 100,000 RESIDENTS

WHAT: Measures the rate of eight major crimes (including WHAT: Measures the rate of violent crime (including murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and murder, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault) per aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle 100,000 residents. theft) against person and property per 100,000 residents. WHY: A high rate of violent crime generates many other WHY: Provides a broad measure of safety and security. consequences, including: a reduction in property values; According to the FBI, some of the factors that may influence increased costs of law enforcement and prosecution; and a crime rates include levels of urbanization, rates of divorce negative impact on the image of the community and the ability and single-parent households, population stability, poverty to retain and attract new investment, jobs, and residents. CIVIC QUALITY rates, law enforcement funding and the community’s attitude Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Report, Crime in towards crime. the United States by Metropolitan Statistical Area, 2016 Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Report, Crime in the United States by Metropolitan Statistical Area, 2016

Raleigh-Durham 1,479 Raleigh-Durham 170

Charlotte 1,843 Mpls-St. Paul 285

San Diego 2,254 Austin 288

Mpls-St. Paul 2,653 Charlotte 322

Dallas-Ft. Worth 2,892 Seattle 324

Tampa Bay 2,900 San Diego 332

Austin 2,961 Dallas-Ft. Worth 338

St. Louis 3,019 Denver 363

Nashville 3,193 Tampa Bay 381

Phoenix 3,213 Phoenix 389

Baltimore 3,250 Atlanta 401

Jacksonville 3,445 San Antonio 437

Atlanta 3,471 St. Louis 486

Orlando 3,636 Jacksonville 494

South Florida 3,796 South Florida 510

Denver 3,816 Orlando 530

Seattle 4,176 Houston 567

San Antonio 4,390 Nashville 613

Houston 4,824 Baltimore 625

Portland n/a Portland n/a

46 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT MEDIAN DAILY AIR QUALITY INDEX

WHAT: The EPA’s Air Quality Index (AQI) measures five main pollutants and provides an indicator of overall air quality. The Median AQI means that half of daily AQI values during the year were less than or equal to the median value, and half equaled or exceeded it.

WHY: The AQI is an indicator of environmental health and population health outcomes, particularly for children and seniors. Ground-level ozone, or smog, and particle pollution pose CIVIC QUALITY a significant health risk to humans. Poor air quality can harm a community’s image and impact population migration and the retention and attraction of new companies and jobs.

Source: Environmental Protection Agency, Air Quality Index Report, 2016

Portland 35

Austin 42

Orlando 42

Seattle 42

San Antonio 43

Tampa Bay 43

Jacksonville 44

Nashville 45

Raleigh-Durham 45

Charlotte 46 “A healthy and involved

Dallas-Ft. Worth 48 citizenry, safe and South Florida 48 clean environment and Baltimore 49 efficient support Mpls-St. Paul 50 infrastructure all St. Louis 51 impact the quality of life Houston 52 within a region.“ Atlanta 57

Denver 60

San Diego 66

Phoenix 74

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org 47 AFFORDABILITY: COSTS AS A PERCENT OF INCOME

WHAT: The Center for Neighborhood Technology calculates housing and transportation costs as a percentage of income, taking into account regional demographic and socio-economic data.

WHY: The “affordability” of a community cannot be assessed by just looking at the cost of housing or transportation. Those costs must be viewed in the context of the income that can be earned in the community.

OF NOTE: In both Housing and Transportation Affordability, it is low household income, rather than high costs, that result in Tampa Bay’s relatively low ranking. CIVIC QUALITY Source: Center for Neighborhood Technology, Housing + Transportation Affordability Index

Housing Affordability Transportation Affordability MEDIAN ANNUAL COSTS HOUSEHOLD (costs as a % of income) INCOME Housing Transportation 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Mpls-St. Paul $68,778 $17,796 $13,430 Mpls-St. Paul

St. Louis $55,066 $14,952 $12,721 St. Louis

Raleigh-Durham $59,032 $16,124 $13,476 Raleigh-Durham

San Antonio $53,112 $14,508 $13,042 San Antonio

Denver $65,614 $17,976 $13,140 Denver

Charlotte $53,076 $14,580 $13,241 Charlotte

Houston $59,649 $16,452 $13,064 Houston

Dallas-Ft.Worth $59,946 $16,716 $12,896 Dallas-Ft. Worth

Nashville $54,047 $15,108 $13,292 Nashville

Austin $63,437 $18,024 $13,477 Austin

Atlanta $57,000 $16,236 $13,227 Atlanta

Baltimore $70,936 $20,364 $12,782 Baltimore

Phoenix $53,723 $15,480 $12,915 Phoenix

Seattle $70,475 $20,808 $13,589 Seattle

Portland $60,286 $17,856 $13,349 Portland

Jacksonville $51,998 $15,576 $12,657 Jacksonville

Orlando $48,768 $15,756 $12,796 Orlando

Tampa Bay $46,165 $16,005 $11,820 Tampa Bay

San Diego $64,309 $22,632 $14,250 San Diego

South Florida $48,745 $18,828 $11,834 South Florida

48 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT HOUSING AFFORDABILITY TRANSPORTATION AFFORDABILITY

WHAT: Housing costs include: mortgage payments, real estate WHAT: Transportation costs include: automobile ownership, taxes, property insurance, utilities, fuels, mobile home costs and automobile usage and transit usage. condominium fees. WHY: The cost of transportation must be viewed in the context WHY: By the general rule-of-thumb, housing costs should of the income that can be earned in the community. Transpor- not exceed 30 percent of a household’s total income. However, tation costs are, generally, a family’s second highest expense, in many cities across the country, families spend a sizable share behind housing. As transportation costs rise, due to congestion of income on rent, mortgage payments, utilities and other hous- and access to jobs, it’s important to be aware of how this key ing-related expenses. As housing costs climb in some areas, household expense is increasing or decreasing relative to other CIVIC QUALITY wages have failed to keep pace and this discrepancy may put a cities in the U.S. large segment of the population at risk. Source: Center for Neighborhood Technology, Housing + Transportation Source: Center for Neighborhood Technology, Housing + Transportation Affordability Index Affordability Index

