virginia Archives - Transportation For America

Stories You May Have Missed – Week of October 27th

Stories You May Have Missed

As a valued member, Transportation for America is dedicated to providing you pertinent information. This includes news articles to inform your work. Check out a list of stories you may have missed last week.

“White House eyes 7-cent gas tax hike for infrastructure plan.” (The Hill)
National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn discussed with the Bipartisan House Problem Solvers Caucus last week a potential timeline of an infrastructure package and the possibility of a gas tax raise. Mr. Cohn said that an infrastructure package could happen in the early part of 2018 and that a gas tax increase could be voted on as part of an infrastructure plan. (Politico Morning Transportation)
House Republicans are scheduled to release their tax reform plan on Wednesday. Details are scarce right now but many tax credits could be at risk including potentially the parking and transit benefit, to help pay for the expected reduction in corporate and individual tax rates. (CNN)
16 State DOT’s gave back their biking and walking money from the Federal Highways Administration rather than investing in bike and pedestrian projects. (Safe Routes To School)
A new report from MIT looks at the potential future effect of Automated Vehicles on real estate and how communities will develop. (The Drive)
The Utah Legislature and Salt Lake City are currently examining and debating potential governance reforms to the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) structure. (Deseret News)
A new business group, the Washington Partnership is pushing to overcome political differences and get Virginia, D.C. and Maryland to agree on how to reform Metro. The Washington Partnership is concerned that the problems at Metro will harm the Washington D.C. metro economy. (Washington Post)

Helping governors save money and attract talent through a fresh approach to transportation

A new guide released today by Transportation for America shows governors and their administration how a fresh approach to transportation is fundamental to creating quality jobs and shared prosperity while running an efficient government that gets the greatest benefit from every taxpayer dollar.

With new governors set to take office in the new year and scores of incumbents returning and setting their agendas for 2017, it’s crucial that they consider how transportation can be a valuable tool for achieving their policy goals — whether producing savings in the budget, attracting and creating jobs, giving taxpayers greater benefit for each dollar, or building healthy and safe communities.

Transportation failures — whether excessive time that people or freight are stuck in traffic, decreasing air quality, flawed implementation of mega-projects, or the perceived and real inefficiencies of government bureaucracy — are a drag on the economy and quality of life for residents.

Many state departments of transportation just aren’t well calibrated to solve today’s challenges. Planning is isolated from development and other infrastructure decisions, state programs have a narrow focus on building highways to the exclusion of building unified, holistic systems, and the most efficient solutions are often overlooked in favor of overbuilt or ill-conceived mega-projects.

And above all, the recipe for successful local and regional economic development has changed significantly.

In the past, economic development was focused on recruiting and luring large employers and expecting new workers to follow the jobs. But younger workers are choosing where to live and then looking for jobs. Economic development now depends on building great places that draw and anchor talent. Quality of life, vibrant communities, and transportation choices are no longer simply nice add-ons, they are essential to economic growth and prosperity in communities large and small. And employers are making the same shift to stay competitive, seeking communities with these features precisely because they attract talented workers.

Yet the transportation policies and bureaucratic practices in so many states often fail to provide the infrastructure that helps build these kinds of places that businesses are now flocking too. Instead, many state agencies are continuing to offer transportation strategies more suited to solving yesterday’s problems. State policymakers need to change the focus of transportation spending in order to realize the full potential from these investments.

This new guide offers best practices to help state leaders achieve greater benefits and avoid costly pitfalls in their transportation programs, including several examples of states solving problems by instituting reforms within their transportation programs.

Virginia developed a new system to pick projects based on benefits and better communicate the benefits of each state investment.
Tennessee saved millions of dollars by right-sizing and reconsidering projects that had long been in their pipeline. One $65 million project became a $340,000 project, with nearly the same benefits.
Colorado built a new, multimodal corridor with tolled lanes and bus rapid transit to provide commute options.
California has launched a new, all-electric car share program in disadvantaged neighborhoods.

As new governors begin their terms and new legislatures are seated, it is a critical time to evaluate state transportation spending and how we can get greater benefits from these programs. The examples in this guide from around the country show how governors, administrations, and state DOTs have solved problems by reforming policies and practices. Download it today.

We can help states achieve these changes through tailored technical assistance and through START network policy support. Find out more and join this network today.

Virginia approves its first transportation plan based on a new system of scoring and prioritizing projects

Today Virginia’s Commonwealth Transportation Board approved the first set of transportation projects selected and prioritized through the state’s new scoring process to objectively screen and score them based on their anticipated benefits. The newly renamed SMART Scale directs $1.7 billion to 163 projects across the state.

VA Commonwealth Transportation Bd OKs 6-yr spending plan that for 1st time uses scoring system to rationalize project selection.

— Dr. Gridlock (@drgridlock) June 14, 2016

Following the release of the first list of recommended projects back in January, today’s approval from the CTB marks the first complete cycle of a brand new process created by the legislature a few years ago to improve the process for selecting projects and awarding transportation dollars — all in an effort to direct the new money to the best, most cost-effective projects with the greatest bang for the buck.

“Political wish lists of the past are replaced with a data-driven process that is objective and transparent, making the best use of renewed state funding,” as Gov. Terry McAuliffe said earlier this year.

