|UFDC Home||myUFDC Home | Help|
This item has the following downloads:
1 PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF RAIL TRANSIT IN THE COMMUNITY OF WINTER PARK, FLORIDA : SUNRAIL COMES TO TOWN By JOSHUA L. HOFFMAN A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTERS OF ARTS IN URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011
2 2011 Joshua L. Hoffman
3 To all of my family
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to first thank the participants of my interviews and surveys; the kindness shown by taking the time to discuss these issues with me gave me the strength to complete this task. I would also like to thank my thesis chair, Dr. Ruth L. Steiner, for helping me take an abstract, and therefore unrealistic concept, and change it into an actionable research method and thesis question. I also would like to thank my thesis committee member, Dr. Andreas Blanco who helped me unta ngle my thoughts and reinforce mental structure along the way. I would like to thank and apologize to my wife, friends, family and band for being my mental punching bag as I worked out the conceptual framework over the last two years. I would like to give a special thank you to my sister who also helped me turn thoughts into comprehendible sentences. Finally, I would also like to thank Ella Littles who helped me navigate the administrative waters and was the first voice I heard when I approached The University of Florida. I think she is the kindest person there.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 4! LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 7! LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 9! ABSTRACT!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 12! 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................................ ................................ ..................... 17! Theoretical Framework ................................ ................................ ............................ 17! Cognitive Linguistics and Framing Metaphors ................................ ......................... 23! The Regional Vision ................................ ................................ ................................ 36! Previous Work ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 37! 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 42! Case Study Selection ................................ ................................ .............................. 42! Interviews and Surveys ................................ ................................ ............................ 42! Regulatory Actions ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 44! Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 44! 4 FINDINGS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 45! Winter Park Demographics and History ................................ ................................ ... 45! Winter Park Referendums ................................ ................................ ....................... 49! City of Winter Park Resident Opinion Survey ................................ .......................... 49! Orlando Regional Realtor Association Poll ................................ .............................. 50! Public Intercept Survey 1 ................................ ................................ ......................... 51! Public Intercept Survey 2 ................................ ................................ ......................... 52! Key Informant Interviews ................................ ................................ ......................... 54! 5 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 76! 6 CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 90! APPENDIX A INFORMED CONSENT AND SURVEYS ................................ ................................ 92! B SUNRAIL STATION LANDUSE INVENTORY !!!!!!.!!!!!!..!!!96!
6 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ 97! BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ........................... 101!
7 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 4-1! Public intercept perception on the current rate of growth ................................ .... 63! 4-2! Public intercept perception on the benefits of rail transit ................................ ..... 63! 4-3! Public intercept perception on the benefits of a rail transit station ...................... 63! 4-4! Public intercept perception on the serious problems associated with rail development ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 64! 4-5! Public intercept perception on the future of transit development ........................ 64! 4-6! Public intercept perception on the best economic development strategy ........... 64! 4-7! Public intercept perception on the desirable forms of transit ............................... 65! 4-8! Public intercept perception on the undesirable forms of transit ........................... 65! 4-9! Public intercept perception on the economic benefit of transit ............................ 66! 4-10! Gender of first intercept survey ................................ ................................ ........... 66! 4-11! Residence by zip code of first intercept survey ................................ ................... 66! 4-12! Public intercept on the support for SunRail ................................ ......................... 66! 4-13! Public intercept on the influence of Governor Rick Scott ................................ .... 66! 4-14! Public intercept on the direction of SunRail ................................ ......................... 67! 4-15! Public intercept on the number of miles along SunRail ................................ ....... 67! 4-16! Public intercept of the number of stations along SunRail ................................ .... 67! 4-17! Public intercept of the number of counties along SunRail ................................ ... 67! 4-18! Public intercept with a direction modifier ................................ ............................. 67! 4-19! Public intercept on the type of rail used by SunRail ................................ ............ 67! 4-20! Business ownership status: national, franchise or local ................................ ...... 68! 4-21! Number of employees ................................ ................................ ......................... 68! 4-22! What businesses liked about their location ................................ ......................... 68!
8 4-23! What businesses would change about their l ocation ................................ .......... 68! 4-24! Businesses view on the current rate of growth ................................ .................... 69! 4-25! The largest perceived benefits of a rail transit system ................................ ........ 69! 4-26! The largest perceived benefits of a rail transit station ................................ ......... 69! 4-27! The perceived problems with rail development ................................ ................... 70! 4-28! Generalization of the problems ................................ ................................ ........... 70! 4-29! Desirable forms of transit ................................ ................................ .................... 70! 4-30! Undesirable forms of transit ................................ ................................ ................ 71! 4-31! The economic benefits of rail transit ................................ ................................ .... 71!
9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 2-1! Normative framework for studying induced travel demand ................................ 34! 4-1! Winter Park SunRail Station # mile buffer analysis ................................ ...... 72! 4-2! Winter Park future land use ................................ ................................ ................. 73! 4-3! Winter Park zoning ................................ ................................ .............................. 74! 4-4! SunRail map ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 75!
10 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Masters in Urban and Regional Planning PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF RAIL TRANSIT IN THE COMMUNITY OF WINTER PARK, FLORIDA : SUNRAIL COMES TO TOWN By Joshua L. Hoffman December 2011 Chair: Ruth L. Steiner Major: Urban and Regional Planning When a city attempts to adopt a rail transit project the positive and negative impacts, whether factual or merely perceived, shape and change the public debate, the merits of the investment, and, ultimately, the rail transit system. The inherent dynamics of th ese processes present local municipalities with a challenge, specifically, how to manage the divergent public interest and engage accordingly. This study examines the seemingly paradoxical situation in the City of Winter Park, Florida as it attempts to adopt the Central Florida SunRail system it asks the question, why is the only city in the region that is designed as a transit oriented development, and that had a voter referendum on the project resulting in support for the rail system, still presently engaged in a heated public debate, perceived a negative perception of SunRail? A triangulation of data was used to examine the case study from multiple perspectives. Three types of interviews were conducted: two distinct intercept surveys of customers on Park Avenue; face-to-face interviews with businesses located along Park Avenue; and key informant interviews of government officials, academics and planners regarding the regulatory context of SunRail in Winter Park. Next, a review of
11 the citys policies in regards to the rail transit system are examined and finally an evaluation of previous studies conducted on Central Florida and SunRail are explored in the context of how they relate to Winter Park. The three methods are used to understand where the voices of support and dissent occur, what the debate is, and why this situation only exists to the scale and scope it does in Winter Park. By looking at perceptions about the rate of growth and possible benefits of rail transit, as well as context in which these perceptions exi st, this study finds a gap in understanding from the Park Avenue business community and the public citizenry that may help to explain why the debate carries on regardless of the overwhelming objective support from the citizens, business and real estate communities.
12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The Central Florida Region is an important place and one that needs to be examined, not only for its own sake, but also for the significance of what the region has begun to represent in 21st century America. T.D. Allman articulated this best in the March 2007 article, The Theme-Parking, Megachurching, Franchising, Exurbing, McMansioning of America in National Geographic. In i t he notes, Everything happening to America today is happening here, and its far removed from the cookie cutter suburbanization of life a generation ago. The Orlando region has become Exhibit A for the ascendant power of our cities exurbs (Allman, 2007). Indeed, the choices the region makes could become the solutions for other regions, or the vivid archetype of loss. There are many reasons why a region would pursue rail transit; over the years Central Florida has tried to obtain one on multiple occasio ns. Seeking to alleviate congestion, induce development, and improve the quality of life and environment, the region created a common vision for growth and development, which included connecting centers and corridors through rail transit (myregion.org, 2006). Historically, the regions reaction to growth was through expanded roadway capacity and building new roads. It was the growth stewards or movers and shakers skillful accumulation and leveraging of transportation infrastructure that gave Orlando its competitive advantage for obtaining economic development ( Foglesong, 2002). The economic success of these endeavors led to many years of road construction, favoring regional mobility to activity centers, like Disney, Lockheed-Martin and the University of Central Florida, over local connectivity. The investments Central Florida undertook in
13 infrastructure of this nature and magnitude are hard to navigate away from and never the less influence the development pattern. As Central Florida now dawns the Exhibit A status, the acceptance of the SunRail project marks a turning point for the region and the state, as well as signals a new direction for the countrys awareness of the impacts of congestion and a single mode oriented transportation network. In Central Florida, according to the How Shall We Grow? Regional Vision Project the level of population growth in the region is placing increased pressure on the unique and fragile environment, as well as the transportation system. The average commuter now spends the equivalent of nearly one and one half workweeks sitting in traffic each year, with few options available for travel other than by private automob ile (2007). Indeed, in the 1960 s the regions population was over 630,000; t oday the population is over 3.1 million people, representing an almost 400 percent increase (American Community Survey, 2007). Metroplans 2005 study found that from 2000 to 2004, the population of the Orlando urban area increased by 15 percent During the same period, the number of registered vehicles increased by 17 percent and the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) increased by 35 percent (Metroplan 2005 ). Central Florida certainly has a congestion problem, brought about by the overreliance on automobile transportation and a disconnected local street grid dominant by the single -family development pattern. The City of Winter Park exemplifies the debate surrounding the public discourse of rail transit, illuminating the coalitions that are both for and against SunRail. T he seemingly paradoxical sit uation is that of the only city designed as a transit oriented development, to have had a voter referendum on the project, and yet still yielding a
14 negative perception of SunRail, makes this community ripe for understanding the grander context of the perceived impacts of SunRail in the region and rail transit nationwide By investigating what is causing the possible discontent of support in Winter Park, other regions looking to adopt rail transit may be able to avoid the protracted and redundant process in which the City has found itself. Abundant literature advocating for and against rail transit exists, each armed with their respective studies and talking points However, a vast majority of the literature does not deal with public and busines s perceptions of how a rail project will impact citizens lives. In an attempt to understand whom in Winter Park is against SunRail, an examination of the place, from a subjective and inter -subjective context, surrounding the station seemed appropriate t o find these voices. These people, or the pub lic, include residents, shoppers, employees, employers, teachers and government officials. This study examines these public perceptions in the City of Winter Park, Florida and the perceived rail transit impacts on growth from a qualitative research perspective. In doing so, the issues, views and reasons that may not have been captured by the formal planning process are explored to understand this phenomenon. Following this introduction is the literature review, s tarting with an explanation of the theoretical framework surrounding the perceptions and coalitions of growth. The growth machine theory is then reviewed, supporting the reasoning of why these coalitions exist and who may benefit. Next, cognitive framing, as related to perception versus reality, and the political ramifications are discussed through the research and works of George P. Lakoff. The issue of congestion is important to the region and therefore a resulting discussion involving the economics and f ramework of the debate
15 surrounding expanded capacity as a substitute for rail infrastructure. Next, the regional vision is reviewed and examines how the vision i ncorporated rail to alleviate growth related issues. Finally, previous work related to the region and Winter Park will be examined to inform and direct the case study research and interviews. Immediately following the literature review is a description of the methodology used to conduct the research. Three types of interviews were used to inform pub lic perception as well as the regulatory context. First, two distinct intercept surveys were conducted of people walking along Park Avenue on Saturday mornings. Second, interviews with owners and managers of businesses located along Park Avenue were conducted. Thirdly, were key informant interviews of government officials and academics regarding the regulatory context of SunRail in the City of Winter Park. There is also a review of the citys policies surrounding rail transit and the Central Par k station. After the methodology chapter is a description of the data related to the research. This chapter contains the project specifications of SunRail and Winter Parks Central Park station. A summary of the previous works on the subject follows, as we ll as the results of the surveys and interviews This chapter is succeeded by the Discussion and analysis of the data, triangulating the data to accurately draw together the many facets and contexts of the perceptions of rail in Winter Park. Recommendation s and explanations are made with the assistance of the key informant and business interviews and public intercept surveys to understand the history and future of rail and development in Winter Park. The discussion of this is timely and dynamic; although de tails are still being ironed out, there is little doubt that the SunRail will be a reality in the near future. It is the
16 intent of the researcher that with this discussion, this particular region and municipality, as well as other regions and municipalitie s, can anticipate and accommodate the troubles and barriers, and truths and perceptions presented by the public.
17 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE This thesis attempts to weave a multitude of constructs to understand the perceptions and actions in Winter Park. To avoid the catastrophe of a construct kaleidoscope, the review of the ideas will follow a logical progression from philosophical and static structure to an animated dynamic argument. To begin, a theoretical framework discusses the origins, compares the rationale and contrasts the flaws of the two opposing forces: Objectivism Anti-Planning (OAP) vs. Bi-Partisan Pro-Planning Growth Machine (BPGM). Next is an explanation and definition of cognitive sciences including cognitive linguistics, conceptual metaphor, framing and how these understandings help shape perceptions regarding the debate. Following is the economics of congestion, which exemplifies the dynamic national argument as it relates to rails most trusted alternative, expanded roadway capacity and visa-versa. Finally, previous work on SunRail and Central Florida are summarized. Theoretical Framework The debate between the ideologies that support rail transit manifests itself in many ways and forms throughout history and the modern era. To simp ly place the parties into pro-rail and anti-rail would not get to the roots of this study: peoples perception. Therefore, in order to give the ideologies their proper place in the debate of Winter Park, it is essential to understand these ideas from their modern ideological roots. The two opposing parties will therefore be called the Objectivism Anti -Planning (OAP) vs. Bi-Partisan Pro-Planning Growth Machine theory (BPGM).