Mpls-St. Paul 26% Baltimore 18%

St. Louis 27% Seattle 19%

Raleigh-Durham 27% Mpls-St. Paul 20%

San Antonio 27% Denver 20%

Denver 27% Austin 21%

Charlotte 27% Dallas-Ft. Worth 22%

Houston 28% Houston 22%

Dallas-Ft. Worth 28% Portland 22%

Nashville 28% San Diego 22%

Austin 28% Raleigh-Durham 23%

Atlanta 28% St. Louis 23%

Baltimore 29% Atlanta 23%

Phoenix 29% Phoenix 24%

Seattle 30% South Florida 24%

Portland 30% Jacksonville 24%

Jacksonville 30% San Antonio 25%

Orlando 32% Nashville 25%

Tampa Bay 35% Charlotte 25%

San Diego 35% Tampa Bay 26%

South Florida 39% Orlando 26%

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org 49 CULTURAL & RECREATIONAL PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIANS ESTABLISHMENTS PER 10,000 RESIDENTS PER 10,000 RESIDENTS

WHAT: Bureau of Labor Statistics documenting the number WHAT: This indicator represents the ratio of primary care of “arts, entertainment and recreation” businesses (NAICS 71) physicians to the population, according to data collected by in a region. the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Primary care phy- WHY: An indicator of the availability of enrichment activities sicians include practicing non-federal physicians (MDs and within a community. This is a key quality of life metric and DOs) under age 75 specializing in general practice medicine, important to retain and attract a younger generation of talent. family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics. The ratio represents the number of physicians per 10,000 residents of

CIVIC QUALITY Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and an area. Wages, 2016 Private Employer Annual Data WHY: Provides a high-level indicator to track access to healthcare in the community.

Source: County Health Rankings, 2017 Data

Nashville 7.25 Portland 9.67

South Florida 5.64 Baltimore 9.62

Orlando 4.94 Seattle 9.07

Mpls-St. Paul 4.62 Mpls-St. Paul 8.86

Denver 4.60 Raleigh-Durham 8.76

Charlotte 4.59 Denver 8.18

Portland 4.49 Jacksonville 7.73

Austin 4.31 San Diego 7.70

Seattle 4.27 South Florida 7.61

Baltimore 4.04 St. Louis 7.60

Tampa Bay 4.01 Nashville 7.21

Raleigh-Durham 4.01 Orlando 7.07

Jacksonville 3.99 Tampa Bay 6.96

Atlanta 3.70 Austin 6.90

San Diego 3.47 Charlotte 6.89

St. Louis 3.40 Atlanta 6.65

Dallas-Ft. Worth 2.65 San Antonio 6.38

Phoenix 2.48 Phoenix 6.34

San Antonio 2.37 Dallas-Ft. Worth 6.23

Houston 2.23 Houston 5.74

50 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE RATE SHARE OF CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE

WHAT: Measures the share of the population with health WHAT: This metric indicates the number of children living in insurance – either private or public – within a region. non-related (not with parents or other relatives, for example) households divided by the number of all children residing WHY: A measurement of general health care access. A higher within households. share of insurance coverage within a community can manifest in better health care outcomes and potentially reduce reliance WHY: Monitoring the number of children in foster care is a ba- on urgent-care facilities for non-emergency medical issues. The rometer of societal issues that may be developing in a community. share of residents with health insurance may also be an indirect According to research by the American Academy of Pediatrics, most indicator of job quality within a region. foster children have been victims of repeated abuse and prolonged CIVIC QUALITY neglect. Beyond serving as an indicator of potentially chronic Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey, societal problems, foster children may require intensive assistance 2016 1-Year Estimates, Table S2701 and support from public and private people and institutions.

Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2016 1-Year Estimates, Table S0901

Mpls-St. Paul 96.14% Austin 1.0%

Baltimore 94.96% Dallas-Ft. Worth 1.0%

Seattle 94.69% Orlando 1.0%

Portland 94.67% San Antonio 1.2%

St. Louis 93.66% South Florida 1.2%

San Diego 92.49% Houston 1.3%

Denver 92.47% Charlotte 1.4%

Nashville 91.26% Mpls-St. Paul 1.4%

Raleigh-Durham 91.03% Seattle 1.4%

Charlotte 90.48% Atlanta 1.5%

Jacksonville 89.95% Nashville 1.5%

Phoenix 89.94% Raleigh-Durham 1.5%

Tampa Bay 88.31% Denver 1.6%

Austin 87.80% San Diego 1.7%

Orlando 87.68% Baltimore 1.8%

Atlanta 87.40% Jacksonville 2.0%

San Antonio 85.97% Phoenix 2.0%

South Florida 85.31% St. Louis 2.0%

Dallas-Ft. Worth 84.44% Tampa Bay 2.2%

Houston 82.76% Portland 2.2%

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org 51 OUTCOMES OUTCOMES

THE OUTCOMES PRESENTED HERE provide a high-level people who have full time jobs but are not earning enough dashboard to assess the progress the community is making to meet basic needs. It looks at gross regional product, but to compete and prosper. These are all “lagging” indicators, more importantly at gross regional product per capita — to meaning they are the result of many factors represented in measure our community’s performance relative to the peer part by the dozens of indicators presented in this report. and aspirational communities we’ve selected for comparison.

Also, the outcomes seek to reveal the underpinnings of a How our community performs relative to these key data competitive and prosperous community. For example, the points will clearly signal the progress we are making report assesses the overall poverty rate, but it also views towards our ultimate goal — to create a competitive and the level of childhood poverty. The report documents the prosperous region. unemployment rate, but it also looks at the “working poor,”

“How our community LIST OF INDICATORS performs relative to these  1 Youth Poverty Rate  2 Poverty Rate key data points will clearly  3 Full-Time Worker Poverty Rate signal the progress we are  4 Net Migration making towards our  5 Millennial In-Migration ultimate goal ultimate goal  6 Annual GRP Growth — to create a competitive  7 Per Capita GRP and prosperous region.”  8 Unemployment Rate

52 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT OUTCOMES SUMMARY OF OUTCOME INDICATORS

INDICATORS (as listed on previous page) OUTCOMES  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8