This new scoring system became law under HB2, passed unanimously in 2014. Following after earlier legislation that raised new money to invest in transportation, the law established five fundamental goals for the state’s transportation investments: reduce congestion, support economic development, expand accessibility, improve safety, and protect environmental quality. We covered these changes in detail in one of our Capital Ideas reports in 2015.

The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) developed a data-driven system to evaluate projects across the commonwealth and advance those that will deliver the greatest return from each dollar of state funds, adding valuable transparency to the once-murky process of directing state money. The score for every project considered was listed publicly on VDOT’s www.virginiahb2.org web page during the last four months of public comment.

In a press release announcing the approved program today, Transportation Secretary Aubrey Layne says, “In the past, Virginia had a politically driven and opaque transportation funding process that was filled with uncertainty for local communities and businesses. The SMART SCALE process makes the best use of renewed state funding approved in 2013 and the recently approved federal transportation bill.”

Virginia’s new scoring process offers a model for other states. As legislators see transportation dollars dwindling, it is more important than ever to ensure funds go to the best projects.

Since Virginia’s General Assembly passed HB2 in 2014, Louisiana, Texas, and Massachusetts have all advanced their own new processes to objectively score or prioritize projects. This year Maryland’s assembly overrode Gov. Larry Hogan’s (R) veto to enact a new, objective scoring process. Though the policy is similar to HB2, Maryland will face a challenge to replicate Virginia’s success in a climate with a far less collaborative political process — which was as crucial to Virginia’s success as the underlying policy.

How can other states replicate this?

Virginia’s shift to a more transparent system of selecting transportation projects is just one of the many smart policy changes that we’ll be covering in detail in Sacramento this November at Capital Ideas II, our one-of-a kind conference on state transportation policy. Come and be inspired and educated!

Learn More & Register

Massachusetts event highlights the growing trend of states moving to enable more local transportation funding

“Let the voters decide.” It’s a mantra we hear all the time in politics, but not quite as much in transportation. Yet that’s starting to change, as nearly a dozen states have taken steps to empower local communities with new or enhanced taxing authority for transportation over the last few years, putting the question directly in the hands of voters.

Update: (5:23 p.m.) WAMC radio story about the briefing is at the bottom of this post.

Like in Utah, where legislature moved in 2015 to increase the state’s gas tax, tie it to inflation, and then provide individual counties with the ability to go to the ballot to increase sales taxes to raise yet more dollars to invest in their local transportation priorities. Voters approved the 0.25% sales tax increase in ten of the 17 counties where it was on the ballot last November. And in Virginia, state legislators in 2014 created a new regional funding mechanism and boosted sales taxes in the state’s two biggest metro areas (Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads) explicitly and only for transportation projects.

This growing movement of states taking action to empower local communities and put questions in the hands of the voters was the hot topic at a legislative briefing in the Massachusetts state capitol this morning, sponsored by a host of organizations including Transportation for Massachusetts and the Metropolitan Area Planning Council.

MA policy breakfast james corless mayor ballard 2

From left, Salem Mayor Kim Driscoll, MAPC executive director Marc Draisen, Former Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard, T4A Director James Corless (speaking), Pioneer Valley Planning Commission executive director Tim Brennan and Kristina Egan from Transportation for Massachusetts at this morning’s breakfast in the MA state capitol.

The briefing was in support of S1474 and H2698, bills in the Massachusetts legislature known as “enabling legislation” that would allow cities, towns or groups of cities new authority to raise one of four different sources of local taxes explicitly for local transportation projects.

Tracking state policy & funding

We are closely tracking this piece of state legislation and scores of others as part of our new resource on state transportation policy & funding. Visit our refreshed state policy bill tracker to see current information about the states attempting to raise new state or local funding in 2016, states attempting to reform how those dollars are spent, and states taking unfortunate steps in the wrong direction on policy.

T4America Director James Corless kicked off the discussion speaking to his own experience with ballot measures in California. “There is no better way of rebuilding the transportation brand with voters than asking them to tax themselves for projects and then delivering those projects and making good on that promise,” he explained.

In Indiana, the legislature acted in 2014 to change state law and allow metro Indianapolis counties to have a long-awaited vote on raising income taxes to fund an ambitious new public transportation network built around bus rapid transit.

Former Indy Mayor Greg Ballard, who told the Indy Star that he’d “been to the Statehouse more on [Indy’s enabling legislation] than any other issue,” was shared a local perspective this morning on how important it is for local cities to have more of a hand in deciding their own future and staying competitive.

“This is all about attracting talent…the local option transportation tax is a critical tool for mayors because, let’s face it, mayors know best what their most pressing transportation problems are,” Mayor Ballard said.

“When I became mayor we had one transit line on a map. We had no bigger, regional vision. What our local option tax has done is allow us to think big. So we now want to take seven new transit lines to the voters, and the local option tax made it possible to embrace such an ambitious vision. People used to move for a job now they move for a place – that’s why transportation and quality life is critical to make your economy competitive.”

The leaders of Massachusetts’ cities and towns are eager to put the question to voters. Marc Draisen, executive director of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council in the Boston metro area, said, “This bill sets a high bar — you have to let local voters decide on their own future…if they don’t like it, they will reject it.”

And the Mayor of Salem, Kim Driscoll, said that as things stand now without the legislation, it’s an uphill battle for cities like hers to invest in what they most need to stay competitive.