18 Objectivism Anti-Planning (OAP) In the world of Atlas Shrugged, John Galt heroically brings high speed rail over experimental metal to prove the triumph of private funding. In the real world, libertarians and objectivists oppose rail at almost every turn. The difference is that in the fantasy world private funding without govern ment interferences proves the triumph of the self, where in the real world rail caters to the weakness of mans dependency on the others. To understand these differences, the meaning of o bjectivism must be explored so the anti -planning sentiment can be exp lained. According to Rand, objectivism is based on the idea that reality exists as an objective absolute, that reason is mans means of perceiving it and that man needs a rational morality. based not on faith, not on emotion, not on arbitrary mystical or social edictbut on reason. proved by means of logic (Podritske & Schwartz, pg.126, 2009). She goes onto explain that mans mind is his basic means of survival; man wants to survive so reason is the means in which man will survive. Independent judgmen t on the part of the individual is therefore the mechanism in which reason is enacted because it is the individual that is responsible for his or her own survival. The highest moral purpose is to be happy, because it is rational to be happy, and to achieve this he must neither force other people nor accept their right to force him. Each man must live as an end in himself and follow his own rational self-interest (pg. 170, 2009). This infatuation with the individual leads them to vilify anything that inhib its the self from total fulfillment and, ultimately, happiness. Government represents collective efforts that force the individual to do something besides what that individual wants to do. Regional and Urban Planning further extends this reach of governm ent into private
19 matters and property. Trains use public money and are centralized and scheduled, taking away from the individuals choice of when and where, and taking away the freedom to spend earned money, collected by taxes, on how the individual sees fit. The ideology is infinitely appealing in that it basically demands freedom without responsibility. Modern and Historical Ideas against Trains The real reason for progressives passion for trains noted pundit George Will, is their goal of diminishing Americans individualism in order to make them more amenable to collectivism (Will, 2011). He goes on to explain why automobiles are great because they encourage people to use independent thinking, which enable them to guard against government by experts who know what choices people should make (2011). Rands vilification of the governments interference in past rail projects and her defense of the robber-barons provide further insight into the underpinnings of the ideologies disregard for public transit. Taking the standpoint of a man from Mars, because of their objective, uncorrupted intelligence, Rand argues that upon observing nineteenth century American economics, the man would conclude that the so -called robber-barons were the greatest benefactors of mankind ever ( Podritske & Schwartz pg. 31, 2009). The robber-barons raised the standard of living for all Americans; they took chances and with their own initiative created wealth without the use of force. Rand concludes that no crime was committed because these people created wealth and did not take it from anyone; thus, accusations against them are the worst intellectual injustice in the whole history of capitalism (pg. 32, 2009). Responding to the commonly held idea of many
20 historians and social commentators, that the nineteenth century railroad industry represents how uncontrolled capitalism leads to the arbitrary power of a few individuals and the eventual corruption of government, Rand responds with there is no tr uth whatever [in that] (pg. 32, 2009). Rand distinguishes between industrialists who operate on a free market and the kind that operate with government assistance. She argues that the United States was never fully free, but the freest in the history of the world. She then states that one can become rich by creating wealth or using force and taking it. To acquire it by force, one must be a legalized criminalthat is, a man who uses the power of government to obtain special privileges not possessed by h is competitors, and thus gains wealth by legalized force (pg. 32, 2009). Because the United States was n ever truly free, the crimes were committed by businesses who were not free; if they were free they would have not the need to commit those crimes. Railroads then, and in particular the transcontinental Southern Pacific line, was built because of government propaganda and businessmen seeking the government subsi dies rather that the railroad. She justifies her belief by stating that if there were an actual demand, the private market would have allocated funds to build the rail line. Thus, her Opus revolves around this idea, that the private market will provide and that government operates to legalize criminality and an unjust enrichment of the conspirators. She concludes with a telling though t, one that resonates well with the fallacies of the growth machine, she states, when a government holds arbitrary control o ver the economy, it will necessarily act unjustly, because it will be using force in favor of one group of people at the expense of others (pg. 33, 2009).
21 Bi-Partisan Pro-Planning Growth Machine theory (BPGM) The parties that supports SunRail are best camped in an understanding drawn from the growth machine theory. The next section of the literature review delves deeper into the discussion of this theory. There are two distinct groups that make up the support; parties interested in exchange value and part ies interested in use value. The exchange value party has an inherent desire and need for growth to occur because it is how their fortunes are made. Alliances between them and use -value interests are made because the parties rationalize the gain as a win f or everyone. Furthermore, political alliances are made because the parties themselves are seeking power, need money and thus, settle for incremental gain with the hope of guarding and mitigating loss of the status quo. Ultimately, the growth agenda undermi nes the communitys quality of life because growth does not pay for itself (Logan & Molotch, 1987). Summary of Theoretical Framework In Central Florida and Winter Park, the BPG M is right, framed within the context of the public interests use value, seeking a better form of transportation, for the wrong reasons, to maximize growth, demand and exchange value. Meanwhile, the OAP is wrong for being against the rail, framed within the context of the public interests decreased use value, for the right reasons, liberty. The BPGM seeks to right its wrong by building consensus with use value arguments. To mitigate dissidents, the growth machine relies on the growth is good for all mantra and complementing it with the merits of the exchange value economics to t he appropriate parties. Accepting that selfishness is a virtue, the OAP does not seek to right a wrong and holds fast to the notion that all would be okay if the free market were actually free.
22 The Growth Machine The growth machine theory has been a pow erful idea in how a multitude of disciplines study conflict in urban and economic settings. Traditional economic theory explained the development of a city via the exchange of goods and services guided by the free market system, whereas resources allocation was the primary engine of the citys growth. In Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place, John Logan and Harvey Molotch present a new theory for understanding how a city grows (1987). The growth machine theory argues that a coalition of private and public officials, specifically those who make their money from land and building, have an inherent and vested stake in maximizing their capital through supply and demand economics ( 1987). To increase demand and capitalize on future investments, growth becomes the ultimate goal and the coalition or regimes and their use of conspicuous projects, like sports arenas, freeway intersections and rail projects, are how they compete with other cities. In order to get political consensus necessary to obtain these projects the coalition must establish and maintain the idea that growth is good for all, essentially becoming boosters for the city. In this context, growth is seen as an inevitable and the question of why becomes how (Fodor, PG. 8, 1999). Eben Fodor in his 1999 book titled Better Not Bigger confronted the question of why and distilled 12 myths associated with growth. In addition to using facts and figures, Fodor also turns the myth s into a useful question. For example, after proving that Myth 2: We have to grow to provide jobs for people in the community, is false he asserts that The real question is not whether growth creates jobs, but whether it reduces local unemployment (pg. 43, 1999). Citing Molotch, Fodor shows that there was no statistical correlation between growth and unemployment. Growing cities do create jobs, but they also attract more people,
23 therefore, growth is not a long-term solution to unemployment (et al). The book goes on to debunk other growth myths like increasing housing prices, environmental protection, inevitable growth, vacant land is a waste and other environmental issues, but the purpose of the book, shown time and time again is that there are externalities not captured or compensated caused by growth that are eventually paid for by the taxpayer. To the growth machine, the city is not just a place but a commodity, and although certain groups like students, retailers or families have a use value for the city, the growth machine is only interested in exchange values. Indeed, the pursuit of exchange values so permeates the life of localities that the city become s, in effect, a growth machine (Logan & Molotch, pg.13). Most commodities have both a use value and an exchange value; conflict arises between residents, who use place to satisfy essential needs of life, and entrepreneurs, who strive for financial return, ordinarily achieved by intensifying the use to which their property is put (pg. 2, 1987). Growth machine theory shows that the growth of the city is not at the mercy of necessity of supply and demand economics, but rather is animated through the social actions of the boosters opportunistic endeavors. Cognitive Linguistics and Framing Metaphors Cognitive Linguistics (CL) emerged in the late twentieth century, through some intense linguistic debate between Noam Chomsky and his students (Harris, 1993). CL is the study of language, based upon human perception and conceptualization of the world. In particular it seeks to explain the ways in which linguistic objects and structures reflect the manner in which human beings perceive, categorize and conceptualize the world (Trask, 2007).
24 Cognit ive metaphor theory was introduced in the George Lakoff and Mark Johnson book Metaphors We Live By. They argue that everyday language is filled with metaphors, some noticed and some are not. Because metaphors are cognitive constructs and are entrenched in other associates, meanings, memories and understandings, they shape h uman outlook and behavior (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). The concept of war helps illustrate this point, except no pictures will actually be drawn because this is a thesis and war has constant and consistent visual associations. He won the argument and I attacked the libertarian theory show that people conceptualize civic discourse as a battle to be won. Indeed, just recently this was exemplified with the shooting of Senator Giffords (D-AZ) resulting in calls to pacify the political rhetoric of battle ground states and former governor of Alaska Sarah Palin was called out publically for drawing targets on other politicians districts, including Senator Giffords. Clearly, civic discourse and humanism resemble and allude to a state of violence; ironically, its very existence is to rationally deter violence (Huffingtonpost.com, 2010). In the 2004 book Dont Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate Lakoff further explores the cognitive metaphor and how it relates to politics. An example from the book explains the power of metaphor for politics. Tax relief Think of the framing for relief. For there to be relief ther e must be an affliction, an afflicted party, and a reliever who removes the affliction and is therefore a her. And if people try to stop the hero, those people are villains for trying to prevent relief When the word tax is added to relief the result is a metaphor: Taxation is an affliction (pg. 3-4, 2004). Another appropriate example is when President G.W. Bush said We do not need a permission slip to defend America (pg. 4, 2004). This frame evokes paternal and institutional emotions and ideas, and insi sts that someone is treating someone else like
25 a child. Lakoff takes the idea and incorporates two outlooks of the world that populate who the heroes are and who the villains are. People like to understand large social groups in terms of small social groups so the framing of family and the nation work well in peoples minds. Extending the frame of the family ( e.g. Founding Fathers, Daughters of the Revolution, we send our sons to war) Lakoff explains that he took the various positions on the conservative side and on the progressive side and said, Lets put them through the metaphor from the opposite direction and see what comes out and out popped two different models of the family: a strict father family and a nurturing parent family (pg. 6, 2004). The strict father model assumes that the world is a dangerous place because there is evil out there and a lot of competition. Competition means that there are winners and losers, right and wrong. Children are born bad or in sin because they want what f eels good and not what is good and someone has to show them what is good and what is bad (2004). Therefore, a strict father can protect, support and teach right from wrong. A child must just be obedient. An obedient child will learn right and will win in t he competitive world because of the knowledge of right. The rightness will instill an internal discipline one day and therefore, the father will not always be needed. The self being as wholly determinate of their own future is argued in Adam Smiths The Wealth of Nations a book commonly attributed as the philosophical foundations of modern capitalism and market driven competition (2004). Therefore, it is moral and right to pursue ones own self -interest because by doing so, everyones profit and wealth wil l be maximized. Wealth, in this construct, is monetary and quantifiable. If someone does
26 something that doesnt maximize their self -interest, they are wrong, never learned right and are immoral. Lakoff then explains how this idea of immoral behavior trans lates into political action. When understanding social programs, such as welfare, it is immoral to give people things they have not earned, because then they will not develop discipline and will become both dependent and immoral (pg. 9, 2004). Social pro grams therefore deny people the opportunity to maximize themselves. Good behavior is rewarded with more wealth. The nurturant parent model is quite different; in fact it is almost the opposite. The assumption here is that children are good and education m akes them better. The world is a good place, too and can also be made better. Therefore by nurturing children, you nurture the world. According to Lakoff, nurturance means two things: empathy and responsibility (pg. 12, 2004). All people are inherently reliant and responsible to other people, because at one point, birth and right after, people are vulnerable and need to be cared for. In other words Since you cannot take care of someone else if you are not taking care of yourself, you have to take care of yourself enough to be able to care of [someone] else (pg. 12, 2004). Empathy translates to protection and Lakoff uses the paternal frame to show that parents protect their children from all sorts of things like, smoking, cars without seatbelts, poisons in food, etc. Naturally, the government, being empathetic, would protect its citizens from the same sorts of ills at the scale and scope government is able to protect people. Empathy also compels the parent to make sure the child is happy. It follows then that a happy child would want other people to be happy.