Tampa Bay

Atlanta

Austin

Baltimore

Charlotte

Dallas-Ft. Worth

Denver

Houston

Jacksonville

Mpls-St. Paul

Nashville

Orlando

Phoenix

Portland

Raleigh-Durham

San Antonio

San Diego Rank 1-4 BEST Seattle Rank 5-8

South Florida Rank 9-12 Rank 13-16 St. Louis Rank 17-20 WORST

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org 53 YOUTH POVERTY RATE & POVERTY RATE FULL-TIME WORKER POVERTY RATE

WHAT: Measures two closely related outcomes: youth WHAT: Measures the share of individuals who work full-time poverty and poverty. Poverty measures the percentage of the during the year who are at less than 100 percent of the federal population that is living below the federal poverty level, as poverty rate. defined by the U.S. Census Bureau (income thresholds vary by Despite participating in the economy as workers, some family size). Youth poverty measures the share of the popu- WHY: OUTCOMES individuals, and the households they support, have difficulty lation, below 18-years-old, living in a household with income escaping poverty. below the federal poverty level. The combination table below presents both indicators, ranked by youth poverty rate. OF NOTE: The federal poverty standard is considered to be the bare-minimum “survival” income required by a household. WHY: High levels of overall poverty may translate into home- Studies have shown this working population lives paycheck to lessness, crime, illiteracy and poor health. High levels of youth paycheck, and an unexpected financial hardship can turn their poverty may translate into lower education and job achieve- lives into chaos, including bankruptcy and homelessness. ment and a host of negative behavioral issues. Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2016 1-Year Estimates, Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2016 1-Year Table S1703 Estimates, Table B17001 Youth Poverty Rate Poverty Rate 0 05 10 15 20 %

Minneapolis Seattle 1.3%

Seattle Baltimore 1.4%

Denver Mpls-St. Paul 1.6%

Austin Denver 2.1%

Baltimore Charlotte 2.3%

Portland Portland 2.3%

Raleigh-Durham St. Louis 2.4%

Nashville Raleigh-Durham 2.5%

St. Louis Jacksonville 2.5%

San Diego Nashville 2.5%

Jacksonville San Diego 2.6%

Charlotte Austin 2.7%

Dallas Tampa Bay 3.0%

Atlanta Atlanta 3.1%

San Antonio Dallas-Ft. Worth 3.3%

Orlando Orlando 3.5%

Tampa Bay Phoenix 3.6%

South Florida San Antonio 3.7%

Houston South Florida 3.8%

Phoenix Houston 4.1%

54 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT NET MIGRATION MILLENNIAL IN-MIGRATION

WHAT: Calculated as population change, less the net effect of WHAT: The figure represents the share of the population age natural increase (births minus deaths), relative to the population 25-34 that did not live in the region the year before. as a whole. WHY: The population age 25-34 currently makes up the core WHY: Population growth attributable to migration indicates of the Millennial generation, roughly defined as those born be- that people are moving to a community because of its attributes tween the early 1980s and the mid-1990s and among the largest OUTCOMES and assets. In-migration of well-educated individuals supports population groups in the country. This age cohort, generally innovative industries by supplying diverse and in-demand skill young workers starting and accelerating their careers, is a key sets. Employers view population growth as positive because it input to regional economic performance and sought after by generally means the labor pool is expanding. Along with popula- many employers, economic developers, and civic and business tion growth, however, comes the demand for increased govern- organizations. ment services, including social services, transportation and other Source: American Community Survey, 2016 1-Year Estimates, Public Use infrastructure needs. Microdata Sample Source: Census Bureau, Estimates of the Components of Resident Population Change: July 1, 2015 to July 1, 2016

Austin 2.02% Raleigh-Durham 10.52%

Orlando 1.97% Charlotte 10.05%

Tampa Bay 1.96% Austin 10.01%

Raleigh-Durham 1.78% Jacksonville 9.62%

Jacksonville 1.64% Orlando 9.59%

Charlotte 1.54% Denver 9.50%

Nashville 1.39% Baltimore 9.26%

Phoenix 1.37% Mpls-St. Paul 9.04%

Seattle 1.35% Portland 8.96%

San Antonio 1.28% San Diego 8.81%

Portland 1.23% Seattle 8.79%

Dallas-Ft. Worth 1.21% Nashville 8.21%

Denver 0.96% San Antonio 7.82%

Atlanta 0.96% Tampa Bay 7.63%

Houston 0.95% Phoenix 7.40%

South Florida 0.81% Houston 6.87%

Mpls-St. Paul 0.32% Atlanta 6.67%

San Diego 0.19% Dallas-Ft. Worth 6.47%

Baltimore -0.09% St. Louis 6.38%

St. Louis -0.26% South Florida 5.84%

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org 55 ANNUAL GROSS REGIONAL PRODUCT (GRP) GROWTH RATE

WHAT: Measures the year-to-year change, in real terms, in the value of all goods and services produced in a region.

WHY: Regarded as a comprehensive, high-level measure of the overall output and growth of the regional economy. Nearly universally utilized in the benchmarking reports examined in our research. OUTCOMES OF NOTE: At 3.85%, Tampa Bay’s GRP grew roughly 42% faster in the 2015-2016 period vis-à-vis the 2014-2015 period.

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Data, Real GDP in Chained Dollars, 2015-2016

GROSS REGIONAL PRODUCT ANNUAL GRP GROWTH (MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)