“The ability to connect people to places is critical. But for a place like Salem we simply don’t have the tools to invest in the projects that can make that happen,” she said. “This bill would unlock great ideas in the communities that really want it”

T4America director James Corless reminded everyone that the success of local cities and towns are intrinsic to the state’s economic prosperity.

“The best ideas are coming from cities and towns; empowering communities and promoting innovation is essential to a strong future.”

Updated 5:23 p.m. — WAMC Northeast Public Radio did a story about this morning’s briefing. Read or listen to the story here. An excerpt:

State Senator Ben Downing is sponsoring a bill to enable a community or group of municipalities to enact a tax to finance local transportation projects.

“This is a way to control much more directly how we raise and how we spend money for transportation,” Downing said. “It’s also a way to guarantee that the dollars that are raised will stay in the community where they are raised.”

…Transportation for America Director James Corless says since 2013 10 states have passed similar legislation. “In part they realize Congress is not going to come to their rescue anymore and increasingly even state capitals are broke,” said Corless.

—

This story is part of the work of T4America’s START Network — State Transportation Advocacy, Research & Training — for state elected leaders and advocates working on similar state issues.

Find out more and join today.

How many states will try to do something different in 2016?

With Congress finally wrapping up their five-year transportation bill in late 2015, the spotlight will burn even brighter on states in 2016. With 40 state legislatures now in session and six more set to begin in the coming weeks, how many states will raise new funding? How many states will attempt to improve how they spend their transportation dollars? How many will take unfortunate steps backwards?

As we highlighted in our most recent report that contained 12 recommendations for bringing state transportation policy out of the stone age, these state legislators will face the most critical of choices: continue pumping scarce dollars into a complex and opaque system designed to spend funds based more on politics than needs, or find a new approach that will boost state and local economies and restore taxpayer confidence in a broken system.

Here’s a short roundup of some of the states and bills that we’ll be watching.

Increases in funding on the horizon?

Louisiana’s new governor, John Bel Edwards (D), and a new legislature have highlighted transportation as a priority issue. Edwards’ transition team recommended a big ramp up in spending for transportation projects — and especially on rail, transit, freight and other key, non-highway projects that have long been neglected. The transition team also recommended that — to make those projects possible — the state will need to move ahead on staffing and setting up the new office of multimodal commerce created by the legislature in 2014 as a way to reform the Department of Transportation and Development and broaden the state’s transportation focus. A special legislative session on the state budget begins in mid-February. Transportation is unlikely to be included in this session, but legislators will be laying the groundwork for raising new funding in a later session or next year.

Following years of unsuccessful efforts, Missouri’s legislature is again looking for ways to raise new state revenue for transportation. A voter initiative in 2014 was defeated in part because it would have taxed metropolitan areas most heavily but not given cities the autonomy to spend these funds on their most pressing transportation needs. To get support for new funding — several bills have been introduced already this year — legislators will likely need to reform the way funds are distributed and spent, but few reforms have been offered.

A special transportation finance panel called by Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy (D) recommended multiple sources of financing to fund the state’s long list of repair needs and planned projects. But it called for the state to first implement several reforms, including setting aside fuel tax and toll revenues exclusively for transportation projects and for enabling new local or regional funding options to allow alternative funding for local priorities.

Colorado’s legislature is fielding a slew of calls for new ways to get more money to transportation projects. Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) has called for a tax swap that would allow the state to spend existing revenue on transportation projects. Some transportation advocates have called for general obligation bonds, shifting money now used for road repair to pay for new projects, or a statewide ballot measure to increase revenue for transportation.

After months of publicly calling for state legislators to boost state transportation funding and barnstorming the state to make his case, Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam (R) has pushed the issue off the agenda until 2017. The call for new revenue got a chilly reception with state legislators, including leaders in Haslam’s own party. Fortunately, as we highlight in our report from two weeks ago, Tennessee’s DOT is already a leader in finding cost-effective solutions and saving state money by right-sizing their projects — keys to building trust and ensuring voters that any new money down the road will be well-spent.

New local funding

Local communities want and need to put their own skin in the game, and states should enable them to do so. Far too many states restrict the ability for locals to tax themselves to raise their own funds for transportation, but scores of other states are looking for ways to enable local communities to raise their own dollars for their most pressing needs.

A bill was introduced in Massachusetts by START Network member Rep. Chris Walsh (D-Framingham) to allow cities and towns to impose a payroll, sales, property, or vehicle excise tax to fund local transportation projects, including repair and new construction of streets, bridges, transit, and pedestrian or bike infrastructure. A bill in Wisconsin allows counties or municipalities to impose a temporary, 0.5-percent sales tax to raise money exclusively for street and highway repair. Both bills would require the new taxes to be approved by the local government and a voter referendum.

A 2013 transportation funding bill in Virginia added extra fuel and sales taxes for the state’s most populous urban regions of Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads to help them meet the large, complicated transportation demands. Two bills introduced this year add a new floor to the local supplemental tax equal to the amount that would have been charged in February 2013, already in place for the statewide wholesale rate, and increase the wholesale rate for the Hampton Roads region from 2.1-percent to 5.3-percent.

Measuring performance

Last month, Virginia Department of Transportation released its first list of projects scored and ranked to receive funding in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. This program is the result of a dogged focus by legislative leaders and the administration of Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) to reform the state’s transportation program. START members and other local leaders have had positive feedback thus far for the new system intended to increase transparency and public understanding of transportation investments by objectively screening and scoring transportation projects based on their anticipated benefits.