27 These two divergent theories have been expressed in a multitude of ways in both Western and Eastern philosophy. For example, the idea of listening to an elder for wisdom, like in Confucianism, aligns well with the strong father model. Whereas, Taoism, or the nurturant parent model, is more ambiguous and supportive finding ones own way in a universe where a lack of intention actually helps one sense the world. From a historical and eastern perspective People of the Tao de Ching explains: The sage does not distinguish between himself and the world; The needs of other people are as his own. He is good to those who are good; He is also good to those who are not good, Thereby he is good. He trusts those who are trustworthy; He also trusts those who are not trustworthy, Thereby he is trustworthy. The sage lives in harmony with the world, And his mind is the world's mind. So he nurtures the worlds of others As a mother does her children. (Tsu) (Batson, 2010) Lakoff expresses these ideas in modern language that illustrates beyond people listening to elders and shows why, in a moral and philosophical sense, a political group would oppose public projects. Economics of Congestion Congestion has a multitude of causes and animates the arguments of the theoretical framework as it relates to rail transit development and alternatives. Furthermore, congestion was a topic frequently discussed in both the 1990s and 2000s rail proposals (Batson, pg. 67, 2009). Over time, the aggregate of government policy and professional practice has lowered the commuting cost, thereby decreasing the relative cost of suburban living. This has been accomplished by the u nder-pricing of
28 commuting, which entails subsidized gas, parking and auto -infrastructure, all which encourage long commutes. Mortgage subsidies increased housing consumption away from the city center and in doing so, it was never decided who would really pay f or the fringe infrastructure to get to these subsidized homes. Land use policies like zoning instituted minimum lot sizes, which excluded high-density housing, and an unprecedented reluctance to let the automotive industry fail have all contributed to the auto -centric look of both Central Florida and America. The economics of congestion are quite simple and revolve around the concepts of externalities and marginal costs/benefits Externalities are market failures and are caused by the unaccounted for costs that arise through the production and consumption of goods or services. Marginal costs are the calculations of the externality showing who benefits and who pays. Congestion is a perfect example of this concept (O'Sullivan, Sheffrin, & Perez, 2007). As cars accumulate on the roads, their byproducts of point and non-point environmental pollution accumulate into nearby rivers, lo wlands and into the atmosphere. This imposes a higher social cost, because the people who do not drive are paying for the pollution in increased health costs and environmental clean up while the ones polluting are not paying for the cleanup of the pollution Therefore, the marginal social benefit of consumption will be less than the marginal private benefit of consumption. When this happens, the good, in this case roads, will be over consumed and the externalities will have unintended economic consequences that may show, under a cost-benefit analysis, that congestion is economically troublesome (2007). Theoretical Framework There are three dominant hypotheses within the theoretical framework regard ing expanded roadway capacity. First is an argument for expanding roadway capacity,
29 tou ted as the best solution for relieving congestion. Second is an argument against expanding roadway capacity, advocating that it induces more congestion and is therefore not a good solution. Lastly, there is an argument that expanding roadway capacity has no effect on congestion. The arguments for expanded roadway capacity are generally ideologically driven, concerned with disseminating other studies by equivocating terminology or taking the authors words out of context. The theory suffers from a type of ideological projection, believing that planners are faith driven to control and plan the lives of all citizens (Will, 2011). The arguments against expanding capac ity are quantitative research, based on logical reasoning, and generally discuss the mitigating variables that strengthen or weaken the argument. Expanding Roadway Capacity to Relieve Congestion Pundits like George Will and authors Thomas Sowell, Ted Balaker and Sam Staley echo the theory that expanded cap acity is the best solution to alleviate congestion and a better public expenditure than rail Although offering very little research of his own, Will substitutes ideological right-leaning commentary for facts, and frequently implores his readers to seek out the books recommended in his columns for further explanation. He is a compelling and charming personality though, and uses straw men arguments and an agnostic religious view to appear to argue a centric or independent position. In a March 11, 2007 Town hall.com online article, Will brought to attention the book The Road More Traveled by Balaker and Staley. In the article Will criticized the usual scolds -environmentalists, urban planners, enthusiasts for public transit argue that more highways encourage more driving ("induced demand") and hence are self-defeating (Will, 2007). This attitude, and the use of quotation marks around planners, reflects the preferred ideological argument over logic, drenched in
30 negativity, literally scolding them. W ill then cites the authors evidence among the 10 largest metropolitan areas, Los Angeles has the least pavement per person; Dallas has twice as much per person and half as much congestion (2007). Of course, without knowing the context of the evidence, or what Los Angeles and Dallas have to do with each other, qualitatively and quantita tively, the reader is left with a peculiar and grasping analogous proposal. Furthermore, when new schools are built because old ones have become congested, and then the ne w ones fill up with children from families attracted by new schools, who argues that building the n ew ones was a mistake (2007). This is an unsubstantiated analogy; first, it is unclear what Will or the authors were really trying to express because school s do not have a substitute for capacity, yet roads do. Their argument assumes that only more road building is the answer and therefore, the forgone conclusion against any viable substitution is their intellectual self defeation. In addition to the chapt er entitled Ten Myths about Car-Crazy Suburbia, where the authors, Balaker and Staley, link fear with the concepts of cancer, Al-Qaeda and urban planning, ten solutions are offered to deal with traffic congestion in The Road More Traveled. The first solution is to Add Lanes to Congested Roads and Highways It is the authors opinions that planners say we cant build our way out of congestion, but society hasnt even tried, which is true. They argue that over the last 30 years, vehicle lane miles traveled have increased by over 143 percent, but added just five percent in new capacity. Furthermore, if all of the pork and light rail projects were removed from existing transportation plans and instead built roads and added lanes where they are most needed, severe congestion could be eliminated for less than we are currently
31 planning to spend on transportation over the next few decades (Balaker & Staley, 2006). The argument is flawed because it assumes that when roads where first built, they were measured against the expected population, vehicle miles and capacity, yet provide no evidence that a baseline was established. The solution offered is full of error and fallacy itself, a theme that is generally reflected throughout the book. When disseminating Downs and Cervero, the authors acknowledge and recognize the theories of triple convergence and induced demand, however, they use the authors own words, out of context, to downplay the importance of the respective theories and studies. Balaker and Staley offer unclear conclusions, And even if the effect of induced demand and triple convergence completely erased any congestion relief benefits, that wouldnt just be an argument against building roads. It would be an argument against doing almost anything to reduce congestion. Again, ideological arguments trump any trace of logic found in the authors statements. According to the Balaker and Staley one can surmise that planners do not want to relieve congestion. Furthermore, because induced demand and triple convergence is so powerful, and somehow does not exist at the same time, both perspectives would warrant believing the authors without evidence and casting all other ideas as myths. The most striking, and least factual analysis comes from Thomas Sowells Economic Facts and Fallacies. This ideologically driven book is worth examining to understand the framing of the argument. To summarize, planners need there to be congestion or they would never be able to argue for colle ctivist projects like mass transit (Sowell, 2007). The argument is as follows: one of the reasons so many are committed to the idea of the futility of building more streets and highways to cope with traffic
32 congestion is that they prefer to rely on mass transit as part of a more sweeping program of centrally planned development or redevelopment. City planners consultants and experts all have a vested interest in the idea that people cannot be left to live their lives as they see fit, but must have their transportation and their housing patterns, among other things, controlled by city planners, consultants and experts. One of the reasons for a failure to ease traffic congestion is that many see this congestion as a way to get people out of their cars and into mass transit (2007). The idea of personal freedom from the government or liberty being stripped away by planners truly accentuates the adolescence of this ideology and the anti intellectualism typically found in libe rtarian right-wing movements. Paul Mason Fotsch in Watching the Traffic Go By best articulates the libertarian allure of automobile contrasted against mass transit, A key part of the automobiles superior attraction was its ability to displace the problems of economic inequality with problems of individual responsibility. the automobile placed responsibility on the individual for geographical and social mobility away from city slums (15, 2007). This perception of the self, being responsible for their accent away from the slums, translates into the idea that those who live in the city slum are irresponsible. A gainst Expanding Roadway Capacity Downs and Cervero represent the most prominent and outspoken researchers of the congestion phenomena. In Downs 1 992 book, Stuck in Traffic, the author discusses his 1962 theory of triple convergence and induced demand. In addition, Downs points out Americas disdain for market -based approaches, opting for socialistic methods of pooling money from gas taxes, the powe rful consortium of highway interests that urge government to expand capacity, and the economic losses due to congestion (1992).
33 The triple convergence principal shows why traffic will persist after capacity is expanded on major limited-access roadways; drivers who 1) used alternative routes, 2) traveled at other times, and 3) used public transit, will now converge onto the roadway because access and mobility is increased (1992). In Downs 2004 follow up, Still Stuck in Traffic, the triple convergence principle is integrated into the four principles of traffic growth which include the concepts of dual swamping of growth, im perviousness of growth to local policies, and finally the one thousand small cuts idea which suggests that individual policies are not big enough to combat congestion on their own and must be combined with multiple policies to make an impact (Downs, 2004). Robert Cervero has contributed greatly to the understanding of traffic and congestion and his research has shown the quantitative results of induced demand. In 2003 at the 2nd International Conference on the Future of Urban Transport in Gteborg, Sweden, Cervero presented, Coping with Complexity in Americ as Urban Transportation Sector where he displays this normative framework for understanding induced demand. This is an example of the clear and transparent method and thought process expressed by those who argue this hypothesis. It is important to note that both Downs and Cervero recognize that widening the road in some instances is the best solution. They come to this answer by understanding the economic concepts of externalities and marginal costs. Down s, an advocate of the market-based solution of a congestion tax, would argue that if the revenues received through such a tax equal the costs of widening the road, then that is probably the best solution. Congestion taxes seek to internalize the externalit y caused by cars. However,
34 this idea is contained in a theoretical web recognizing the importance of multimodal transportation and the realities of costs and benefits born by society (Cervero, 2003). Figure 2-1. Normative framework for studying induced travel demand [Reprinted with permission from Cervero, R 2011. Coping with Complexity in Americas Urban Transportation Sector (page 9, figure 3) 2003] The difference between the advocates for and against expanding roadway capacity is simple; the advocates are waging a war of words uncontained by facts and ideologically on the offense. Advocates against expanded capacity implore a body of work, done by planners, economists, sociologist and researchers, that marks a clear min ded and thoughtful integration of variables to explain in what situations the best solution would be. More Myths about Roads and Rails To conclude the macro theoretical framework regarding the prospects and realities of rail and the alternatives, a few more myths must be dispelled. One of the
35 most valued critiques of the myths comes from a 2001 publication by Paul M. Weyrich and William S. Lind titled Twelve Anti-Transit Myths: A Conservative Critique. After dispelling such myths as free market competitio n and privately operated transit is better, commuting by rail is slower than commuting by car or bus, rail transit can only serve city centers, but most new jobs are in the suburbs and transit brings crime into the community, the study concludes wit h a rather harsh reality of transit critics, that is, THESE PEOPLE DONT KNOW WHAT THEYRE TALKING ABOUT! (Weyrich & Lind, pg. 63, 2001). Before unleashing the fury of the caps lock key, the authors pointed out a few reasons they came to that conclusion. They argue that anti-transit troubadours do a great job of arguing against transit so long as [they] dont let the facts get in [their] way (pg. 61, 2001 ). The critics have two roles: first to act as prophets, seeing deep into the future and yet somehow always predicting the failure of transit, and second, although very seldom to lay out their own solutions, more roads. The authors view the predictability of the anti-rail troubadours conclusions as pre -conceived facts and render their criticisms intellectually dishonest. The final dispelling of myths comes from the Florida PIRG Education Fund document, Do Roads Pay for Themselves?: Setting the Record Straight on Transportation Funding. In the document, they conclusively show that r oads do not pay for themselves (Dutzik, Davis, & Baxandall, 2011). The chapter titled Useful Fiction not only illustrates the myths, but how the authors feel about the merits of those claims. The fiction is a perception. The first perception is that Interstate highways are cast as national priorities-worthy of federal support -while transit and other alternative are
36 declared to be merely local issues (pg. 25, 2011). The assumption of the fiction is that highways move people around on a federal lev el and rail moves people on a metropolitan level, and therefore not worthy of federal support. This assumption runs contrary to how the interstate systems where built, one metropolitan at a time, and how they are used, playing a significant role in metrop olitan level transportation (pg. 25, 2011). The second fiction is that highway investments are touted as transportation investments; everything else is social policy (pg. 26, 2011). This fiction assumes that highways are essentially the only reason able transportation investment government can make because they allow for the most mobility and thus freedom. The ideology of objectivism and the strict father model echo these same ideas; freedom is defined by the individual: cars are driven by an indi vidual and rail is programmed by a collective. Ironically, what these troubadours dont realize is that by denying funding to rail, the government limits the freedom of choice; the freedom to choose if one wants to walk, drive or take transit to increase their mobility. The Regional Vision To overcome the difficulties associated with the 1990s iteration of rail in Central Florida, business, civic and political leaders took to creating a regional common vision (Batson, 2010). In concert with the Chamber of Commerce and other major growth parties, beginning in March of 2006 to August of 2007, almost 20,000 citizens participated in a series of charettes and outreach initiatives to answer the question how shall we grow? A total of seven counties and eighty-six cities were represented. The outcome was the more than 86 percent of Central Floridians surveyed indicated that continuing on the current path of development was their leas preferred option (How Shall We Grow?, pg. 14, 2008). Instead, businesses, citizens and political leaders
37 wanted growth that preserves the environment and agricultural lands by concentrating growth to activity centers serviced by transit corridors. Previous Work To further understand how modern history and commentary has influenced Winter Park, FL three previous works on the subject matter were explored. The first is Married to the Mouse by Rollins College Professor Richard Foglesong. In it he investigates the influence of the relationship between Central Florida and Disney. The sec ond work appeared in National Geographic by T.D. Allman and gives a snapshot of the national perceptions and local realities at work Central Florida. The final work is a masters thesis investigating the differences in the Central Floridas pursuit of ligh t rail in the 1990s and commuter rail in the late 2000s. Richard Foglesong: Married to the Mouse Rollins College Professor Richard Fogelsong uses the metaphor of marriage to examine the curious regulatory relationship between Central Florida and Disney and how that ultimately affected the growth and development of the region. The two main themes of the book are how Disney was seduced by the region and the subsequent abuse that occurs later in the relationship. Although the book is primarily concerned with the happening of Disney and the surrounding municipalities, he also explored the growth community or the movers and shakers to first become viable for Disney and then later to capitalize on their new found economic driver. It is no surprise to the reader, or any Central Florida resident, that Disney got the better end of the deal, ultimately avoiding paying their fair share of the development costs and rendering an economy that is low wages, over -reliance on tourism, and [in] competition with downtown Orlando (pg. XX, 2001 )
38 The book uncovers the hasty exit of Walt Disney from opening up in St. Louis and his subsequent flight in Central Florida over the intersection of I -4, then under construction, and the Florida Turnpike, which terminates at I-75. Walt understood that this infrastructure, coupled with the airport, would enable thousands of people to visit his park (pg. 15, 2001). The seducers of Disney where the pro -growth regime of private businessmen movers and shakers, an informal gr oup that existed independent, for the most part for the areas elected officials (pg. 17, 2001). This regime, which existed in the 1950s and early 1960s, had an activist concept of government lead by businessmen with influence over the areas newspaper and largest bank. Of the group of men, about ten of them consisted of the head of First Federal Savings and Loans, a former Orlando mayor, president of Citizens Bank, owner of the leading hardware store and most notably, the leaders, Billy Dial, Orlandos power broker extraordinaire and his newspaper friend, Martin Anderson ( pg. 17, 2001 ). They used their influence and skills to procure and leverage major federal facilities and infrastructure to their region of the state. These projects included the two aforementioned highways, as well as a navy base, defense plants, airports and a university. The legacy of the boosters was more than a regional road network and Disney World it was a preference for private decision making and politically insulated institutions (pg.33, 2001). T.D. Allman: Beyond Disney In one of the finest written and accurate articles about Central Florida, or Orlando, the brand name of the region to more than two million residents, T.D. Allman uncovers what lies beyond Disney. Taking t he approach that Orlando is Exhibit A for everything that is happening in America, the author explores the transformation of this
39 area from a swamp and sinkhole to 21st-century metropolis (2007). Much of what Richard Foglesong wrote about regarding the Orlando leaders and Disney is corroborated in this article, although quickly and with much more colorful language. However, the article is focused beyond the mouse and reaches further into the paradoxes of the region, like SeaWorld. The author finds it cu rious that people would drive 50 miles inland to see ocean life when the state is surrounded by ocean life. The illusory of life in Orlando doesnt end there though. If one were to shun the suburban and mass-produced housing developments in favor of a dow ntown flat, well Orlando offers that too, a new postindustrial space, in a place that never was industrial (2007). The author notes that Orlando is home to franchise America and headquarters to the Darden Corporation, who mass -markets theme foods to all of America; welcome to the theme -park nation (2007). The article settles around the idea that Orlando is the 21st century paradigm: It is growth built on consumption, not production; a society founded not on natural resources, but upon the dissipation of capital accumulated elsewhere; a place of infinite possibilities, somehow held together, to the extent it is held together at all, by a shared recognition of highway signs, brand names, TV shows, and personalities, rather than any shared history. Nowhere else is the juxtaposition of what America actually is and the conventional idea of what America should be more vivid and revealing. Orlando therefore is important to understand, because what has happened and will happen can affect what will happen in the r est of America. The author begins his conclusion the same way many Central Floridians do, stuck in traffic. He finds the irony of Orlando in that people go there to escape, yet in doing so theyve unleashed upon the place all the rootless, restless contr adictions of America including big city traffic and crime. Orlandos image of itself, what it boosts itself to be, is entirely different and exactly the same of what it really is an illusion.