2015 2016 $M %

Austin $119,914 $125,816 $5,902 4.92% Austin 4.92%

Seattle $281,373 $293,551 $12,178 4.33% Seattle 4.33%

Tampa Bay $166,331 $172,736 $6,405 3.85% Tampa Bay 3.85%

Atlanta $308,761 $320,171 $11,410 3.70% Atlanta 3.70%

Charlotte $136,196 $140,815 $4,619 3.39% Charlotte 3.39%

Nashville $105,809 $109,379 $3,570 3.37% Nashville 3.37%

Jacksonville $60,646 $62,552 $1,906 3.14% Jacksonville 3.14%

San Antonio $106,032 $109,348 $3,316 3.13% San Antonio 3.13%

Dallas-Ft. Worth $457,409 $471,278 $13,869 3.03% Dallas-Ft. Worth 3.03%

Portland $147,412 $151,817 $4,405 2.99% Portland 2.99%

South Florida $280,390 $287,775 $7,385 2.63% South Florida 2.63%

Phoenix $198,049 $203,253 $5,204 2.63% Phoenix 2.63%

Denver $176,148 $180,446 $4,298 2.44% Denver 2.44%

Baltimore $160,687 $164,545 $3,858 2.40% Baltimore 2.40%

Raleigh-Durham $106,648 $109,113 $2,465 2.31% Raleigh-Durham 2.31%

Orlando $109,345 $111,767 $2,422 2.22% Orlando 2.22%

St. Louis $139,580 $140,712 $1,132 0.81% St. Louis 0.81%

Mpls-St. Paul $215,881 $217,566 $1,685 0.78% Mpls-St. Paul 0.78%

San Diego $189,998 $190,656 $658 0.35% San Diego 0.35%

Houston $456,245 $442,458 $(13,787) -3.02% Houston -3.02%

56 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT PER CAPITA GROSS REGIONAL PRODUCT UNEMPLOYMENT RATE

WHAT: This measurement divides the Gross Regional Product, WHAT: Measures the share of the labor force that is jobless. the value of all goods and services produced in the region by the Generally, an individual is considered unemployed if he or she is population of the region. willing and able to work, but unable to find a job.

WHY: Measuring the GRP on a per capita basis provides WHY: The unemployment rate provides a measure of the over- OUTCOMES another way to measure the performance of one region relative all growth or contraction of the economy, and the level of oppor- to other regions. An increase in this measurement indicates tunity available to its citizens. Rising unemployment indicates a economic growth, not directly related to population growth, and weakening of the economy, with correspondingly lower levels of increased prosperity and productivity. confidence and spending. A decrease in unemployment has the opposite impact. Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Data, Per Capita Real GDP 2016 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics, April 2017

Seattle $77,273 Denver 2.1%

Houston $65,332 Nashville 2.8%

Dallas-Ft. Worth $65,154 Austin 3.2%

Denver $63,246 Mpls-St. Paul 3.3%

Portland $62,606 Seattle 3.3%

Mpls-St. Paul $61,268 Portland 3.4%

Austin $61,183 Orlando 3.6%

Baltimore $58,789 San Antonio 3.6%

Nashville $58,639 Raleigh-Durham 3.7%

Raleigh-Durham $58,585 St. Louis 3.7%

San Diego $57,465 Dallas-Ft. Worth 3.8%

Charlotte $56,911 San Diego 3.8%

Atlanta $55,300 Jacksonville 3.9%

St. Louis $50,129 Phoenix 3.9%

South Florida $47,438 Tampa Bay 3.9%

Orlando $45,783 Charlotte 4.0%

San Antonio $45,006 Baltimore 4.1%

Phoenix $43,602 South Florida 4.4%

Jacksonville $42,316 Atlanta 4.5%

Tampa Bay $37,305 Houston 5.8%

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org 57 THIS CHART PRESENTS THE QUINTILE (five equal Generally, Tampa Bay is most competitive within the groups) rankings of each indicator for each community indicators of Economic Vitality, and the university-led in an “at a glance” fashion. While we discourage the Innovation indicators. Select indicators of Infrastruc- reader from drawing an “overall” ranking, or “score,” ture (Congestion, Share of Commuters with >60 minute darker shades of each color indicate a more competi- Commute) and Civic Quality (Crime, Violent Crime, Air tive position relative to the comparison markets. Quality) also reflect relatively strong performance.

Rank 1-4 BEST Rank 5-8 Rank 9-12 Rank 13-16 Rank 17-20 WORST

Growth

INDICATOR SUMMARY Traffic

Passenger

Job GrowthAverage Rate WageAverage WageBusiness Service MedianEstablishment Sector HouseholdMedian Start HouseholdMean Net Rate Worth Household Advanced Income IncomeAdvanced Industry LowestMerchandise JobsIndustry ShareQuintileExisting GRP Exports Growth HomeUniversity Growth Rate Sales RatePriceUniversity R&D Growth ExpendituresPatents Technology Rate perSBIR/STTR 10,000 Licensing ResidentsAwardsBicycle per and CapitaPavement PedestrianWalkability Condition SafetyCommuteCommuters Time Transit with Vehicle > Transit 60 Minute Revenue RidershipDriving Commute Miles Time AirlinePer Per CapitaSpent Capita in Congestion Tampa Bay

Atlanta

n/a Austin

Baltimore

Charlotte

Dallas-Ft.Worth

n/a Denver

Houston

Jacksonville

Mpls-St. Paul

Nashville

Orlando

Phoenix

Portland (OR)

Raleigh-Durham

n/a San Antonio

San Diego

Seattle

South Florida

St. Louis

ECONOMIC VITALITY INNOVATION INFRASTRUCTURE

58 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT In terms of opportunity for growth and improvement, In terms of Outcomes, Tampa Bay performs well in the the Talent driver shows no shortage of areas in which the aggregate measures - migration, GRP growth - yet lags community might choose to examine, understand, and significantly in more individual metrics of poverty and per engage. Wages, Incomes, and Transit metrics also lag the capita GRP. comparison markets, and deserve priority attention. We look forward to collectively digging into these rankings, analyzing the supporting data, and engaging in strategies to create a more competitive and prosperous Tampa Bay.