Massachusetts is in the midst of implementing a similar program that was created as part of the 2013 transportation funding package.

Moving backward

While legislators in many states are looking for ways to meet diverse transportation needs, some legislators are leading efforts to entrench systems that fund highways only. A bill passed out of Colorado’s Senate Transportation committee would eliminate $15 million in state money directed to transit from a 2009 funding bill. A bill in Tennessee would limit state transportation funds, including those distributed to cities and counties, exclusively for highways and bridges.

Virginia launches program to remove politics from transportation investment decisions

This week Virginia DOT released a list of recommended projects across the state, the result of a new process to objectively screen and score transportation projects based on their anticipated benefits.

It may not sound like big news that a state has carefully measured the results it expects from billions of dollars in capital investments. Unfortunately, nearly all states rely instead on byzantine funding formulas and decades-old project lists, rather than measurable return-on-investment, to award funds for highway and transit projects. That means that this common sense change is a big one for the transportation system.

“This new law [HB 2 passed in 2014] is revolutionizing the way transportation projects are selected,” said Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) in a statement on the release of the project scoring results. “Political wish lists of the past are replaced with a data-driven process that is objective and transparent, making the best use of renewed state funding.”

Fiscal year 2017 project applications and results of the analysis are mapped by location on the HB2 projects page.

It is not just the selection process itself that is novel; Virginia is also opening up its process to public review in a way that few states have. With its consumer-friendly website, virginiahb2.org, the DOT explains the process, eligible projects, and scoring factors used in ranking projects. This week, the list of recommended projects and their scores were also put online. The public will have opportunities to weigh in on the recommended projects before the final project list is approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board in June.

Some of the top projects, based on total benefits, were adding high occupancy/toll (HOT) lanes along the I-66 corridor in Fairfax County; widening I-64 in Hampton Roads; extending Virginia Railway Express commuter rail service to Haymarket; and adding a second entrance to the Ballston Metro station. The number-one ranked project—the project with the greatest benefit per cost—is a small, locally requested road improvement project at the elementary school in the town of Altavista.

The new objective scoring process is the result of key reform bills passed by the general assembly: HB2, passed unanimously by the general assembly in 2014 and HB1887 passed last year. These bills instructed VDOT and the Commonwealth Transportation Board to create a new process to rank projects of all types, in each region of the state, on five key measures: economic development, safety, accessibility, congestion mitigation, and environmental impact. State funds are awarded to both statewide priorities and local needs that have the highest measurable benefits. We cover both bills in more detail in two Capital Ideas reports.

“We must ensure that every step we take is measured by its return on investment,” said House Speaker William Howell in 2013 prior to HB 2’s introduction. “Resources are too scarce and taxpayer dollars too precious to be thrown away on poorly planned transportation projects. Projects should have clearly defined goals and metrics that can be measured in an objective fashion. A ‘good idea’ is not good enough anymore.”

Virginia’s new process is part of a growing trend. As legislators throughout the country look for ways to get the maximum benefit out of ever-more-limited transportation funds and build trust and accountability in the way the dollars are spent, many are looking to new ways to measure project benefits and prioritize needs. Massachusetts’ Project Selection Advisory Council is developing a new process for ranking projects in that state. Louisiana and Texas each passed new laws last year to add score and select transportation projects.

Virginia’s political leadership deserves great credit for taking on this common sense reform and placing the public benefit in front of short-term political gains.

12 states successfully raised new transportation funding in 2015 — what can other states learn?

The second issue of Transportation for America’s “Capital Ideas” series, released today, takes a closer look at the states that passed new transportation funding and policy legislation in 2015, distilling it all into some notable trends, lessons learned, challenges, and recommendations for other states planning similar action in 2016.

Read and download Capital Ideas II here.

Read or download Capital Ideas II here.

After years of inactivity on the issue, transportation funding has increasingly become a priority in states both red and blue. 2015 was a high water mark for the number of states successfully raising new funding, boasting successful increases in 12 states, bringing the total to 23 since 2012.

Along with a big-picture overview of all the states that were successful this year, this short report takes a closer look at a state that passed one of the better overall bills (Utah), a state that suffered a defeat on the way to a final package that failed to fundamentally improve policy or solve the revenue question (Michigan), and a state that passed another round of policy reforms to build voter trust and accountability following an increase in new transportation funds in 2013 (Virginia).

Through the successes (and failures) of 2015, we pull together some practical lessons and challenges for the other states hoping to take up the issue in 2016 or 2017, like showing why instituting reforms to boost public confidence can increase the likelihood of success, why indexing fuel taxes to inflation still isn’t a long-term solution, and why states should still find ways to fund all of the diverse needs in their states — not just highways. (Something that not enough states managed to do this year.)

Many states have an uphill challenge on that last point: did you know that almost half (23) of U.S. states have constitutional restrictions on their fuel taxes that restrict their use to roads or highways only? Those are the kinds of nuggets you can expect in Capital Ideas II.

While 2016 may not be quite as active as 2015 was due to a busy election year ahead, this trend will not abate anytime soon.

Even though Congress did finally pass a five-year bill this year, states are unlikely to stand pat on transportation funding. Years of dwindling federal funding and lost revenues due to arcane, static, and declining gas taxes have left states struggling to balance their budgets, and unlike Congress did recently, states can’t sell future oil reserves, raid the Fed or rely on accounting gimmicks to cover their costs — they have to find real money.