40 Andrew M. Batson: Rail Transit and Coordination in Orlando in the 1990s and 2000s: A Study in Contrast The thesis is a case study of Central Floridas pursuit of rail transit projects of the 1990s and 2000s. The analysis looks at factors like the popular reasons for selecting rail transit and regional coordination, both intergovernmental and private -public, to present the climate surrounding the two rail iterations. Utilizing a categorical content analysis of local newspaper articles as well an information interviews with current and former planners, as well as local and state officials, Batson found that a commonly help vision and perception of need for rail transit is necessary for the successful implementation of a rail transit system (2010). The categorical content analysis revealed a generally positive tone in the 2000s attempt, reflected by a +77 score, compared to a -3 score in the 1990s (2010). Also noted is an increase in attention paid to Traffic and Congestion gaining a 12.4 percent in ink, moving from 24.5 percent to 36.9 percent. The discussion also changed tone from relieving congestion to an alternative to the highway. Other topics that gained more press included Economic and Residential Development going from 15.1 percent to 28.7 percent, and Quality of Life, coupled with commute time reduction and congestions which went from 17.2 percent to 28.2 percent (2010). The thesis concludes by noting that an overall institutional understanding of the need for rail, decreased politicking and increased intergovernmental coordination made the 2000s iterat ion more viable. Summary Although there is a lopsided debate on the merits of rail transit, and the alternatives, it is clear that, regardless of facts and logic, there are still those who will
41 dissent because of their ideology. The conspicuousness of the dissents view warranted an explanation that goes beyond the surface, and to the roots of how humans process political information. Therefore, cognitive sciences including cognitive linguistics, conceptual metaphor, framing and how these understandings he lped shape perceptions regarding this debate were crucial to understand the illogical, or irrational, decision making in the debate. With this literature in mind, the investigation into Winter Parks seemingly paradoxical situation of the only city in the region that is designed as a transit oriented development, that had a voter referendum on the project resulting in support for the rail system, and yet is still presently engaged in a heated public debate with a perceived negative view of SunRail, was cond ucted
42 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY To understand the public and business perceptions and the context of the area a triangulation of data was used to examine the case s tudy from multiple perspectives. First, three types of interviews were conducted: an intercept survey of people walking on Park Avenue, interviews with businesses located on Park Avenue and key informant interviews of government officials, academics and planners regarding the regulatory context of SunRail in Winter Park; second, a review of the citys policies surrounding rail transit; and third, an evaluation of previous work on the subject. Case Study Selection Two main factors went into the case study selection of Winter Park, FL. First, it was the city with the most vocal and sustained anti-rail coalitions, yet it was the only city of all the municipalities along the SunRail corridor where voters were able to show their support with a referendum. Second, of all the station areas designated for SunRail, Winter Park is the only city with a functioning mixed-use community surrounding the station. Therefore, it is the only city where the methodology of surveys and interviews could both intercept pedestrians and interview businesses within walking distance of the station area. Interviews and Surveys The selection of the interviews and surveys were completed to get a comprehensive understanding of the impacts on people near the station area. Park Avenue, which is the heart of Winter Park, runs parallel with the SunRail tracks, and is the closest activity center to the Central Park station, was selected as the research area. A research protocol was developed and submitted to the University of Florida
43 Institutional Review Board (IRB) to allow for all three types of interviews to be conducted. The informed consent and survey documents are attached in Appendix A. Pedestrian Intercept Survey Selection Two separate intercept surveys were developed and administered along Park Avenue. The first was to test the conceptual framework of rail and the second was to test the knowledge people had on the SunRail project. Both surveys were administered the same way, with a total of a 120 people intervied, 60 in each survey. Every other person was approached while the surveyor walked up north and south along the street. The surveyor moved along the corridor because it would be unfair to the local business owners to occupy the space in front of their operations. The results were reviewed and categorized to show public perceptions to the issue related to rail. The categorie s are general and adaptive to each question and represent the themes present in the interviewees responses. Business Interview Selection Forty-seven business located along Park Avenue was approached for an interview with 43 accepting. If the owner was not present a manager or acting employee was interviewed. The interviews lasted no more than 5 minutes. The results were reviewed and categorized. Key Informant Selection Key informants were selected to both inform the case study and to find representatives of the differing coalitions. An academic and active supporter of commuter rail from the college adjacent to the station area was chosen to inform the academic aspects of the debate around rail transit. A planner and historian of Winter Park were interviewed to inform the historical and present nuances of the city. The
44 current mayor of Winter Park was selected to understand the regulatory and political context of rail. Finally, a blogger on Winter Park issues was interviewed to understand the pro-rail group. Anti-rail people were contacted, but failed to respond for a solicitation of an interview. This information informs the discussion and provides more in -depth and personal understandings of the coalitions. Regulatory Actions The voter referendum, future land use and zoning maps, as well as planning initiatives were analyzed to understand the regulatory context in Winter Park. The future land use and zoning maps were part of the Florida Department of Transportation and the East Central Florida Regional Planni ng Councils assessment of the SunRail project. The information used in this document was generated and analyzed by the author. Summary Winter Park, FL was selected because of the paradoxical nature of their problem. To understand what the public perceptions were in the community, intercept surveys and business interviews were conducted and understood in the context of another opinion poll. To understand the complete context surrounding these perceptions and t he public debate, key informant interviews were held along with a study of previous work on the subject and the regulatory actions involved by the city. These methods were selected based around the understanding that facts and the truth of what exists di ffers from what people perceive and that these perceptions ultimately inform the actions of the public and city.
45 CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS This chapter contains the results that were discovered through public intercept surveys, the business and key informant interviews and the regulatory cont ext. First, a background of Winter Park, the SunRail Central Park station and the SunRail project are investigated to inform the discussion of the context and place of where the research was done. Following this is a summary of the intercept survey and business interviews categorizing the results by major themes. Finally a summary of the key informant interviews is provided to give a voice to the two different coalitions and provide additional information not discovered through the other research mechanisms. Winter Park Demographics and History Winter Park is an affluent suburb located in Orange County, Florida. Incorporated in 1925, four city commissioners and a mayor govern the city, all elected at-large for three-year terms. The city has a total area of 8.7 square miles, with 7.3 square miles being land and 1.3 square miles being water. According to 2005 -2009 estimates of the U.S. Census, 28,170 people live in the city, with a composition of white persons making up 87 percent and black persons with 7.6 percent of the populations. According to the same Census estimates, Orange County has around 1.1 million people with a composition of white persons making up 69 percent and black persons with 18 percent of th e populations. In Winter Park there are an estimated total of 11,873 households with 2.17 persons per household. The median nonfamily income was $33,414 and the mean nonfamily income was $49,114. The medi an family income was $96,100 and the mean family inc ome is $152,853. In Orange County, the median family income is $46,826, a little more than half that of Winter Park Nearly 80 percent of the population
46 commutes to work alone in a car, with only 1.5 percent taking public transportation, and 2.7 percent walking. The mean travel time to work was 20.7 minutes. New England industrialists around the turn of the twentieth century founded Winter Park. According to the city, it was originally developed as a winter resort for northerners. Rapid development started to occur in the late 1880s when the South Florida Railroad track connected the region to the rest of the county (Landis, 2002). Today, the city is home to bricked streets lined with a large oak canopy, two distinct collegiate institutions, and the shopping district of Park Avenue. Central Park Station: SunRail Sketchbook Update, March 2011 The East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, Florida Department of Transportation and PB Placemaking collaborated to update the SunRail Sketchbook, a document published by the FDOT that shows the progress of station and station area designs. Although Winter Park declined to meet with the group, the ECFRPC was contracted to analyze the station area. Presented below are the findings from the study Summary of Conclusions: Winter Park is a medium intensity TOD historic station site. It is the only existing TOD currently along SunRail, based on 100 year old small city center with pedestrian scale mobility and an Amtrak station. The station area is situated close to Rollins College, shopping and nightlife However, the current Central Business District regulations are somewhat prohibitive of future TOD improvements Existing Conditions: The SunRail station is located in between Park Avenue and New York Avenue (north to south) and Carolina Avenue and Morse Boulevard (east to west). The character of the station site and surrounding development is an urban mixed -use activity
47 center featuring a park surrounded by most ly two (some three) story buildings with offices, shopping and restaurants. The area is pedestrian friendly due to an interconnected road network. Brick roads act as traffic calming devices. Two parking garages, one to the north of the site on Park Avenue and one to the south of the site near Rollins College, have been built. Also located within walking distance are the Winter Park Welcome Center, the Farmer's Market, municipal complex, soccer and softball fields, the city's 9-hole golf course, Rollins College, and residential housing. The city has generally indicated that they do not want or expect significant redevelopment near the station stop. Comprehensive Plan: Within one quarter mile of the station site there is a multitude of land use categories including Central Business District, Office Professional, High Density Residential, Commercial and Open Space (Central Park). There are no TOD overlays and no minimum densities. The maximum densities are 25 dwelling units in High Density Residential and 17 dwelling units in the Central Business District, somewhat low for an urban TOD but adequate. There is no minimum floor to area ration (FAR), but maximum of 2 in Central Business District is TOD appropriate. Land Development Code: Several types of additional review criteria for redevelopment within one half mile of the station. Mor se Boulevard design guidelines and Central Business District Area facade reviews are part of the development code for the area. Some regulations such as sidewalk width, grade and construction are regulated by the city commission and are
48 not enumerated in the land development code. In the Central Business District the provision of off-street parking spaces is exempt from furnishing parking facilities. Summary Analysis: The Winter Park subject area is the only existing TOD along the SunRail line. The SunRail stop provides a great opportunity for the city to build upon their transit oriented heritage and allows for more consumers and workers to enter the area without their cars. Rollins College is a concentrated employment center. The SunRail stop provides access to students, visitors, faculty and staff without increasing traffic and congestion to the surrounding walkable area. The challenges to the area include somewh at low FARs and densities but they could be addressed with a TOD overlay. SunRail Project Specifications SunRail is a 61.5-mile commuter rail line connecting four counties and the City of Orlando. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) will manage the project during planning, design, construction and the initial seven years of operation Construction will be completed in two phases. Phase I will connect 31 miles and 12 stations starting north in DeBary/Fort Florida Road in Volusia County to Sand La ke Road in Orange County. Phase II extends the system 30 miles and incorporates five more stations, south from Sand Lake Road in Orange County to Poinciana in Osceola County and north to DeLand Amtrak station in Volusia County. Figure 4-4 is a map of the S unRail project and the proposed station stops. Commuter rail transit uses steel-wheeled technology; consist of one to three cars, along with a locomotive, with the capacity to carry more than 150 passengers in each car. Amenities will include restroom facilities on all trains, power outlets at all seats, luggage and bicycle racks, and wireless Internet connectivity.
49 Winter Park Referendums The voter referendum on Commuter Rail in Winter Park was the result of Winter Park officials deciding that if commuter rail passed the test of the citizens, then the officials would support it (Orlando Sentinel, February 14, 2007). The referendum was held during the General Election, City of Winter Park, FL on March 13, 2007. Almost 35 percent (34.79 ) of registered voters turned out for the election that included votes in two county commission seats and two issues related to SunRail: use of the citys land and use of the citys money. The citizens voted 52.12 percent in favor of city land being used for a rail station and 53.02 percent in favor of city money being used for a rail station. In the election, Beth Dillaha, who was interviewed for this thesis lost to Karen Diebel, 50.86 percent to 49.14 percent. In 2008, Beth Dillaha won a city commissioner seat becoming the Vice Mayor of Winter Park. In 2011, a formal investigation of Beth Dillaha into the violation of a state election law was started by the state attorneys office with regards to her role in concealing the funding of an election mailer in the 2010 election (Winter Park Observer, June 28, 2011). City of Winter Park Resident Opinion Survey In September to December of 2008, Kerr and Downs Research conducted an Internet-based survey of citizens. The survey assessed citizens satisfaction with living in Winter Park and the City of Winter Park government. It also sought to discover how citizens rate the performance of the city in providing services as well as determines citizens strategic priorities for city initiatives and long-term capital investment projects. There were a total of 818 completed questionnaires. The sampling error given a 95 percent confidence level was .5 percentage points. It can be argued that the sampling
50 process was a simple random sample with each house hold serving as a sampling unit (Kerr & Downs, 65). The survey found that b y a 48 percent to 36 percent margin, citizens of Winter Park favor continued support for the commuter rail project in the absence of a dedicated funding source in the year 2017. Citizens in all quadrants except the northwest support the commuter rail project. Support is greatest in the southwest quadrant with 63 percent of citizens favoring to continue support for commuter rail after 2017 even without a dedicated funding source. By a similar 48 percent to 34 percent margin residents support spending about $1.4 million to reconstruct the Amtrak building if federal funds are not available. Finally, a plurality of residents (47 percent) support higher taxes/fees to fund a commuter rail station and operating costs (Kerr & Downs). Orlando Regional Realtor Association Poll The poll was conducted on June 22, 2011 and took a random sample of 400 likely Orange County voters as reported by the Orlando Sentinel on July 18, 2011. When asked what best-described SunRail, only 36 percent correctly defined it as a Central Florida regional commuter rail project; 45 percent thought it was a costlier High-Speed Rail venture between Orlando and Tampa; 17 percent were unsure. When asked wheth er they back SunRail or not, 52 percent favor it, either strongly with 34 percent or somewhat with 18 percent while 41 percent were opposed with 11 percent somewhat and 30 percent strongly opposed. When those surveyed were told that the federal government was contributing to the cost of the SunRail project and it could create thousands of jobs, an even higher, 64 percent indicated support for SunRail and 33 percent were still against it.