Income of

Income of Percent a

as Percent a as Costs -

Costs -

Affordability

UniversityUniversity R&D ExpendituresPatents Technology perSBIR/STTR 10,000 Licensing ResidentsAwardsBicycle per and CapitaPavement PedestrianWalkability Condition SafetyCommuteCommuters Time Transit with Vehicle > Transit 60 Minute Revenue RidershipDriving Commute Miles Time AirlinePer Per CapitaSpent PassengerCapita in Congestion Traffic Growth Share of 3High & 4 SchoolYearHigh Olds Graduation School EnrolledShare Graduation Rateofin PopulationDegreeSchool Rate ProductionSTEM Age- Economically Degree 16-24Educational per Neither Production 10,000 DisadvantagedEducational EmployedAttainmentResidents perEducational 10,000 Attainment nor Rate EnrolledAge Residents - AttainmentAA/AS+ 25-34 Rate inLabor Educational School- BA/BS+ RateForce - CrimeGraduate/ProfessionalParticipation Attainment RateViolent per RateRate 100,000 Crime Median-Age BA/BS+ 25-64Rate Residents DailyHousing per Air100,000 QualityTransportation Residents IndexCultural &Primary Recreational CareHealth Physicians Establishments InsuranceShare ofper CoverageChildren 10,000 perYouth 10,000 residentsin Rate Foster Poverty ResidentsPoverty Care Rate RateFull-TimeNet Worker Migration PovertyMillennial RateAnnual In-Migration GRPPer Growth CapitaUnemployment GRP Rate Tampa Bay

Atlanta

Austin

Baltimore

Charlotte

Dallas-Ft.Worth

Denver

Houston

Jacksonville

Mpls-St. Paul

Nashville

Orlando

Phoenix

Portland (OR) n/a n/a

Raleigh-Durham

San Antonio

San Diego

Seattle

South Florida

St. Louis n/a

TALENT CIVIC QUALITY OUTCOMES

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org 59 Where Are We Going? Delve Deeply Into Data With the inaugural Regional Competitiveness The parallel effort of the University of South Florida’s Muma College of Business and its Center for Analytics Report finalized, we turn our attention to the and Creativity represent a major advancement in the future of the project, and the improvements field of community benchmarking: pairing a common- and impacts we strive to achieve. data correlation analysis and forecast to the snapshot presented in this document. We look forward to a Continued Collaboration for Collective Impact thorough analysis of the correlations between the

NEXT STEPS The Community Foundation of Tampa Bay, Tampa leading indicators represented in our drivers and the Bay Partnership, and United Way Suncoast began this lagging indicators represented in our outcomes in journey in 2016 to develop not just a report, but a order to best understand where collective impact will tool for community leaders and others to identify the have its highest returns. critical opportunities for our region’s improvement and to prioritize resources to that end. With a shared Develop an Enhanced User Experience understanding of our community’s strengths and We will seek ways to make the data more accessible, weaknesses, these three organizations, along with and customizable, for civic leaders and policy makers. others that will join along the way, commit to working Potential enhancements include user-defined drill- together on specific issues to achieve common goals. downs on the data, to include benchmarking across smaller geographies, multi-media vignettes showcasing Refine Community Benchmarking Processes local and national best practices in “moving the needle” As we move into implementation, we will continue on the key metrics, and a portal for the community to identify potential new indicators and improve the change agents and others to submit suggestions quality of existing indicators. In addition to continued for indicators and highlight the work they do and engagement with our stakeholders, we look forward the results they achieve in the driver categories of to convening a diverse, community-based indicators Economic Vitality, Innovation, Infrastructure, Talent, working group to aid in this effort. and Civic Quality.

60 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT THE DEVELOPMENT AND RELEASE of the Regional Competitiveness Report built upon earlier efforts and could not have occurred without the engaged support of community leaders.

This project and report expands and advances previous Tampa Bay efforts such as the Economic Market Report and Regional Economic Scorecard. Very sincerely, we thank and acknowledge the work of previous volunteer leaders and staff of both the Tampa Bay Partnership and the former University of South Florida Center for Economic Development Research (CEDR).

The strategic vision and leadership of Chuck Sykes, President & CEO of Sykes Enterprises, and chair of the Regional Indicators Task Force, cannot be acknowledged enough. Therefore, we’ll quite simply say that we can’t imagine this project happening without him.

Regional Indicators Tom Corona, Marty Lanahan, Amy F. Rettig, Task Force Members* Central Florida Managing West Florida Area SVP of Public Affairs, Partner, Deloitte & Executive, Regions Bank Nielsen Robbie Artz, Touche, LLP Director, Strategy and Rhea F. Law, Nick Setteducato, Development, Tampa David Doney, Chair, Florida Offices, -Bu Associate VP Resource Bay Rays Partner, Akerman LLP chanan Ingersoll & Rooney Management & Analysis, University of South Florida Michael Baughen, Nathaniel Doliner, Mark R. Lilly,

Executive Director - Market Shareholder, Carlton Fields Market President, Op- Marlene Spalten, ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Executive, JPMorgan Chase Jorden Burt, P.A. tumCare Florida, United- President & CEO, Healthcare of Florida, Inc. Community Foundation Len Becker, Lee H. Evans, of Tampa Bay Vice President, West Executive Director and Chad Loar, Florida, HNTB Corp. Head of North America Regional President, Matt Spence, Capability Center, Florida West, PNC Bank Vice President, Community David Call, Bristol-Myers Squibb Impact, Community Foun- Regional President, Florida, Suzanne McCormick, dation of Tampa Bay Fifth Third Bank Gina Gallo, President & CEO, United VP, Planning & Operations, Way Suncoast William Walsh, Gino Casanova, United Way Suncoast Vice President, Strategy & Director of Administrative Seth McKeel, Development, Tampa and Governmental Affairs, Scott Garlick, Managing Partner, Bay Rays Florida Hospital Managing Principal, Cush- Southern Strategy Group man & Wakefield of Florida Chuck Warrington, Robert Clifford, David Pizzo, Managing Director & Vice President and Tampa Brett Lafferty, Market President, West Executive Officer, Area Manager, WSP USA VP Finance, Frontier Florida, Florida Blue Clearwater Gas System Communications David Cohen, Dr. Ed Rafalski, Melanie Williams, General Counsel, Tampa Chief Marketing & Senior Vice President Bay Buccaneers Strategy Officer, Operations, Southeast BayCare Health System Area, Frontier Communications

We offer extra recognition to the executive leadership and senior staff of our primary collaborating partners. From the Community Foundation of Tampa Bay, Marlene Spalten and Matt Spence; From United Way Suncoast, Suzanne McCormick and Gina Gallo. Thank you for your significant contributions of time, talent, and financial resources.