Read the report in full online and stay tuned as we bring you more news about T4America’s work in states in 2016. While we made our name and earned our stripes working at the federal level since our inception more than six years ago, we’ve been doing more work at the state and local level, and we’re eager to tell you more about it in the months ahead.

Lessons from recent successes: Winning State Funding for Transportation

Growing again after a long economic slump that left a huge backlog of unmet needs, a dozen or more states are moving now to raise revenue for transportation. What can they learn from the other states that acted in the last year or two? Our new report, out today, draws out seven key lessons.

Transportation for America has closely followed these efforts in state legislatures to put transportation funding on sound footing and today we are releasing Winning State Funding for Transportation: Lessons from Recent Successes. This short report highlights some of the big-picture keys to success gleaned from those states, with an in-depth look at successful campaigns in Virginia, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Wyoming, and Vermont.

State Transportation Funding report cover

Click here to download the full report.

States face an increasing challenge in funding their mounting transportation needs. Their primary sources of revenue — taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel — haven’t kept up with needs as vehicles become more efficient, per-person driving mileage declines, and construction costs rise along with inflation.

Though the financial picture varies from state to state, this is a pressing issue from coast to coast. Twenty-four states have gone a decade or more without raising their gas taxes. Aging infrastructure is in need of desperate repair and the demands coming from demographic and economic changes mean states need more revenue, not less.

Since 2012, 12 states have responded to that challenge by enacting new revenue sources for transportation, while dozens more have considered such legislation. And the list of states taking up this issue right now during 2015 legislative sessions is just as long.

It is important to note that all of the states that have acted thus far, and those working to do so this year or beyond are doing so in expectation of ongoing federal support.

One key lesson worth noting up front: Legislators who supported such moves have met with little to no pushback at the polls. In fact, a Transportation for America analysis of the most recent election cycle found that 98 percent of the supportive lawmakers up for re-election won the primary following their vote – and we found no evidence that any lost as a direct result of their vote.

So far this year, nine governors spanning from Washington to Connecticut, representing both parties, have stepped out in favor of raising transportation revenue publicly in their State of the State addresses. Their leadership follows a trend of bucking the conventional wisdom and supporting new revenue to invest in transportation.

The strategies and examples discussed in this report are intended to be a helpful guide for those emerging leaders as they navigate the unique context of their own individual states to pass transportation revenue legislation, and in turn, set an example for others to follow in the future

Read or download the report today. Visit our home for information on states attempting or succeeding at passing new funding legislation, and sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.

In state elections, voters decline to punish pols for raising transportation taxes

UPDATED: July 14, 2014

Raising the gas tax is a political death sentence, right? Well, not necessarily. In at least two states where legislators raised gas taxes or other fees in the last two years, voters have responded by sending almost all of the supportive members of both parties back to their state houses. Could it be that voters are more supportive of raising revenue than we think?

States are finding it more and more difficult to find funding for transportation and other infrastructure. The 2012 MAP-21 law kept federal funding essentially flat, even as the lingering effects of the long recession have left states in desperate need of infrastructure repair and renovation. Meanwhile, gas taxes are not yielding what they once did, thanks to rising construction costs, growing fuel efficiency and a drop in miles driven per person. With no other solution in sight, some states have concluded they have little choice but to increase gas taxes to maintain and build a 21st century transportation system.

In the last two years, at least seven states have done the “unthinkable” and either increased their gas tax or otherwise changed their revenue model to raise transportation funding: Maryland, Massachusetts, Wyoming, Vermont, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Virginia. (For a complete run-down of state revenue moves, see our tracker here.)

With expected insolvency of the Highway Trust Fund occurring as soon as next month, its important that Members of Congress take a scan of what is happening in their states and districts. Of the seven states that raised taxes for transportation, Pennsylvania and Virginia have had primary or general elections since passing those bills. We took a look at how legislators who voted in favor fared in those contests to see if the mantra that gas tax votes lead to an early end to political careers is true.

In 2012, before the legislation passed, Pennsylvania was faced with transportation cuts creating worries of an increase of structurally deficient bridges under weight restrictions, road mileage rated in “poor” condition, and a decrease in transit service throughout the Keystone State. At the time, it led the nation in the number of structurally deficient bridges with 4,700.

Pennsylvania’s changes to fuel-related taxes and fees gave the Department of Transportation $2.3 billion to repair and maintain the state’s roads, bridges and mass transit system. The revenue package amounted to a 40 percent increase in the department’s budget, and created an annual $20 million statewide multimodal competitive transportation fund accessible to local governments and businesses. The measure passed 113-85 in the House and 43-7 in the Senate.

Of the 156 aye votes, 90 of the favorable votes were Republicans and 66 were Democrats. Thirty-two of the members that voted “yes” were not on the ballot for reasons such as retirement, seeking different elected office or term not yet expiring, leaving 124 “yes” vote members on the primary ballot on May 20, 2014. Of the members on the ballot, just 5 lost their primary, meaning that 96 percent of those who voted for the transportation revenue won their election. Just one Republican lost his primary Republican Representative Michael Fleck (R-Huntingdon) — but he won the Democratic primary through a write-in campaign. Fleck will be on the November general election ballot, but doesn’t have plans to switch parties. Four House Democrats did lose their seats: Leanna Washington (D-Montgomery) and J.P Miranda (D-Philadelphia), who were both indicted for misusing campaign funds; Erin Molchany (D-Alleghany County) who was re-districted and lost her seat to a Democrat who had voted No on the legislation; and James Clay (D-Philadelphia).