51 Public Intercept Survey 1! The survey was administered on Park Avenue during the months of June and July on Saturday from 10 a.m. until 2 p.m. A map of the avenue can be found in Figure 4 -1. There were a total of 60 respondents, 28 male and 32 female. Tables 4-10 and 4 -11 contain the results. Age was not recorded. Most of the respondents were supportive of the project, however they were not knowledgeable of the specifications. Although no questions were answered during the course of the survey, most of the respondents were asking questions regarding project information. For instance, a question regarding what type of rail, is this the high speed rail or is this light rail? seemed frequent, and most people seemed to not be aware of the transit station location. Participants responses to the first question regarding their perception of the current rate of growth showed 61 percent felt that the growth was about right, 15 percent responded too rapid, 10 percent responded too slow and 6.7 percent didnt have an opinion. Table 4 -1 contains the results. The next set of questions were concerned with the benefits of the rail station, the rail system and if the community has currently benefited from rail. There was an overall positive affirmation on the merits of rail with 41.7 percent viewed the rail station as a way of combating congestion and traffic. 26.7 percent viewed the rail s ystem as a way of increasing access and mobility and another 21.7 percent viewed the system as a way to bring more people to the area. When asked if the area has economically benefitted from rail 31.7 percent said yes, perhaps recognizing either the impact of Amtrak or the historical significance of rail in the city, while 30 percent said that the city has not economically benefitted. Tables 4-2, 4 -3 and 4 -9 contain the results.
52 When asked about the problems associated with rail transit development 21.7 percent reported cost while 15 percent reported issues with the perception of rail. 8.3 percent of those surveyed responded that the unwanted element was the most serious problem. Table 4-4 contains the results. When asked about their vision for the future rail development 60 percent reported that they would like to see it grow to 6.7 percent that wanted to see it contract. Another 58.3 percent viewed rail as the best economic development strategy. Tables 4-5 and 4 -6 contain the results. Rail received 26.7 percent of the responses as the most desirable form of transit and no answer received 27.9 percent of the undesirable forms of transit. Table 4 -7 and 4 -8 contain the results. Public Intercept Survey 2 The survey was administered on Park Avenue in July of 20 11. The second survey was developed to specifically test the amount of knowledge the population knows about SunRail. A map of the avenue can be found in Figure 4-4. There were a total of 60 respondents; age and sex was not recorded. A total of 77 percent of those surveyed support the SunRail project and 100 percent said that Governor Rick Scott had no influence on their opinion see (Table 4 -12 and 4 -13). Only 43 percent of those surveyed could correctly identify SunRail has on a primarily north to south direction with 37 percent stating it was east to west and 20 percent giving an answer that would classify as other. When asked about the number of miles 48.3 percent said they didnt know and when asked about the number of stations, 65 percent stated they didnt know. When asked about the number or names of the counties serviced by SunRail 75 percent gave an incorrect answer. Furthermore, when asked about what type of rail SunRail will use 37 perc ent said it was high-speed
53 rail, 30 percent said it was commuter rail, and 28 percent said it was light rail. Tables 415, 4 -16, 4 -17, 4 -18 and 4 -19 contain the results. Business Interviews The questions asked during the business interviews could be categorized into three parts: general information, location informa tion and SunRail specific questions. There were a total of 43 business interviewed employing a total of 371 people. A high 67.4 per cent of businesses were locally owned, followed by 23.3 percent as a national chain and 9.3 percent as franchises. The number of employees shared a similar split as the businesses with 68.5 percent employed by a locally owned store and 27.2 percent employed by a chain. Tables 4-20 and 4 -21 contain the results. When asked what they liked most about their location 79.1 percent res ponded with a strong sense of belonging and enjoying the place around their business. When asked what they would change about their location 27.9 percent said parking while 23.3 percent said they would change nothing. Tables 4 -22 and 4 -23 contain the results. Business viewed the current rate of growth as about right with 60.5 percent and too slow with 37.2 percent. The largest perceived benefit of the rail station and rail system was more people with 32.6 percent and 51.2 percent respectively. Tables 4 -24, 4-25 and 4 -26 contain the results. The businesses generally didnt perceive any problems with rail development with 16.3 percent reporting I dont know and 14 percent reporting nothing, however, 9.3 percent mentioned the bad element as a problem with rail. The businesses saw rail as a desirable form of transit with a 22.6 percent share. When asked if the area has economically benefited from rail transit 25.6 percent reported not yet while 20.9 percent responded Amtrak and another 18.6 percent responding yes. Tables 4-27, 4 -28, 4 -29, 4 -30 and 4 -31 contain the results.
54 Key Informant Interviews The key informant interviews were conducted in person and in the duration of twenty to thirty minutes. The questions were selected to reflect the contextual nature of the interviewees expertise. The research question was posed and their answers are recorded in this section along wit h a summary of informative data that was discovered. Andrew Landis, Historical Planner Andrew Landis is a planner at the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council. In 2001 and 2002 he worked on a project to investigate the history and importance of Central Park from a planning perspective for the Central Park Master Plan. The study, A Historical Perspective: Central Park, Winter Park Florida, looked at the founders of Central Park, the planners involved in its genesis, as well as the multiple physical components of the park itself. The interview revealed the intentional efforts and incorporation of rail into the heart of downtown. Indeed, the first official building in Winter Park, completed in 1882, was the Park Station, now a post office. Mr. Landis stressed the importance of the rail and the effects of that mode on the built environment in Winter Park. When assessing Winter Parks paradoxical situation, he specifies a number of reasons why the community is having trouble with the SunRail system. There is a good portion of the population still has a negative perception; there were never an overwhelming number of people that supported the rail. There has always been a very conservative entrenched constituency that is very vocal and now has several seats on the city commission leading this charge against the rail. I dont think there is an understanding amongst the community, the residents or business and how it may serve them. I think the college could do more to promote rail, but I also think it [S unRail] gets caught in the bigger political divide that exists in Winter Park. They are
55 the only city, well, not the only, one of the only, where we see this real tension about density in our region, or in the six county region. Mr. Landis went onto say that its the fear of the other, its a wealthier community, and there are race and class issues that play into it. Its reflective of much of the country where there is a real stark, almost evenly split divide; for every person that supports or has a good understanding, there is some else that does not support it or understand it. Professor Dr. Bruce Stephenson, Rollins College Dr. Stephenson is professor of environmental studies at Rollins College. He, along with Dr. Richard Foglesong, recently launched the new Masters of Planning in Civic Urbanism at Rollins College for the Fall 2010 semester. Dr. Stephenson also sits on the Commuter Rail Taskforce and publicly speaks in support of the system. The interview revealed that Winter Park led the charge to kil l light rail in the 1990s and that the same force, fear of change, is leading the charge to kill commuter rail. He notes that the fear that people who took public transportation were not the type of people who would be welcomed in Winter Park. He believes that the cost of commuter rail will be paid by the increase in real estate value to the homes in Winter Park. Dr. Stephenson also notes the design origins of Winter Park are like something that you would find in a Peter Calthourpe book: concentric circles five minutes apart emanating from the Central Park station. The bottom line is that SunRail will raise real estate values and if Winter Park does not capture that they will become a gated town. He noted that homes in Winter Park have been increasing in siz e, while buildings in the central park area have been stifled from becoming larger.
56 Vice Mayor Beth Dillaha, Winter Park, FL Commissioner Dillaha is serving her first term and was elected city commissioner (Seat 2) in March 2008. She earned her bachelors degree in business administration from the Ohio State University. Commissioner Dillaha has been working on the commuter rail issue for the last five years. She believes the project is a boondoggle and is an ineffective mass transit because only 3,500 dail y users will ride the system. Early on she notes that the referendum, was not a referendum because it only asked two questions, was not binding, and only passed by 100 votes or so. The referendum just gave the city a green light to pursue the idea of commuter rail and did not commit the city to using it. She also notes that the third and most important question that was not asked in the referendum and was required by state constitution was related to the funding and operating costs for the next 99 years. She was not on the commission at the time of the construction, but recalls the 3-2 vote by the City Commission to not allow that question on the ballot. She thinks that if the people voted on cost, the referendum would have failed. She notes that opposition to the project initiated the referendum because they did not want a mass transit station, or a bus station on steroids in the middle of historic Central Park. Commissioner Dillaha noted that she was primarily concerned with cost and equity issues related to the SunRail. She asserts that Winter Park and Maitland are being treated different, in a regulatory and cost analysis, than other cities in the four counties without good reason. She also mentioned that the congestion would increase with the inclusion of a Central Park SunRail station because the city would be disrupted by trains a day and unlimited freight at night. The narrow brick streets, no parking and far distance major arterials compound these disruptions.
57 When asked about the historic significance of rail for the development of the city she points out that there was a fruit packing company and it is no longer 1895, so most of the traffic is oriented to the major arterials, not to Central Park. She believes that the residential properties will not increase in value because the station poses a safety risk to children, and the noise and vibration levels will be high. She also notes that real estate values around the station may rise, but that is only because of land use and zoning changes allow for more density, not because the property is actually more valuable. She notes that a population of 9,000 per square mile is needed to offset the operating cost of commuter rail in a city of 28,000 in nine square miles. She says that it is human nature to want to park as close as possible to your destination and that the kiss and ride feature of the Winter Park station will clog up the roads and parking spaces, taking it away from shoppers coming to Winter Park. The commuter rail project is not retail rail its purpose is to move people form the outlying areas into the urban core. She notes that people are fairly ignorant of the project specifications and that commuter rail has the potential to encourage sprawl because now people can live 20 min from a s top and then travel into the central business district. She notes that the people who are pushing this project are the beneficiaries. They are the land owners along the rail corridor, the city of Orlando, with Florida Hospital being probably the biggest beneficiary, and our mayor is the senior vice president of Florida Hospital, and the CEO of Winter Park Hospital, which is owned by Florida Hospital and the biggest employer here in Winter Park [and they pay no taxes]. When asked about possible explanation s to the high support found in the intercept surveys she notes that they [the people] dont understand. Drawing from a report by the
58 Federal Transit Authority, she states that the project will not alleviate congestion on I -4, it is not cost effective, 3,500 riders verse 74,000 on I -4, and 84,000 who take the Lynx on a daily basis. She calls the projects elite transit because of how few people will use it and cites that people dont really know the cost of the project. She insists that a better place for the rail station to be is on a parcel near 17-92 and Lee Road, a block or two north of the Winter Park Village. She also notes that Winter Park is not building five and six story buildings to support the project in Central Park. She notes that the polls t hat she has seen show that the public doesnt support the project. The project is not done in the best interest of the citizens but for the benefit of developers. She says the 1.2 billion dollar start -up costs would be better spent giving people money to c arpool and looking at the Tri-Rail system, mass transit fails in Florida. When confronted about the fact that neither roads nor commuter rail systems pay for themselves she notes that roads carry far more people and that justifies the cost regardless of the return the dollars should have been spent on improving the current system or expanding the roads. When asked about the economic inefficiencies and loss created by congestion, she notes that Lynx, who carries 84,000 a day should be expanded and Bus Rapid Transit is a better alternative to commuter rail. She points to the OTool e book that says that cars will become the green alternative because of how efficient they will become and that investments in nineteenth technology is and not environmental for the region. Ken Bradley, Mayor of Winter Park Mayor Bradley was elected in 2009 and is serving his first term. He is campus CEO of Winter Park Memorial Hospital, a Florida Hospital, and a senior vice -president for Florida Hospital and is on the Board of Trustees for the Southwest Volusia Hospital
59 Corporation. He received his Masters of Business Administration from the University of Central Florida and his Bachelors of Arts degree from Southern College of Seventh -day Adventist. Mayor Bradley has been a supp orter of rail transit for Central Florida since the early 1990s. Mayor Bradley notes first of all I think that there is broad support in the city of Winter Park and if I recall the referendum it was at a very strong majority. He goes on to cite that on any polls that have been done since 2007 the number one issue is a support of SunRail. When asked about the turbulence surrounding Central Park he stated the history of Winter Park is very important here. The fact that the city was started on a train track, the central park was created around the track and the stop, and those who oppose it, by the way it is a very small group that doesnt support it, the fact that our cities heritage is built around train and a stop and that this was done to develop in th e 1870s and 80s speaks naturally to the fact that SunRail will make a lot of sense here. He goes onto point out that other cities will have to build around the stop, Winter Park already has infrastructure in place. Speaking about the opposition he belie ves it comes from the idea that Central Park is sacred ground in our city and that the opposition stems from the perception that something bad will happen in Central Park if a train comes through. The Mayor says this belief has created many Trojan horses. The first Trojan horse is finance without the recognition that roads cost money too. The second Trojan horse is bigoted and resented by the Mayor; this is the bad element idea. This idea is nauseating to hear and it is the idea that this may bring an element to the city that we dont like. He notes that it is ridiculous to think that people are going to come into Winter Park, steal things,
60 and then wait on the platform to go home. He goes onto say that crime finds a way into a city regardless of the mode of transportation. He concedes that the city and the chamber have not done enough to inform the businesses and the citizens of the project and that this may have contributed to a perception of lack of support and may have empowered the anti -SunRail. However, he points out those opponents of SunRail claim that the voters did not know what they were voting for on the referendum, even though it was the opposition that pushed for and constructed the referendum. Furthermore, he thinks it is disingenuous of these people to say that the voters didnt know about SunRail, but knew enough to vote in members opposing SunRail. The interview concludes with the mayor confronting the ethics complaint, which he notes, has been cleared at the state level as no confl ict and going onto say that he doesnt believe the opposition to be dishonest, but rather a minority that has used Trojan horses to oppose change. Patrick W. Chapin, President/CEO, Winter Park Chamber of Commerce Patrick W. Chapin is the President/CEO of t he Winter Park Chamber of Commerce. He began his position in 2008, after moving from Sarasota, FL. His mother, Linda Chapin, was the first Chairman of the Orange County Commission. The main questions focused on promotional activities the Chamber has done for SunRail. He responded with telling me what happened prior to his arrival at the Chamber. Patrick hypothesized that the first wave of mistrust began with The Carlisle project, a development in Winter Parks Central Park, and the two camps, a pro -business chamber verse anti-growth One Winter Park group began the emotional feud. Its been Im surprised at the opponents objection to SunRail, and not necessarily its more of a political, mirroring the make up its like a homeowners association on
61 steroids, Winter Park politics I would hope most would say that some of that trust has been regained since I came on coming from a political family, I did not want to make this political I wanted to avoid a further polarization because most of the popul ation is made up of moderate republicans and democrats. Patrick also hypothesized about the sincerity of the anti -SunRail arguments, seeing the opponents tack onto any coalition or argument that helps them kill the project, rather than sticking to a base of claims. For instance, the two opponents on the council said they are not against SunRail, but just want a better deal when referring to a renegotiation with Orange County. If they were being sincere, they would just say they dont want SunRail. Patrick recognized the historical importance and impact of rail in Winter Parks development and states that Im a little biased, but there is no city better suited for SunRail. It is his belief that the real fanatics on the opponents side are scared of the unknown. He frequently would hear questions like, who will be riding that train? and what type of people will be coming? When talking about this veiled discrimination on the opponents side, Patrick became visibly upset noting that, I am not ashamed to say it, that it is their fear that the near-do-wells are going to come into Winter Park, and that bias or bigotry or racism has something to do with a socio economic bias. He goes on to say that all types of people will be riding SunRail. The big qu estion and moment of the interview came when Patrick was asked what activities the Chamber has done since he arrived there to educate businesses and the public about the benefits of SunRail. He noted two or three different workshops and some commission meeting coordination in the last two years. After a follow up question where the theory of too much defense and no offense was stated he responded with,
62 Youre exactly right, your instincts are exactly right its so combative [Winter Park] there was a lot more fighting and yelling and we [The Chamber] were all about the fight, defending. Summary The results discovered through the two public intercept surveys, the business and key informant interviews and the regulatory context combined with a background of Winter Park, the SunRail Central Park station and the SunRail project informed the discussion of the context and place of where the case study occurred. Taken together these findings assemble a throughout and multi -faceted view of the city, the population, the regulatory context and the personalities involved.