The Tampa Bay Partnership, with the support of all listed above, led the development of this report. Rick Homans, President and CEO, leads a team that was “all-in” to execute the project all saw as critical to establishing the Partnership as the premier CEO-driven, regional public policy and advocacy organization. Thank you to: Jennifer Mikosky, VP of Strategic Communications and Outreach; Kelly Kavanaugh, CFO; Alexandra Ojeda, Manager of Public Policy and Advocacy Programs; Zach Thorn, Director of Advocacy; Kara Kissinger, Executive Assistant. Dave Sobush is the Partnership’s Director of Policy and Research and served as project manager for this initiative.

Graphic Design and Production: est u dio - 5 | www.estudio-5.com For more information: Tampa Bay Partnership Additional Research Support: Sarah Thomas, Michael Hartman 4300 W. Cypress Street; Suite 700 Tampa, FL 33607 * List includes individuals who attended at least one meeting of the Task Force. [email protected]

www.regionalcompetitiveness.org 61 ON BEHALF OF THE ENTIRE COLLABORATING TEAM, the authors wish to acknowledge and recognize the volunteer leadership, current as of October 1, 2017, of the Community Foundation of Tampa Bay, Tampa Bay Partnership, and United Way Suncoast. Thank you for your engagement within our community, and your commitment to a more competitive and prosperous Tampa Bay.

COMMUNITY FOUNDATION TAMPA BAY PARTNERSHIP TAMPA BAY PARTNERSHIP UNITED WAY SUNCOAST OF TAMPA BAY COUNCIL OF GOVERNORS LEADERSHIP COUNCIL BOARD OF DIRECTORS BOARD OF TRUSTEES RHEA LAW, CHAIR LEN BECKER ERIC BAILEY, CHAIR DONNA LONGHOUSE, CHAIR Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney HNTB Corp. CapTrust Allen Dell, P.A. BRIAN AULD BOB CLIFFORD CHARLENE AUSTIN MILES S. CAPRON Tampa Bay Rays WSP USA MISSION UNITED Advocate Retired, Capron Sales BRIAN AUNGST, SR. DAVID COHEN MIKE BRENNAN BETTY CASTOR Charter Communications Tampa Bay Buccaneers Ernst & Young Former President, University of South Florida MICHAEL BAUGHEN TOM CORONA BRIAN DEMING JPMorgan Chase Deloitte & Touche, LLP Tribridge PHILLIP E. CASEY Retired, Gerdau Ameristeel ROB BENNETT JIM DALY RAE DOWLING TECO Energy, Inc. BB&T Florida Power & Light PATRICIA DOUGLAS Retired, Bush Ross DAVID CALL DAVID DONEY BOB DUTKOWSKY Fifth Third Bank Akerman LLP Tech Data Corporation LAURENCE R. FASAN Sabal Trust SCOTT CATHCART KATIE DUTY MARK FERNANDEZ SunTrust Bank HDR Engineering, Inc. USAmeriBank BILL FRIES Hiregy LEE EVANS STEVE GRIGGS ESTELLA GRAY Bristol-Myers Squibb Tampa Bay Lightning Hill and Knowlton Strategies SUSANNA F. GRADY Retired, WEDU DR. JUDY GENSHAFT ANDREW HALL TIM HENNING University of South Florida AT&T Publix Super Markets LINDA C. HANNA Attorney RICHARD GONZMART JACK KOLOSKY KIMBERLY HOPPER Columbia Restaurant Group Moffitt Cancer Center Regions Bank LINDA D. HARTLEY Hill Ward Henderson BOBBY HARRIS SUZANNE MCCORMICK MARTY LANAHAN BlueGrace Logistics United Way Suncoast Regions Bank SETON T. HENGESBACH Hengesbach & Hengesbach TOMMY INZINA STEVE RANEY ROB LANE BayCare Health System Raymond James Bank Kerkering Barberio EDWARD F. KOREN Holland & Knight CHAD LOAR THOMAS REGNER BILL MERRILL PNC Bank Franklin Templeton Invest- Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timms, DR. LYDA T. LINDELL ments Furen & Ginsberg Community Advocate PETER MARMERSTEIN HCA West Florida AMY RETTIG PETE NORDEN ROBERT H. MOHR Nielsen I Heart Media Attorney DAVID PIZZO Florida Blue LARRY RICHEY DAVID PIZZO MARY ANNE REILLY Cushman & Wakefield Florida Blue Reilly, Fischer & Solomon, P.A. SCOTT RILEY of Florida Fintech PAUL REILLY RICHARD RIOS Raymond James Ameriprise Financial MICHAEL SCHULTZ Florida Hospital STUART ROGEL LANSING C. SCRIVEN Graylan Ventures Trenam Kemker BARRY SHEVLIN Vology KAREN RUSHING JOEL H. SHANE Clerk of the Circuit Court Ameriprise Financial CHUCK SYKES Sykes Enterprises, Inc. ALEX SINK JAMES R. STANGER United Way Worldwide Simon & Associates of Ray- TROY TAYLOR Advisory Board mond James Coca-Cola Beverages Florida BOB THOMPSON MIKE STARKEY JEFF VINIK Manatee Area Board Genesys Strategic Property Partners Representative

JENNIFER WILLIAMS RON WANEK DAN VIGNE Williams-Knust Group, Ashley Furniture Northern Trust SunTrust Thank you to DAVID WALKER SUE WILLIAMS Retired, Procter & Gambler Community Advocate

for its support of this report

MPO Board Meeting Summary Wednesday, January 10, 2018

CALL TO ORDER, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE & INVOCATION

Vice Chairman Cohen called the meeting to order at 9:03 a.m. and led the pledge of allegiance. In lieu of an invocation, a moment of silence was held. The meeting was convened on the 26th floor of the County Center.

Councilman Cohen read into the record two memorandums: 1) Chairman Miller was not feeling well and would not be in attendance; 2) Commissioner Sandra Murman will arrive late due to another appointment.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Mr. Sam Gibbons thanked board members for their efforts and commented on the BRT Proposal being predicated on Tampa Bay Next. He also stated that “Lexus Lanes” will not solve regional transportation problems.

COMMITTEE REPORTS, ONLINE COMMENTS

Ms. Gena Torres, MPO staff, read the various MPO Committee reports. Most of the committees held their annual elections and were briefed on the requirements of Government in the Sunshine and Public Records Laws by MPO Attorney Cameron Clark.