“Pennsylvania legislators showed political courage in voting for the transportation revenue package in 2013 to guarantee the state’s economy and overall mobility of the population would continue to prosper,” said Pennsylvania’s Secretary of Department of Transportation, Barry Schoch. “In return, Pennsylvania’s voters supported those that stepped up to the plate and took this crucial vote by supporting them in our primary election.”

In Virginia, legislators last year replaced the state’s 17.5 cents-per-gallon tax on gasoline — which had not been changed since 1987 — with a new 3.5 percent wholesale tax on gasoline (6 percent on diesel) that will keep pace with economic growth and inflation. It also raised the state’s general sales tax and gave the increment to transportation, and created a regional funding mechanism that boosted the sales tax to six percent in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads and required those funds to be spent only on transportation projects in those areas. The measure passed 64-35 in the House and 26-12 in the Senate.

The commonwealth’s 100 House Delegates were on last November’s general election ballot, while the 40 Senate seats, whose elections are not staggered, will have their election next fall. Of the 64 House Delegates that voted for the transportation revenue package, 31 were Republicans and 33 were Democrats. Five of the “yes” vote members weren’t on last fall’s ballot due to retirement or seeking different elected office. No Democrats lost their seats and just four Republicans were on the losing end in their elections, including: Joe T. May (R-Clarke), Mark Dudenhefer (R-Prince William), Beverly Sherwood (R-Frederick), and Michael Watson (R-James City). Of the 183 elected officials who showed the courage to support necessary infrastructure in Virginia and Pennsylvania, just 9 lost their general or primary elections representing less than 5 percent of those who voted “yes” in these states.

As Wyoming, Massachusetts, Maryland, Vermont, and New Hampshire have their primaries throughout the summer, we will be keeping tabs and will let you know if this trend holds true. But to this point, all indications are that a Congress facing a deadline to salvage our nation’s transportation program can safely follow state legislators’ lead on transportation revenue. In return, they are more likely to earn gratitude than ire from constituents eager to ensure a sound transportation infrastructure.

We recently published the results from Mayland’s primaries and the results following their gas tax legislation.

In 2013, 20-plus states took up transportation funding: Here’s the final tally

Welcome to 2014! With a large number of state legislatures convening as the new year gets underway, it’s worth a look back at an important trend from 2013: States stepping forward to raise additional money for transportation. With federal funding remaining flat in 2012′s transportation bill (MAP-21) and after years of deferred action during the long recession, a large number of states, metro areas and local communities moved to supplement federal dollars with new revenues of their own.

In April, we reported that 19 states were looking at ways to increase their own funding for transportation. Some needed the funds just to make ends meet after years of flat or declining state revenues, while others also were looking for funds to match those available from MAP-21 new and updated loan and grant programs (like TIFIA or TIGER).

Here’s how they fared:

Key Successes

We covered Maryland’s ambitious plan on this blog, as well as Massachusetts.

Both of those states’ plans indexed the state gas tax to keep pace with inflation — something the federal gas tax, unchanged since 1993 — does not do. In Maryland, the state also added a sales tax on gasoline, while in Massachusetts, the package included an increase in cigarette taxes and certain business taxes. The good news was that in making the changes, both states recognized the importance of all modes of transportation and the revenues will fund important transit and road projects around the states.

In Virginia, Governor McDonnell began the debate with a proposal to abolish the per-gallon gasoline tax entirely and replace it with sales and wholesale taxes on fuel. That brought together legislators from both parties, who developed an innovative package of revenue increases to put transportation funding on a long-term, stable footing.

New legislation raised vehicle fees, along with local taxes in two of the states’ most heavily populated areas, Northern Virginia (near Washington, DC) and Hampton Roads (near Norfolk/Virginia Beach on the coast). Recognizing that businesses, residents, and visitors to Virginia depend on many types of transportation to move around the state, the new law directs funding to all modes of surface transportation, including transit, passenger rail, roads, and bridges. The package is projected to have more than $9.5 billion in economic impact in the state. As the Gov. McDonnell said in signing the bill: “This legislation will ensure that Virginia’s economy can grow in the years ahead, and that businesses will have the infrastructure they need to create the good-paying jobs Virginians deserve.”

Most recently, legislators in Pennsylvania reached agreement on a package of tax and fee changes that will raise $2.3 billion annually for the state’s transportation infrastructure – $1.65 billion for roads and bridges and $475 million for transit. The debate went down to the wire with agreement finally reached in a special legislative session just before Thanksgiving, allowing the governor to sign the bill on a cold day in late November.

AP photo by Nabil Mark – Gov. Tom Corbett, center, signs into law a bill that will provide $2.3 billion a year for improvements to Pennsylvania’s highways, bridges and mass-transit systems.

The PA legislation eliminates the retail tax on gasoline and a state cap on gas tax paid at the wholesale level and raises various vehicles and driver fees over the next five years. The new funding will help to advance projects like the rehabilitation of the structurally deficient Liberty Bridge in Pittsburgh and of outdated equipment used by SEPTA.