63 Table 4 -1. Public intercept perception on the current rate of growth Response Number Percentage About Right 41 68.3% Too Rapid 9 15.0% Too Slow 6 10.0% I dont know 4 6.7% Total 60 100.0% Table 4 -2. Public intercept perception on the benefits of rail transit Result Number Percentage Congestion/Traffic 25 41.7% Increased public to area 7 11.7% Mobility/Commuting 7 11.7% Convenience 4 6.7% Economic 4 6.7% Environmental 4 6.7% Negative 4 6.7% I don't know 2 3.3% Neutral 2 3.3% Public needs it 1 1.7% Total 60 100.0% Table 4 -3. Public intercept perception on the benefits of a rail transit station Result Number Percentage Access and mobility 16 26.7% More people 13 21.7% Other 11 18.3% No b enefit 6 10.0% Economic benefit 5 8.3% Location 4 6.7% Reduce congestion 3 5.0% Convenience 2 3.3% Total 60 100.0%
64 Table 4 -4. Public intercept perception on the serious problems associated with rail development Result Number Percentage Cost 13 21.7% Perception 9 15.0% Construction 8 13.3% None 8 13.3% Unwanted element 5 8.3% Environment 3 5.0% I don't know 3 5.0% No Answer 2 3.3% Other 2 3.3% Total 60 100.0% Table 4 -5. Public intercept perception on the future of transit development Result Number Percentage Grow 36 60.0% Stabilize 13 21.7% I dont know 5 8.3% Contract 4 6.7% No answer 2 3.3% Total 60 100.0% Table 4 -6. Public intercept perception on the best economic development strategy Result Number Percentage Yes 35 58.3% I don't know 8 13.3% No 7 11.7% Maybe 6 10.0% Probably 4 6.7% Total 60 100.0%
65 Table 4 -7. Public intercept perception on the desirable forms of transit Response Number Percentage Rail 23 26.7% Cars 14 16.3% Bike 8 9.3% Mass transit 7 8.1% Bus 6 7.0% No answer 6 7.0% Green cars 4 4.7% All 3 3.5% Subway 3 3.5% Air 2 2.3% Monorail 2 2.3% Other 2 2.3% Pedestrian 2 2.3% Taxi 2 2.3% Minibus 1 1.2% Shuttle 1 1.2% Motorcycle 0 0.0% Total 86 100.0% Table 4 -8. Public intercept perception on the undesirable forms of transit Response Number Percentage No answer 17 27.9% Bus 15 24.6% Cars 12 19.7% Mass/Public Transit 4 6.6% Other 3 4.9% More Roads/Tolls 3 4.9% Motorcycle 2 3.3% Air 1 1.6% Bike 1 1.6% Nothing 1 1.6% Rail 1 1.6% Taxi 1 1.6% Total 61 100.0%
66 Table 4 -9. Public intercept perception on the economic benefit of transit Response Number Percentage Yes 19 31.7% Not yet 18 30.0% I dont know 11 18.3% No 7 11.7% No answer 3 5.0% Maybe 1 1.7% Other 1 1.7% Total 60 100.0% Table 4 -10. Gender of first intercept survey Gender Number Percentage Male 33 55.0% Female 27 45.0% Total 60 100.0% Table 4 -11. Residence by zip code of first intercept survey Resident Number Percentage Yes 9 15.0% No 51 85.0% Total 60 100.0% Table 4 -12. Public intercept on the support for SunRail Response Number Percentage Yes 46 77.0% No 10 17.0% I don't know 4 7.0% Table 4 -13. Public intercept on the influence of Governor Rick Scott Response Number Percentage No 60 100.0% Yes 0 0.0%
67 Table 4 -14. Public intercept on the direction of SunRail Response Number Percentage North to South 26 43.0% East to West 22 37.0% Other 12 20.0% Table 4 -15. Public intercept on the number of miles along SunRail Response Number Percentage I don't know 29 48.3% 76 and above 12 20.0% 55 to 75 10 16.7% Less than 54 9 15.0% Table 4 -16. Public intercept of the number of stations along SunRail Response Number Percentage I don't know 39 65.0% Less than 9 15 25.0% 10 to 20 5 8.0% 21 and above 1 2.0% Table 4 -17. Public intercept of the number of counties along SunRail Response Number Percentage Incorrect 45 75.0% I don't know 15 25.0% Correct 0 0.0% Table 4 -18. Public intercept with a direction modifier Response Number Percentage East to West 20 44.0% Neither 13 29.0% North to South 12 27.0% Table 4 -19. Public intercept on the type of rail used by SunRail Response Number Percentage High Speed Rail 22 37.0% Commuter Rail 18 30.0% Light Rail 17 28.0% I don't know 3 5.0%
68 Table 4-20. Business ownership status: national, franchise or local Type Number Percentage Local 29 67.4% National Chain 10 23.3% Franchise 4 9.3% Total 43 100.0% Note: Participants were prompted with response Table 4-21. Number of employees Type Number Percentage Local 254 68.5% National Chain 101 27.2% Franchise 16 4.3% Total 371 100.0% Table 4-22. What businesses liked about their location Topic Number Percentage Place 34 79.1% Walkable/Place 5 11.6% Shopping/Place 2 4.7% I don't know 1 2.3% Place negative 1 2.3% Total 43 100.0% Table 4-23. What businesses would change about their location Topic Number Percentage Parking 12 27.9% Nothing 10 23.3% More customers 6 14.0% Better Park Ave. location 4 9.3% I dont know 3 7.0% More space 3 7.0% Other 3 7.0% Anti-Rail less loud trains 1 2.3% Regulatory afraid of growth 1 2.3% Total 43 100.0%
69 Table 4-24. Businesses view on the current rate of growth Topic Number Percentage About right 26 60.5% Too slow 16 37.2% I don't know 1 2.3% Too rapid 0 0.0% Total 43 100.0% Note: Participants were prompted with response Table 4-25. The largest perceived benefits of a rail transit system Topic Number Percentage More people 14 32.6% Miscellanies positive 7 16.3% Mobility and access 7 16.3% Reduce traffic 6 14.0% I dont know 3 7.0% Environmental 2 4.7% Big events 1 2.3% Miami to Winter Park 1 2.3% No benefit 1 2.3% Reduce parking demand 1 2.3% Total 43 100.0% Table 4-26. The largest perceived benefits of a rail transit station Topic Number Percentage More People 22 51.2% I don't know 4 9.3% Mobility and access 4 9.3% Good for business 3 7.0% Location 3 7.0% No benefit 2 4.7% More buses 1 2.3% More people is negative 1 2.3% Negative location 1 2.3% Some people say no benefit 1 2.3% Some people say negative 1 2.3% Total 43 100.0%
70 Table 4-27. The perceived problems with rail development Topic Number Percentage I don't know 7 16.3% Nothing 6 14.0% Bad element' 4 9.3% Some people say the bad element 4 9.3% Finance 3 7.0% People being obstacles 3 7.0% Change 2 4.7% Construction 2 4.7% Noise 2 4.7% Parking 2 4.7% Ridership 2 4.7% Could stop too much 1 2.3% Overcrowding 1 2.3% Process 1 2.3% Safety 1 2.3% Traffic 1 2.3% When the train comes by 1 2.3% Total 43 100.0% Table 4-28. Generalization of the problems Topic Number Percentage Against 15 34.9% Other 15 34.9% Support 9 20.9% Perception of 'bad element' 4 9.3% Total 43 100.0% Table 4-29. Desirable forms of transit Topic Number Percentage Rail 19 22.6% Bus 14 16.7% Cars 12 14.3% Bike 11 13.1% Pedestrian 9 10.7% I don't know 8 9.5% Motorcycle 5 6.0% Boat 3 3.6% Plane 3 3.6% Total 84 100.0%
71 Table 4-30. Undesirable forms of transit Topic Number Percentage I don't Know 16 34.8% Bus 12 26.1% Cars 4 8.7% None 4 8.7% Rail 3 6.5% Trucks 2 4.3% Bike 1 2.2% Horse 1 2.2% Motorcycle 1 2.2% Pedestrian 1 2.2% Pedi cab 1 2.2% Total 46 100.0% Note: Only one respondent answered SunRail as a desirable form of transportation and one respondent answered with, Trains, but not SunRail when describing undesirable modes of transportation. Table 4-31. The economic benefits of rail transit Topic Number Percentage Not Yet 11 25.6% Amtrak 9 20.9% Yes 8 18.6% I don't Know 7 16.3% No 4 9.3% Kind of' of 2 4.7% No and won't 1 2.3% Other 1 2.3% Total 43 100.0%
72 Figure 4-1. Winter Park SunRail Station # mile buffer analysis [Reprinted with permission from the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, 2011 ]
73 Figure 4-2. Winter Park future land use [Reprinted with permission from the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, 2011 ]
74 Figure 4-3. Winter Park zoning [Reprinted with permission from the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, 2011 ]
75 Figure 4-4. SunRail map [Reprinted with permission from the Florida Department of Transportation 2008]
76 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION In seeking to understand the seemingly paradoxical situation in Winter Park, six themes emerged from the research to address the central thesis question: 1) Winter Park is a Place, 2) Playing Defense Instead of Offense, 3) National Trends and Local Action, 4) The Other Element, 5) Lack of True Grass Roots Support, and 6) The Paradox of the Growth Machine. Each theme is addressed in its own section below. The chapter goes onto discuss the policy implications of the research methodology, as well as the political economy and tactics, addressing how other factions and municipalities may use these procedural mechanisms to avoid or mitigate the substanti ve pitfalls of local politics. Followi ng this section is the Chapter 6 Conclusion. The first theme, Winter Park is a Place and People Care About Their Place emerged from the surveys and interviews. Everyone seemed to allude to the fact that Winter Park is special to them, and that because something is special, it is worth fighting for. So the question of how to fight? logically follows if the theater is set. The second theme is based on the idea that the Winter Park Chamber of Commerce, City and Regional Boosters and the supporters of SunRail were Playing Defense against the anti -SunRail camps Instead of Off ense thereby cultivating and creating a synergy from the overwhelming support from the residents, visitors and business owners. Lacking true support from the local and regional public, the third theme enabled the anti SunRail boosters to appear so prevale nt: the rise and national swell of the Tea Party, an astro-turf organization founded in the ideas of Ayn Rand and other Libertarian reactionaries.