There was one Facebook comment that was received from Ms. Amanda Brown encouraging the MPO Board to push for increased spending on transit in 2018. Mr. Robert Sawallesh emailed expressing concerns about the intersection of Bruce B. Downs and the Veterans’ Hospital. His email was forwarded to Hillsborough County Public Works. Emails were received from Mr. Jose Menendez tracking local pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities. Mr. John McMahon, a hit and run victim, emailed wanting to get involved in changing road systems to protect people. Ms. Torres will reach out to him regarding Vision Zero efforts.

It was previously requested by Commissioner Kemp that staff provide quarterly crash data. Ms. Torres provided information and will be back in March for an update.

Commissioner Kemp pointed out that Vision Zero in New York is one of the only places in the nation where pedestrian deaths have decreased at a big rate. She suggested looking at what other locations are doing to improve their situations.

CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes – December 5, 2017 B. Committee Appointments C. Legislative Message for Transportation Disadvantaged Day

A motion was made by Mr. Trent Green to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Pat Kemp and carried unanimously. MPO Meeting of January 10, 2018 – Page 1

STATUS REPORTS

A. St. Petersburg Central Avenue BRT Project

Cassandra Borchers, Chief Development Officer at PSTA, provided information on the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service project in St. Petersburg’s Central Avenue corridor from downtown to the Gulf beaches. The 25% local match is coming from three local sources. Ms. Borchers recommended spending an evening in downtown St. Petersburg and taking the trolley that goes to St. Petersburg Beach. With BRT, they will be able to attract new events to the area, and it will cut the trip time from downtown to the beach to 35 minutes.

During the presentation, members inquired about the level of shielding from the climate in the station, the wait at the station, platform level of the station, and a real-time tracking application. Ms. Borchers stated there would be air conditioning and details have not been worked out regarding the stations. In addition, service would operate every fifteen minutes. The platform level would at the curb. A transit tracking application is not part of the project, but is being implemented separately.

There were additional questions regarding capacity and wi-fi on the bus. There will be wi-fi and PSTA is working with the City of St. Petersburg on capacity; it could be up to 40, since they are wanting to have bicycles on the bus instead of in front of the bus. They are hoping to open the service by the end of 2020. Ms. Borchers thanked the Department of Transportation for their funding support and help with the design.

B. MPO Regional Coordination & Best Practices Research Ray Chiaramonte, Executive Director of TBARTA, provided an update on the phases of the MPO Regional Coordination and Best Practices Research project which TBARTA is managing. The study, funded by FDOT, builds on the May 2017 Collaborative Labs workshop on regional transportation planning that was sponsored by the Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco MPOs. A second Collaborative Labs workshop is tentatively scheduled for May 18, 2018.

Beth Alden informed board members that a summary of their responses to the MPO Coordination and Regional Planning Best Practices Study questionnaire was included in the agenda packet, and has been provided to the consulting team.

C. Freight Logistics Zone Follow-Up

• FDOT Freight Program Overview - Brian Hunter, FDOT District 7 Coordinator, provided an update on the freight program. In-depth information on the Comprehensive Freight Improvement Database is available at tampabayfreight.com.

• U.S. 41 Improvement Project – Lilliam Escalera, FDOT Project Manager, provided information on the U.S. 41 at CSX Railroad Crossing and U.S. 41 at Pendola Point intersection improvement projects.

Commissioner Murman thanked FDOT for their progress on the CSX rail crossing overpass project and stated that she feels that the Freight Logistics Zone Plan has put us in a good position for federal and state funding.

Commissioner Kemp echoed Commissioner Murman’s comments and mentioned that HART cannot operate bus service on US 41 today because of the significant frequent delays at the rail crossing.

Mr. Charles Klug stated that the project is significant to Port Tampa Bay and thanked Ms. Alden for her leadership and working with the Polk TPO to develop the Freight Logistic Zone.

Commissioner Murman wanted to know if FDOT is working on a PD&E to widen U.S. 41 in some areas. Ed McKinney stated that a PD&E Study is being completed on U.S. 41 and it starts on the county line. MPO Meeting of January 10, 2018 – Page 2

D. 2045 Growth: Forecasts & Scenario Planning Shawn College, Planning Commission Staff, introduced the joint project between the Planning Commission and the MPO which develops population and employment forecasts for 2045. The MPO uses the information to develop its Long Range Transportation Plan and the Planning Commission uses it for land use recommendations. Local jurisdictions and county staff use it for planning infrastructure improvements.

Kevin Tilbury, the project’s consultant with Cambridge Systematics, provided the update. The project is an opportunity to see what Hillsborough County will look like in 30 years.

Following the presentation, Councilman Maniscalco commented on maintaining our infrastructure to handle capacity with continued growth.

Commissioner Kemp inquired about coordination and findings with other studies, such as the ULI and Tampa Bay Partnership Regional Competitiveness Study.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT

Ms. Beth Alden invited board members to attend an upcoming PlanHillsborough 2018 Strategic Planning Retreat. It will help to shape priorities for long range planning. The half day workshop is tentatively scheduled for the morning of March 30th. Additional information will be provided on the event.

Ms. Alden also invited members to attend the Gulf Coast Safe Streets Summit, which is scheduled for February 27, 2018 at the Glazer Children’s Museum. Staff is available to register members who are interested in attending.

The next Tampa Bay TMA Leadership Group meeting is scheduled for January 19, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. at the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority’s administrative office, located at 3201 Scherer Drive in St. Petersburg.

The next board meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. on the 26th Floor of the County Center.

OLD BUSINESS & NEW BUSINESS

There was no old or new business conducted.

ADJOURNMENT

A quorum was maintained for the duration of the meeting. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:13 a.m.