Not all states that raised money recognized the value of investing across the board in all types of transportation to keep their economies moving. Ohio, Wyoming, and Vermont enacted tax increases intended for highway projects only. In Wisconsin, new bonding authority was enacted, with bond funds directed almost entirely to highways.

One positive outcome in Wisconsin: While the governor had proposed kicking transit out of the state transportation fund (similar to what the House of Representatives proposed in 2012), the legislature rejected that proposal and instead transferred general fund money into the fund (much as the federal government has done for its highway trust fund) to keep funding public transportation.

Try again next year!

Some states explicitly punted the issue to next year by creating commissions to report back to the legislature on transportation revenue options.

In Indiana, where a bill had been moving forward to allow the central Indiana region (which includes Indianapolis) to raise their own regional taxes to pay for transit, legislators instead commissioned a study on how to fund transit in the region. In November, the transit study commission voted in favor of allowing counties in the Indianapolis region to impose an income tax or business tax increase, if approved by a voter referendum, to fund regional transit. Reports like these help reinforce the notion — which we agree with — that regions should always have the ability, especially with the blessing of voters, to raise their own revenues to invest in regional transportation needs. We will definitely be keeping Indiana on our “watch list” for 2014.

Another state to watch in 2014 is Washington, where legislators negotiated on transportation funding through mid-December before calling it quits for the year. They promise to resume when the next legislative session begins in January. The current discussion is about increasing the state gas tax, with legislators debating items such as stormwater treatment, how to use the sales taxes collected from transportation projects, and funding for public transportation.

The need is urgent in Washington. Without any increase in state revenue, for example, the bus systems in the Seattle region are facing severe cuts in service that employers and employees depend on, along with fare increases.

A state we also hope will try again is Missouri, where a plan to raise $7.9 billion over 10 years through a penny sales tax passed both the Missouri House and Senate, but was then filibustered at the 11th hour when the Senate took up the package for a final vote. The fact that it was a sales tax was notable because in Missouri, as in many other states, while gas taxes are limited to only funding highway projects, a sales tax can be used for any mode of transportation, giving the state much more flexibility to invest.

Looking back

This movement we saw in 2013 is just the beginning. More and more states are increasingly looking for ways to bring more of their own dollars to the table, as well as making plans to invest in a range of transportation options. For a complete list see our state funding tracker.

The folks on the ground in these towns, cities, and metro areas know how important transportation is to their economic success. And keeping those local economies humming is key to our national economic prosperity.

Other states – and the federal government – need to take a page from their playbook and find a way to invest more money in transportation – it’s vital for our economy. One good place to start the discussion would be with our proposal to raise more revenue for transportation for the price of a weekly coffee and doughnut per commuter.

Rethinking the gas tax: Suddenly it’s the theme of 2013

Is the per-gallon gas tax going the way of the full-service filling station?

To look at the flurry of proposals coming out lately, you might think so. Since the start of the year, major new proposals from industry leaders, governors and state legislatures have sparked a new debate over the ways we collect revenue collection for transportation — at the federal, state and local levels.

Earlier this month, the outgoing head of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, John Horsley, proposed replacing the per-gallon federal tax with a sales tax on fuel. Although he didn’t specify a level, an AASHTO press release indicated it should be set “at a level that restores solvency” to the transportation trust fund, meaning it would have to take in at least $15 billion more a year just to keep spending at current levels. While some no doubt will deride it as a stealth tax increase, Horsley said, “The cost of the reform to taxpayers would be less than $1 per week, per vehicle.”

At the same time, 2013 already has seen several ambitious proposals for funding transportation outside of the excise tax on gas. Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick in his state of the state address proposed raising his state’s income tax rate from 5.25 to 6.25 percent and lowering the sales tax from 6.25 percent to 4.5 percent, while earmarking sales tax revenue for infrastructure, with a significant share dedicated to public transportation. Patrick said those moves would raise $1.02 billion in new revenue per year on average for the next ten years – none of it from a per-gallon gas tax.

Last week came a report from Pennsylvania that Republican Gov. Tom Corbett is preparing to a release plan to add nearly $2 billion to the state’s transportation funding pot. Though the details are speculative pending a public unveiling next week, he has pledged that the money won’t come from an increase at the gas pump.

These proposals come on the heels of the month’s most controversial, headline-grabbing pitch from Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell to scrap his state’s gas tax altogether. Instead, he would raise the state’s sales tax from 5 to 5.8 percent – ironically on everything but gasoline – while increasing vehicle-registration fees and adds an annual $100 charge for drivers of alternative-fuel cars. Those changes would raise an extra $3.1 billion over five years, he said.

At bottom, the recent move away from gas taxes as the go-to source of transportation funds is a nod to new realities: Their earning power is shrinking every year, and car-dependent voters will not stomach increases commensurate with their desire for a robust transportation network.

At the same time, both the highway lobby and environmentalists are seeing their long-held arguments undermined by experience. Environmentalists have contended that gas taxes should rise to slow consumption and speed the transition away from oil. The political reality is that gas taxes can’t be imposed in the U.S. in a way that changes behavior. Behavior now is changing, but for other reasons.

The highway lobby has spent years and millions making the case that gas taxes are “user fees” and are rightly devoted to roads. But with experts like DOT Secretary Ray LaHood predicting that nearly every vehicle will be a hybrid or electric a decade from now, most motorists will be paying little or no such “user fee” absent a major change.