77 For better or worse, and mostly worse, racism and the fear of The Other Element were on the tip of peoples tongues. SunRail supporters were quick to point out the very public, social and racial follies of their rivals and one interviewee even explicitly mentioned that he did not want the poor and minorities coming into Winter Park and thats why he didnt support SunRail. Accusations of racism and bigotry have a stacked deck against them when it comes to resolution, and although both sides fought passionately for or against SunRail, it was not the passions of the people that made SunRail a reality, it was the understanding by the institutions, the status quo and the power players of the region that made SunRail happen this time. Therefore, the theme that SunRail had a Lack of True Grass-Roots Support helps explain the level of caustic calamity in Winter Park. The final theme that emerged is, in fact, all that is needed to effectively understand why there was a lack of grass roots support and also why the anti -SunRail camp were right in their understanding and fear of the institutional juggernaut, but wrong in t heir lack of support for a necessary and long time coming project. Therefore, the title of the Paradox of the Growth Machine is most fitting because, in the end, the institutions do not want active support from a well -informed citizenry; they want tacit support from occupied consumers. Winter Park is a Place (and People Care About Their Place) most EVERYTHING in Winter Park tends to be a hubbub. Scott Maxell, The Orlando Sentinel Winter Park is a HOA on steroids. Patrick Chapin, Winter Park Chamber
78 It may have been just a simple answer as to why Winter Park seemed to have more opposition to SunRail than the other municipalities in Central Florida; Winter Park is a place, and people care about their place. The other SunRail stops, less Downtow n Orlando, are in less developed areas, some out of walking distance of that neighborhoods residence and are not enhanced by a connected street grid network. Winter Parks station, on the other hand, is located in the heart of the city, adjacent to a college, the commercial area and homes. The concept of place goes beyond geography and encompasses concepts of community, democracy, civic virtue and a sense that all of it is tacked to that geography (Oldenburg, The Great Good Pace, 1989, 1991). The results showed that 67 percent of the business on Park Avenue was locally owned as opposed to a franchise or national chain. This is means that the businesses are probably not using bulk purchases and economies of scale to keep their merchandise at a low cost thus offering higher priced goods and services. Therefore, customers coming to the area are not necessarily seeking the lowest cost for their goods, but rather the amenity of shopping along this unique corridor. Also, certain items may not be for sale in ot her parts of the city or region and therefore the scarcity of the goods sold may also help keep the prices high and customers coming. Eighty-five percent of the customers intercepted were from outside of Winter Park, which means that Park Avenue and what happens there is not just a local concern, but also a regional concern. This regional patronage is key to the survival of Park Avenue merchants and they recognize their special situation. When the businesses were asked what do you like most about your present location? 98 percent responded with an answer that
79 encompasses Oldenburgs theory of place: 79 percent mentioned the place exclusively, 12 percent mentioned walkable and place, 5 percent mentioned the other shopping and place, one respondent had no i dea and one respondent had a negative attitude towards the corridor. Overall there was an overwhelming recognition that these merchants loved their location, location, location. When asked if you could change one thing about your present location? 23 percent responded with nothing. Playing Defense Instead of Playing Offense The research yielded an overall positive affirmation of the conceptual benefits of SunRail, with 77 percent of customers intercepted pledging support without a solid understanding of the system itself, evidenced by only 43 percent recognizing the SunRail as having a north to south route and 75 percent incorrectly naming the counties it will service. Indeed, most people supported the project, but more people knew nothing about the project or its intended benefits. For instance, 28 percent of businesses number one thing they would change about their location is parking, with 14 percent responding more customers. In addition, only three businesses recognized that SunRail would bring more people and customers without needing to add more parking; an amazing knowledge gap that may have contributed to the perception and support issues in Winter Park. When businesses and customers were asked what forms of transit do you consider desirable for your community? rail was most frequently mentioned followed by bus for the business es and cars for the customers. Clearly there is consensus that rail is an appropriate mode of transportation. The interviews later revealed the Chamber admits this gap is partially their fault, citing almost no education events conducted with the Park Avenue vendors in years, a
80 lack of offense. In playing defense, the Chamber failed to capture the overwhelming support of not only the business owners, but also the public themselves. Only 15 percent of the people interviewed on Park Avenue were residents of the City, meaning that 85 percent of the people interviewed came from the surrounding region or beyond. Therefore, it would have been prudent for the Chamber, the City and the SunRail support coalitions to frame the issue as a regional debate instead of just a local debate. Perhaps it was the SunRail supporters opposition that put them on the defensive. Central Park, the location and the proposed SunRail stati on, has been the subject of debate in the community for many years centered on a general disagreement on what to do or not do with Central Park. Or perhaps it was the personalities involved? Beth Dillaha has been described by the Winter Park/Maitland Obser ver as having a practice of making political enemies out of those who disagree with her (Rumpf, 2011). Indeed, she has now gone so far as to break campaign election law when it was discovered by the States Attorneys Office that she was behind the mailer that attacked another candidate, Sarah Sprinkel, when she had intentionally taken steps to keep the financial backers of the mailer anonymous and that she had failed to file the proper reports to form a political organization and also failed to file any campaign finance reports whatsoever (Rumpf, 2011). National Trends and Local Action The national swell of Tea Party support, cemented by Florida s election of the Tea Party Governor, gave these interests a common lexicon, acceptance and authority. The national media fell for, or created, the 50/50, or one verse the other trap, because sensationalism and ratings compel politics to be reported like ESPN sports: two teams,
81 opposing opinions, a winner and a looser. This empowered local action and helped bring about a perception that Winter Park had an even split in support and opposition to SunRail. The framing of the June 27, 2011 The New York Times article, A Congressmans Pet Project; a Railroads Boon, is evidence of the national attention that is being paid to the followers of Rand, the objectivists and the buy in they are getting from all spectrums of the political landscape. The article port rays the so called SunRail project as an expensive project to benefit a small amount of people and serve just 2,150 commuters a day, oh and one company in particular, CSX. It rests the survival of the project on Representative John Mica, a Republican and chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committees head as a testament to the ability of one congressman to help push through hundreds of millions of dollars in federal spending, even at a time of deep concern over ballooning federal deficits. Sentences like this show superficial research and logic needed to prove Tea Party logic. The article also exemplifies the ESPN-like reporting that journalism has devolved into. Indeed, one reason a content analysis of Orlando Sentinel articles was not used for this thesis was the lack of confidence now present in todays media. The article portrays Beth Dillaha as inspired to run for a seat on the Winter Park City Commission because of this issue. This fact is not necessarily true and has bee n a point of contention in the community. As reported by the West Orlando News, in March of 2007 Dillaha supported the project and again affirming her support in January of 2008 (West Orlando News, 2011). The author of the article even tries to make transit oriented development some sort of developer conspiracy, like this sprawling project slated to rise near the
82 Longwood Station in Central Florida (2011, p. 6). The article failed to give much context as to why SunRail was wanted or needed because it took the objectivists word for fact, and so it provides further evidence of the total confusion surrounding SunRail; even The New York Times couldnt produce a well-researched and balanced article on the subject. In the end, the author is near his target by honing in on an institutional actor but fails to draw into the story the portrait of the whole institution, and therefore fails to capture the true mechanism at work in the SunRail saga. The Other Element Some people say that the poor and minorities will ride transit into the rich areas to beg and steal from them. I dont believe it, but others do. Paraphrase from Interviewee A few people and businesses that were interviewed, as well as the literature, made it apparent that this sentiment the fear of the unwanted or unknown element was a real perception. Fear is an important motivation tool because it can be used as power, which can be confused with authority. Instead of focusing on how real credible or logical the actual threat of people rid ing transit to commit crimes is, it is more important to understand why this idea was repeated not only by the people that believe it, but people who dont believe it. Some respondents, who may not have shared this belief, would say that some people say while there were others that simply stated something mirroring the aforementioned paraphrase. One explanation for the responsiveness and differences in evaluating this particular perceived threat lies in the study of the brain and its connection to political views. In general, the studies point to the fact that Tea Party
83 members are more responsive to threats and fear, and so the leaders of the movement use the fear of the other to drum up support. This also plays into the Tea Party culture of victimization: we work, they benefit, and now theyve come to steal, and were going to help them by dropping them off in our neighborhood. This acute attraction toward fear is explained by two recent studies. A study published on April 7, 2011 in Current Biology, reveals that those differences in political orientation are tied to differences in the very structures of our brains: Individuals who call themselves liberal tend to have larger anterior cingulate cort exes, while those who call themselves conservative have larger amygdalas. Based on what is known about the functions of those two brain regions, the structural differences are consistent with reports showing a greater ability of liberals to cope with confl icting information and a greater ability of conservatives to recognize a threat, the researchers say. "Previously, some psychological traits were known to be predictive of an individual's political orientation," said Ryota Kanai of the University College London. "Our study now links such personality traits with specific brain structure ( Kanai, Ryota; Feilden, Tom; Firth, Colin; Rees, Geraint). Another study conducted in 2008 and published in Science shows similar results: In a group of 46 adult participants with strong political beliefs, individuals with measurably lower physical sensitivities to sudden noises and threatening visual images were more likely to support foreign aid, liberal immigration policies, pacifism, and gun control, whereas individuals displaying measurably higher physiological reactions to those same stimuli were more likely to favor defense spending, capital punishment, patriotism, and the Iraq War. Thus, the degree to which individuals are physiologically responsive to threat appears to indicate the degree to which they advocate policies that protect the existing social structure from both external (outgroup) and internal (normviolator) threats (Oxley, Douglas; Smith, Kevin; Alfor, John,
84 Hibbinh, Matthew; Miller, Jennifer; Scalora, Mario; Hatemi, Peter, Hibbing, John). This new information explains the proclivity of the objectivist anti -planner towards fear and why this perception remained without any factual basis for its existence. Patrick Chapin and Mayor Ken Bradley both confronted these ideas in the interview, becoming visibly upset that people in their community felt that way. The perception of people coming in to steal things and the actual perception of others recognizing that misperception have pitted those two sides against each other. As a result, the two sides now may think that one group is racist and the other is nave. This idea of one side being racist and the other nave is not new, but finds a home in this local manifestation of Americas most unfortunate piece of hi story. When asked, what do you view to be the most serious problems associated with rail transit development? 22 percent said cost, 15 percent mentioned something about bad perceptions of rail, and an equal 31.33 percent said construction and nothi ng. This shows that next to cost, people recognized that there were many perceptions that stood in the way of rail. Businesses were also apt to offer insight into this perception issue. When asked the same question, 16 percent said I dont know, 14 perce nt said nothing, 9 percentage said the bad element, and 9 percent said that some people say a bad element will come in. Again it is clear that this was on the top of peoples minds because to combine the two issues of perception leaves that category at 18 percent, a larger share than any other response. Lack of a True Grass Roots Support Although 77 percent of those surveyed support SunRail, they dont know anything about the project. People frequently said before the interview I know nothing
85 of the project and they constantly thought it was High Speed Rail, Light Rail, or Amtrak. Evidence of this is apparent when looking at the se cond intercept survey where, although 77 percent support the SunRail project, only 43 percent could identify that SunRail would travel north to south. Furthermore, only one respondent accurately stated the number of miles along the SunRail. The strength of the SunRail project was the institutional understanding of its need by the growth machine. However, institutional support doesnt necessarily mean public support. Indeed, w hile the institution understand why SunRail is needed and the public conceptually s upports the project, the lack of knowledge about where and how SunRail will fulfill its intended goals by the public may mean that only superficial connections between the public and the institutions were established. When asked, what do you view as the largest benefits of rail transit? 42 percent said congestion and traffic, 12 percent said increased public to area, and 12 percent said mobility and commuting. When asked, what do you view as the largest benefits of the rail transit station? 27 per cent responded with an answer categorized as access and mobility, 22 percent said more people and 10 percent responded with no benefit. This supports the idea that the growth machine, through the How Shall We Grow? initiative did a poor job in foll owing through with the regional vision after executing the procedural visioning process (Central Florida Joint Policy Framework Committee & Dr. Alissa Torres, 2010 ). Indeed, the conceptual support for rail was in place, but for a multitude of reasons the f ollow through to educate the public was not done. In other words, further educating the public once the institutional understanding of the need for rail was met ceased (Torres 2010 ).
86 The Paradox of the Growth Machine Although the growth machine needs political censuses to move the mega-project forward, and one would think that public support would enable that political consensus to happen, the growth machine does not want active public involvement; in fact they prefer tacit public support. This preference is not new; competing notions of civic involvement and humanism could be traced back to the philosophical arguments of Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. The main reason the growth machine does not want the public to become too involved is accoun tability. Public infrastructure is owned by the public, built to serve the public, and therefore, it is reasonable that it should meet or exceed societal standards. Those standards could translate into more construction costs, which could delay the project or require further political consensus to become viable, decreasing the exchange value profits, while increasing the use value of the project. Accountability in this sense means an active public involvement, holding politicians and business leaders to the ir word. If its a governments job to protect people, they must also not put them in harms way and therefore, quality and safety would be important and the public may demand that the project be made in the USA, green/environmental standards and social just. Again, these demands increase costs and may not be able to directly benefit the local growth machine, because the interests here are in the use and not exchange based. Accountability also means transparency: who benefits and why. In the story of SunRail, this is where the objectivist dug in and waged war against the government and the rail company, CSX. This is where The New York Times jumped into the story. Furthermore it fits into the them-verses-us paradigm better than the complexities of the
87 institutional understanding across party lines. Although politics, government and business leaders need the public support, in the case of SunRail they have shown little evidence in making substantive efforts. In Married to the Mouse Rollins College Professor Richard Foglesong argues that Disney was really successful because they controlled every aspect of the growth and development, as they were both the government and private corporation at the same time. In order to compete with the growth machine in Central F lorida, the boomers, movers and shakers felt they also needed this type of control. Because they couldnt perform the type of legal jujitsu that Disney had done, they came up with a substantively loose yet procedurally driven method, also known as a dog a nd pony show, to convince the region that blank project is necessary. To that end they achieved their goal: tacit support from the public and actual support from elected officials and the private leaders and the institution that matter. This study is not without limitations. When trying to understand peoples perception verse actual reality and the subsequent change perception can have on shaping reality, there are opportunities for many layers of bias to enter into the picture. The task of taking peoples words and applying them to categories can never really be verified except by others subjective take on what was said and why. To mitigate this, other studies as well as the literature were used to calibrate the degree of bias. The findings presented matched the findings of professional polling agencies. Furthermore, the key informant interviews animated the arguments dually through representing institutions as well as being people.
88 Limitations of Research Another limitation to the study was the assumption that there was a perception problem in Winter Park. The voter referendum and multiple touch -and-go contacts between the municipalities were used as evidence, but the understanding of the turmoil was more in the air than on the ground. A preliminary survey could have been developed to gage the climate of Winter Park before investigating. Luckily, passionate and brave people like Beth Dillaha were elected into the city and helped create, cultivate or represent, depends on who one asks, a sense of uneas e about the project. Further Research Future research about intersection of the growth machine and cognitive framing on a national scale is the next place for this research to go. The mechanisms of how SunRail came to be is not that distinct from how other small and medium scale planning projects to large-scale mega-projects develop. How multinational corporations and banks, the ones that have their logos attached to or finance these projects play into the who, what, where and when may reveal further insight on how planners can play politics and best manage divergent interest. It is worth noting that in the same time Beth Dillaha and others were fighting against a $429 million project, multinational banks and Wall Street nearly brought the world to a complete economic collapse. Indeed, as described by Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone the financial-crisis era, one that saw virtually every major bank and financial company on Wall Street embroiled in obscene criminal scandals that impoverished millions and collectively destroyed hundreds of billions, in fact, trillions of dollars of the world's wealth and nobody went to jail (Taibbi, 2011). Perhaps SunRail and other projects are distractions for greater
89 shenanigans, maybe its local and regional politics that are pull ing the strings, or perhaps it is the antiquated insight of 18th century economics and it is, in fact, an invisible hand.