MPO Meeting of January 10, 2018 – Page 3

Committee Reports

Meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) on January 17 The committee approved and forwarded to the MPO Board:  TIP Amendment for I-4 Resurfacing  TIP Amendment for Safety Performance Measure & Target Setting. The committee concurred with starting with a baseline but hope to see the target moved lower as we move forward.  LRTP Amendment for I-275 Operational Improvements & Howard Frankland Bridge, with clarification on whether the express lane is slated to be a toll lane, general use lane, or other type of lane. They also passed motions on the following:  Expressing concern about a lack of transparency in the Regional Transit Feasibility Plan process, and requesting a presentation from HART and their consultant at the next CAC meeting.  Recommending that the MPO send a letter to Katharine Eagan thanking her for her service to HART and Hillsborough County. They also heard a report on the MPO’s Health Atlas, and after a review of attendance records for the past year, declared the CAC seats vacant for the Expressway Authority and the Transportation Disadvantaged Coordinating Board.

Meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) on January 22 The committee approved and forwarded to the MPO Board:  TIP Amendment for I-4 Resurfacing  TIP Amendment - Safety Performance Measure & Target Setting. The committee concurred with starting with a baseline but hope to see the target moved lower as we move forward.  LRTP Amendment – I-275 Operational Improvements & Howard Frankland Bridge. There were some questions on timing of the improvements. They also held an election of officers: o Jeff Sims, Chair o Mike Williams, Vice-Chair o Amber Dickerson, Officer at large The TAC also received presentations on: o FDOT’s Complete Streets Corridor Screening - The approach of classifying roadways by their context was supported by the committee as a better way to design than one-road fits all. o MPO’s Health Atlas - The representative from the Health Department Plan Hillsborough planhillsborough.org expressed appreciation of working with staff to create this very helpful [email protected] tool. Members agreed the easy access to maps overlaying 813 - 272 - 5940 transportation, health and environmental can have wide-spread use. 601 E Kennedy Blvd 18th floor Tampa, FL, 33602

Meeting of the Policy Committee on January 30 The committee approved and forwarded to the MPO Board:  TIP Amendment for I-4 Resurfacing  General Planning Consultant Agreement Amendment for Kittelson & Associates  MPO Chairs Coordinating Committee Interlocal Agreement Update They also discussed the process for the annual evaluation of the executive director with the MPO attorney, who will administer it; and they had a long conversation about the upcoming TMA Leadership Group meeting, at which some members would like to have more detailed information about the Regional Transit Feasibility Plan’s cost effectiveness calculations, opportunities for transit oriented development, and implications for HART and PSTA operations as well as local government financial commitments.

Meeting of the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) on January 10 The committee approved and forwarded to the MPO Board:  TIP Amendment - Safety Performance Measure & Target Setting. The committee concurred with starting with a baseline but hopes to see the target moved lower as we move forward, trending toward zero. They also declared two citizen at-large seats vacant, and elected officers: o Patrick Thorpe, Chair o Tony Monk, Vice Chair o James Shirk, Officer at Large They also received presentations on: o The Gasparilla Children’s Parade Bike Rodeo o Walk Bike Tampa’s 2017 Goal Review o The vision for the Long-Range Transportation Plan o The MPO’s Health Atlas Mapping Tool o Sunshine Law and Public Records Requirements

Meeting of the Livable Roadways Committee (LRC) on January 24 The committee approved and forwarded to the MPO Board:  TIP Amendment for Safety Performance Measure & Target Setting. The committee also approved a motion to request the MPO to send a letter of opposition to the Dockless Bicycle Sharing bill. They received presentations on: o Bike Share 2017 Update and Dockless Bicycle Sharing o Complete Streets Corridor Screening o Hillsborough County Health Atlas They also reviewed attendance for the past year and vacated the City of Temple Terrace position until such time the city provides a new member.

Meeting of the Intelligent Transportation Committee (ITS) on January 11 The committee approved the attendance report for 2017 and elected officers: o Vik Bhide, Chair o Mike Flick, Vice-Chair o Jeff Sims, Officer at-large

They also received presentations on: o THEA’s Tampa Connected Vehicle Pilot - Members were encouraged to participate as drivers, pedestrians or fans. The committee requested if before and after data could be presented after the study. o Pasco County’s Connected Cities - The committee found the idea of having zoning in place for a connected community an interesting economic and technical approach to growth. o Ride Flag Application - Members were very interested in this well-designed application for personal ridesharing opportunities.

Meeting of the School Transportation Working Group (STWG) on January 24 The working group heard presentations on: o City of Tampa School Related Projects Update o Data-Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety (DDACTS) and Road Safety Audits (RSA) o Sulphur Springs K-8 Community School SR2S Grant Application The group also provided typical monthly updates from the school district, jurisdictions and health partners. Given there will be special state guest speakers in March, the group agreed to pursue a joint meeting with the Community Traffic Safety team so that both groups would mutually benefit.

Meeting of the TBARTA MPO Directors on January 12 The MPO staff directors reviewed arrangements for the Gulf Coast Safe Streets Summit; followed up on actions taken at the December MPO Chairs Committee meeting; and reviewed a draft of the regional tasks to be included in this spring’s updates of the MPO Unified Planning Work Programs. News about the tri-county growth scenarios project was also shared, including timing, and coordination with the Tampa Bay Next initiative and Regional Transit Feasibility Plan.

Revised: 01/08/2018

SR 580/West Busch Boulevard from east of North Armenia Avenue to west of Florida Avenue Hillsborough County Financial Project ID: 437530-1-52-01

Project Description: This project consists of milling and resurfacing of SR 580/West Busch Boulevard from east of North Armenia Avenue to west of Florida Avenue. The project also includes sidewalk enhancements, minor drainage improvements, and updates to signing and pavement markings.

Project Location: The project is located on SR 580/West Busch Boulevard from east of North Armenia Avenue to west of Florida Avenue, in Hillsborough County.

Project Schedule: Item Status

Design Underway (PH II)

Right-of-Way N/A

Begin Construction Summer 2019

Project Costs: Phase Cost Estimate* Design $ 460,000 Right-of-Way N/A Construction $ 1.6 Million *Please note that cost estimates may change as the project progresses.

FDOT Project Manager Public Information Officer Farzin Zafaranian, PE Kristen Carson 11201 N. McKinley Drive, MS 7-600 11201 N. McKinley Drive, MS 7-110 Tampa, FL 33612 Tampa, FL 33612 Office Phone: (813) 975-6155 Office Phone: (813) 975-6060 [email protected] [email protected]