That, of course, says nothing about meeting the needs of the vast majority of Americans who will be living in metro regions too crowded for one-person-per-car travel. State gas taxes certainly can’t meet those needs: 22 states have a constitutional prohibition against spending gas tax revenue on anything but roads, and eight states have similar statutory restrictions.

The reality today, though, is that gas taxes only cover half of the bill for building and maintaining our road network, and that ratio is dropping every year. At the local level, of course, nearly all road and transit costs are paid by sales, property or other non-fuel taxes.

While moving away from the gas taxes, all of the recent proposals — coming from Republicans in VA and PA or Democrats in MA, MN and MD – would amount to asking citizens to pay more for transportation infrastructure. That is something that polls show voters increasingly are willing to do when they understand what the money will be used for.

As we have said since the rollout of our “Blueprint” in 2009, we believe all options to increase funding for reinvesting in America’s infrastructure should be on the table. Back then, T4 proposed a variety of options including a 20 cent increase in the gas tax, converting the federal gas tax to a sales tax, or imposing a per-barrel fee on imported oil.

The gasoline tax has its merits, but given the lack of political will to raise it significantly, and the wide range of needs, it’s time to begin thinking of infrastructure as a basic government function that can, and should be, funded the full range of available revenue sources. Our global competitors, after all, have recognized this for quite some time, and are moving ahead of us in building a 21^st century infrastructure.

Tell Congress to make a historic investment in high speed rail

Congress is heading towards a decisive, historic moment on investing in high speed rail for America. But the outcome is far from certain.

In the next few weeks, Congress will decide whether or not to give the Department of Transportation $1.2 billion or $4 billion on high speed rail for the next year. $8 billion was allocated for planning and implementing clean, efficient, high speed train travel in the economic stimulus earlier this year, and with another $4 billion, we’d be making a historic $12 billion investment in high speed rail to help us move into the 21st century, unclog our congested airports and airspace, and provide a new clean, efficient alternative for speedy travel between major metro areas.

Sometime in the next week or two, Congress will decide whether or not to give DOT the amount in the House version of the bill ($4 billion), or the Senate version ($1.2 billion).

Tell Congress to keep $4 billion in the bill at www.fourbillion.com

Transportation for America is partnering with U.S. PIRG, Virginians for High Speed Rail, and the Midwest High Speed Rail Association to send a message to Congress that now is the time to make a historic investment in high speed rail.

Midwest High Speed Rail Association Logo Fed of State PIRGS logo Virginians for high speed rail

Want the wonky details? As you may remember, the Senate passed the bill that funds the Department of Transportation and the Department of Housing and Urban Development last week. The bill that passed last week is what’s known as a (yearly) appropriations bill, where the budget for the department and the programs are finalized and officially given their money by Congress. The House passed their version of the DOT/HUD funding bill several weeks ago, so the differences between the two bills will be ironed out in a conference committee very soon. The House and the Senate will select conferees to reconcile the two versions of the bill, before sending a final bill back to the House and Senate for a last vote and then to President Obama’s desk.

Let’s tell them to send the president a bill with $4 billion for high speed rail.

Post this action on Twitter, or with other tools via the button below.

Planning for the future: Washington’s new Woodrow Wilson Bridge

A New Trail Originally uploaded by M.V. Jantzen.
A bicyclist cruises along I-495/95 on the new Woodrow Wilson Bridge “active transportation lane,” leading to the rare sight of someone not in a car using the Capital Beltway. View more photos of the opening on Flickr from Eric Gilliland, director of the Washington Area Bicyclist Association (a T4 partner.)

Two weekends ago, the 12-foot-wide bicycle and pedestrian lane of the Woodrow Wilson interstate bridge over the Potomac River held its grand opening in Washington DC, filling with bikers and walkers who can now join the thousands of cars that cross the bridge each day.

The bridge, which connects Virginia and Maryland on the southern part of the Capital Beltway, is a vital transportation link in the region, where Interstate 95 (and the large majority of truck traffic) bypasses Washington, continuing north or south along the eastern seaboard.

Hundreds of bicyclists enjoyed a ride across the bridge for the first time ever last weekend, and the renovations to the bridge also added dedicated space for a future transit line — not something you see everyday on an interstate bridge in the United States.

Building a new bridge to replace the 1961 bridge had been discussed for decades, but the planning kicked into high gear in the 1990’s, with Maryland, Virginia, and the federal government all engaged in the process (DC relinquished control to the states.)

The King Street (Virginia) and Branch Avenue (Maryland) Metro stops are separated by just a few miles and the Potomac River, but require a long ride into DC to travel between the two on the Metrorail system. One day, Metro might cross the Wilson Bridge instead.

Looking at a map of the Metrorail public transportation system, one can see that only a few miles separate the end of the green line in Maryland and the yellow and blue lines in Virginia. There was no active work to connect the two lines, but a handful of people in the planning process wondered about dedicating some space on the bridge for a future, useful Metro connection.

Parris Glendening, Governor of Maryland from 1995-2003, said that planning for a future transit connection was just common sense.

“Those stations are just a few miles apart as the crow flies, but no one in Maryland who has a choice is going to ride all the way up into DC to switch trains and ride all the way back out to Virginia — and end up only a few miles from where they started,” he said. (more…)