90 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS The central thesis question and investigation into why Winter Park had a seemingly paradoxical situation of the only city designed as a transit oriented development and to have had a voter referendum on the project, yet still yielding a negative perception of SunRail, made this community ripe for understanding the grander context of the perceived impacts of SunRail in the region. As noted in the Chapter 5 Discussion, the answer to that question is complex and although is tacked to modern trends and developments, the answer is also based in Americas philosophical roots of competing ideologies. The ne ed for political consensus among the institutional players is key for projects to move forward, but is up to the public to make sure that use value, and not just exchange value, is being is put into the project. Indeed, in Bridging the Divide Between Science and Planning: Lesson from Ecosystem -Based Management Approached to Local and Regional Planning in the United States its authors find through a series of case study investigations, that one und erlying theme becomes apparent: although good data, robust models, and a logical decision process all matter, the politics matter even more. How effectively a community planning process unfolds is determined in large part by who participates, how they participate, and what power they each wield (Smith, Snyder, Taylor, & Hittle, 2011). Essentially, planning is not reason, but politics; a tension between logic and the future. In these politics, economies exist, economies of power. Tamed are the days of Machiavellis contentions factions, modern society in the United States is too bourgeois to use a direct application of violence, instead this power has been internalized by the state and today is known as the police power, the very concept that modern ur ban
91 planning derives its authority from. Just as Thorstein Veblen documented the world changing from humans as survivalists to consumers at the turn of the 19th century, today our modern politics, locally and nationally, have become very bourgeois themselves, changing violence to fear. However, not all planning is entrenched in violence or police powers for that matter. No, a great majority of planning is indeed advocacy; its representing the public interest in private development rights. If politics is who gets what, where, when and why, planning is how who gets what, where, when and why. The research methodology used in the thesis can also act as a model for local government and chambers of commerce to emulate when conducting public outreach and educatio n. A great majority of participants were eager to help during the interviews and, if anything, people wanted to talk at greater length and more depth about the issues presented to them. Governments need to break out of static community meeting and engag e and intercept the public. They will find that the people who are making their space a place are more than the homeowners and property rights vested to them; place and the issues of change encompasses a greater meaning than can be quantified or fit neatly into a room with sixty chairs. This study, in conjunction with past research, hopefully illuminated insight into not only what happened in Winter Park, but also what can happen anywhere that people care about. Winter Park should be proud of this problem; it is an indicator that people care, which sadly is rare.
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`];5N@!(516!
94 C= &1F32!(516! D= ]1F3!"H;;?!(516! "#$%&'!a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aA:19;::J ________________________ ! ________________________ ! ________________________ M=!,@H;!8E!aA:19;::J!_____________________________________ P=!%;4:89!192;4N1;0;?J!/09;4!____!$595F;4!____!'IH68@;;!____! b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b!b! *52;!8E!192;4N1;0J!___!`!___!`!Mc
95 a=!&8D52189!)9E84I52189! <=!>352!?8!@8A!61B;!I8:2!5C8A2!@8A4!H4;:;92!68D52189O! M=!)E!@8A!D8A6?!D359F;!89;!2319F!5C8A2!@8A4!H4;:;92!68D52189K!0352!08A6?!12!C; 7=!"A9(516!eA;:2189:! <= >352!?8!@8A!2319B!5C8A2!23;!DA44;92!452;!8E!F48023!GH48IH2J!288!45H1?K!5C8A2!41F32K!288! :680L! M= >352!?8!@8A!N1;0!5:!23;!654F;:2!C;9;E12:!8E!4516!2459:12O! P= >352!?8!@8A!N1;0!5:!23;!654F;:2!C;9;E12:!8E!23;!4516!2459:12!:252189O! Q= >352!?8!@8A!N1;0!28!C;!23;!I8:2!:;418A:!H48C6;I:!5::8D152;?!0123!4516!2459:12! ?;N;68HI;92O!>3@O! R= >352!E84I:!8E!2459:12!?8!@8A!D89:1?;4!?;:145C6;!E84!@8A4!D8IIA912@!59?!0352!E84I:!?8! @8A!D89:1? ;4!A9?;:145C6;O! T= *8!@8A!E;;6!2352!23;!D8IIA912@!5:!5!0386;!35:!;D898I1D566@!C;9;E12;?!E48I!4516!2459:12O! >3@O ! ! !
96 ^'Z!)+d/($#+,!7/+"'+,!59?!-A;:2189:! 8(5%).$(&.!*#!9)1%&!:!;(',*&%0!<0%&&,&'!! <=>=!?*@!AABCDE 9&,/()-,.F!*#!G0*),4%!! H%,&(-/,00(I!GJ!KLEAAMBCDE! *;54!_____________J! !! )!5I!5!F45?A52;!:2A?;92!52!23;!.91N;4:12@!8E!d6841?5=!!#:!H542!8E!I@!23;:1:!)!5I!D89?AD219F! 192;4N1;0:K!23;!HA4H8:;!8E!031D3!1:!28!19E84I!I@!D5:;!:2A?@!8E!23;!4;FA65284@!D892;f2!8E!4516! 2459:12!F48023!19!23;!/4659?8!$;248H861259!#4;5=!!)!5I!5:B19F!@8A!28!H5421D1H52;!19!231:! 192;4N1;0!C;D5A:;!8E!@8A4!486;!19!23;!"A9(516!H48D;::=!)92;4N1;0;;:!0166!C;!5:B;?!28!H5421D1H52;! 19!59!192;4N1;0!65:219F!98!689F;4!2359!Mc!I19A2;:=!Z8A!0166!982!35N;!28!59:0;4!59@!eA;:2189!@8A! ?8!982!01:3!28!59:0;4=!,3;!192;4N1;0!0166!C;!D89?AD2;?!19!H;4:89K!C@!;I516K!84!8N;4!23;!H389;=!! N*O)!,4(&.,.F!will not be recorded 59?!@8A!I5@!D388:;!28!:354;!@8A4!1?;9212@!19!23;!E1956! I59A:D41H2=! ,3;4;!54;!98!5921D1H52;?!41:B:K!D8IH;9:52189!84!823;4!?14;D2!C;9;E12 :!28!@8A!5:!5!H5421D1H592!19! 231:!192;4N1;0=!Z8A!54;!E4;;!28!0123?450!@8A4!D89:;92!28!H5421D1H52;!59?!I5@!?1:D89219A;!@8A4! H5421D1H52189!19!23;!192;4N1;0!52!59@!21I;!01238A2!D89:;eA;9D;=! )E!@8A!35N;!59@!eA;:2189:!5C8A2!231:!4;:;54D3!H4828D86K!H6;5:;!D892 5D2!I;!52!GQcUL!WMcbUPQP!84! I@!E5DA62@!:AH;4N1:84K!*4!(A23!"2;19;4K!52!GPRML!PWM bcWWU!;f2!QP<=!-A;:2189:!84!D89D;49:!5C8A2! @8A4!41F32:!5:!5!4;:;54D3!H5421D1H592!41F32:!I5@!C;!?14;D2;?!28!23;!)(acM!8EE1D;K!.91N;4:12@!8E! d6841?5K!a8f!<
97 APPENDIX B SUNRAIL STATIONS LAND USE INVENTORY P,&.()!<%)6! Q.%.,*& RO),-4,S.,*& GO.O)(!J%&4!9-( GT; 8(&-,.F! 4OU%S !"#$%&'%(")#*+%,-+. % 7;92456!aA:19;::!*1:241D2 M=cc! /()0%F V;T 8;" Q,.(!V*$$(&.! +8 Z;:! +8 ,3;!:252189!:12;!1:!5!31:2841D56!:28H!68D52;?!19!5!H54B! 012319!23;!D12@k:!7;92456!aA:19;::!*1:241D2K!031D3!1:!56:8! 23;!I519!:38HH19F!59?!91F3261E;!5D21N12@!D;92;4=! ,3;!:252189!:12;!1:!;eA56!?1:259D;!;5:2!28!23;!65B;!5:! :8A23!28!(86619:!7866;F;=! W>8!T--(--$(&.!V*$$(&.! 3*.(! ]1:2841D56!,/*!?;N;68HI;92!0123!IA621H6;! 5I;9121;:J!H54BK!:38HH19FK!;?AD52189K! D3A4D3K!192;4D899;D2;?!F41?!9;2084B=!! ,3;!7;92456!aA:19;::!*1:241D2!4;FA652189:! 54;!982!8H21I56!E84!EA2A4;!,/*! ?;N;68HI;92 >192;4!%54B!35:!5!:I566K!@;2!N8D56!I198412@!038! 8HH8:;!59@!D359F;:!19!23;!D12@=!]80;N;4!N82;4! 4;E;4;9?AI!59?!:A4N;@:!35N;!D89E14I;?!2352! 23;!4;:1?;92:!59?!N1:1284:!0592!"A94516!59?!,/*! ?;N;68HI;92
98 LIST OF REFERENCES Allen D.O., F. A. Does it matter how we measure congestion? University of the West of England, Department of Economics Discussion. Allman, T. (2007, March). The Theme-Parking, Megachurching, Franchising, Exurbing, McMansioning of America. National Geographic Balaker, T., & Staley, S. (2006). The Road More Traveled. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Batson, A. (2010). Rail Transit and Coordination in Orlando in the 1990s and 2000s:: A Study in Contrast. University of Floirda, College of Design, Cons truction and Planning. Gainseville: University of Florida. Bertini, Robert L. You Are the Traffic Jam: An Examination of Congestion Measures Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering Portland State University, Submitted for presentation at the 85th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board January 2006, Washington, D.C. Cervero, R., Hansen, M., (2002). Induced Travel Demand and Induced Road Investment: A Simultaneous Equation Analysis. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Volume 36, Part 3, September 2002, pp. 469. Cervero, R. (2003). Coping with Complexity in America's Urban Transportation Sector. 2nd International Confernece on the Future of Urban Transport. Goteborg, Sweeden: Coping with Complexity in America's Urban Transporta tion Sector. Gteborg, Sweden, September 22-24. East Central Florida Regional Planning Council. (2011). SunRail Sketchbook Update, March 2011. Florida Department of Transportation. FDOT. Dutzik, T., Davis, B., & Baxandall, P. (2011). Do Roads Pay for Themselves?: Setting the Record Straight on Transportation Funding. United States PIRG Education Fund. ashington, DC: U.S. PIRG Education Fund. Downs, A. (1992). Stuck in Traffic: Coping with Peak-Hour Traffic Congestion. Washington, DC, USA: The Brookings Institutre. Downs, A. (2004). Still Stick in Traffic: Coping with Peak-Hour Congestion. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute. Fodor, E. (1999). Better Not Bigger. Foglesong, R. E. (2002). Married to the Mouse: Walt Disney and Orlando. Yale University.
99 Fotch, P. M. (2007). Watching the Traffic Go By. Huffingtonpost.com. (2010, March 24). Huffingtonpost.com Retrieved July 1, 2011, from Huffintonpost.com: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/sarah -palinspac-puts -gun_n_511433.html Harris, R. A. (1993). The Linguistics Wars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. How Shall We Grow? (2008). How Shall We Grow? myregion.org. Orlando: myregion.org. Lakoff, G. (2004). Don't Think of an Elephant. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Landis, A. (2002). A Historical Perspective: Central Park, Winter Park Florida,. Rollins College. Winter Park, FL: Rollins College. Logan, J., & Molotch H. (1987). Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place (Second ed.). CA, USA: University of California Press. Levinson, David M., and Krizek, Kevin J., Planning for Place and Plexus: Metropolitan Land use and Transport New Y ork, NY.: Routledge, 2008. myr egion. org "How Shall We Grow?" A Shared Vision for Central Florida August 2007 myregion.org. (2006). www.myregion.org. (S. Lawton, Producer, & myregion.org) Retrieved July 1, 2011, from file://localhost/myregion.org/ http/::www.myregion.org: MacDowell, L. (1950). Chronological History of Winter Park. Orange Press. O'Sullivan, A., Sheffrin, S. M., & Perez, S. J. (2007). Survey of Economics: Principles, Applications and Tools (Third ed.). Prentice Hall. Podritske, M., & Schwartz, P. (Eds.). (2009). Objectively Speaking: Ayn Rand Interviewed. Lanham, MD, USA: Lexington Books. Smith, J., Snyder, K., Taylor, P., & Hittle, J. (2011). in Bridging the Divide Between Science and Planning: Lesson from Ecosystem -Based Management Approached to Local and Regional Planning in the United States PlaceMatters. A PlaceMatters Institure Publication. Sowell, T. (2007). Economic Facts and Fallacies. Persesus Publishing.
100 Rumpf, S. (2011, 6 27). Sunshine State Sarah. Retrieved 9 15, 2011, from http://www.sunshinestatesarah.com/2011/06/how -to-speak-winter -parkerdillaha.html Rand, A. (1957). Atlas Shrugged. Taibbi, M. (2011, 2 16). Why Isn't Wall Street in Jail? Retrieved 9 15, 2011, from Rolling Stone: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-isnt-wall-street-in-jail 20110216 Tsu, L. Tao Te Ching. Trask, R. (2007). Language and Linguistics (Second ed.). (P. Stockwell, Ed.) New York, NY, USA: Routledge. Weyrich, P. M., & Lind, W. S. (2001). Twelve Anti-Transit Myths: A Conservative Critique. Free Congress Research and Education Foundation. W ashington, DC: A Study Prepared by the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation. West Orlando News. (2011, 4 4). Beth Dillaha Flip Flops Again on SunRail Retrieved 9 15, 2011, from West Orlando News: http://westorlandonews.com/2011/05/04/beth -dillaha-flip -flops -again-on-sunrail/ Weisbrod, G. E., Vary, D., & Treyz, G. (2001). Economic implications of congestion Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Will, G. (2011, February 27). High Speed to Insolvency: Why liberals love trains. Newsweek Will, G. (2007, March 11). Traffic Congestion in America. Retrieved July 1, 2011, from www.townhall.com: http://townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/2007/03/11 /traffic_congestion_in_ameri ca
101 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Joshua Hoffman was born in 1982 in Buffalo, New York. He grew up in Altamonte Springs, Florida and attended Warren Wilson College where he earned a Bachelor of Arts in history and political science in 2004 He received his Graduate Certificate in urban and regional planning from the University of Central Florida in May of 2008. Joshuas first internship with Orange County introduced him to rail transit planning where he completed a comparative case st udy analysis for the two Orange County stations and co-authored the Countys first food systems white paper. As an intern at the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, he co-authored the Agriculture chapter and policies of the Strategic Regional P olicy Plan. As a Regional Planner, Joshua helped secure a $300,000 over three years Kellogg Grant with the Farmworker Association of Florida to do a Community Food Assessment in Apopka, Florida. During his tenure at the university, he managed, played bass and wrote songs for the regionally touring and critically acclaimed psychedelic grunge/funk band Diocious. Joshua received his Masters in Arts from the University of Florida in the fall of 2011. He intends to pursue a career in food systems and transportat ion planning with a goal of reducing the energy expended in the region food system by reducing vehicle miles traveled while strengthening the economic opportunit ies of farmers and food processors.