Skip to main content

Tag: massachusetts

Stories You May Have Missed – Week of September 22nd

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. 

  • London revoked Uber’s ability to operate in their city, saying Uber is “not fit and proper.” (Tech Crunch)
  • The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has found that “the operators of two commuter trains involved in separate New York City-area crashes in the past year were both suffering from undiagnosed sleep apnea.” (Progressive Railroading)
  • The Denver Post takes a look at the successes and failures of Denver’s transit system since Denver hosted Rail-Volution recently. (Denver Post)
  • The Washington Post reviews the four “dockless” bike share companies that recently launched their service in D.C. Dockless bike share has been popular in Europe and Asia, but is just starting to come to the United States. (Washington Post)
  • A district court in Massachusetts ruled against the city of Newton, Massachusetts’s restrictions on drone use, saying some of those restrictions were preempted by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations. The ruling raises questions about the impact that any federal automated vehicle legislation might have on states and local governments, including cities. (Rupprecht Law)

Go big or go home: Massachusetts leaders get inspired in Seattle

Last week, a delegation of elected officials, business and civic leaders, funders, and transportation advocates from Massachusetts traveled to Seattle to see firsthand the specific ways that Seattle is investing in transportation to build strong local communities, thriving neighborhoods, and growing businesses.

Sound Transit’s LINK light rail on the Seattle-SeaTac line. LINK is in the process of being expanded by a combination of local funds approved by voters and federal funds.

Supported by the Barr Foundation and in partnership with Transportation for Massachusetts, last week T4America led a delegation of local & elected leaders from Massachusetts to Seattle for a transportation study tour. And we saw an incredible range of things: from the huge new tunnel under the city, to dockless bikeshare, to a growing light rail system, and everything in between, these Massachusetts leaders were inspired and received practical advice for making ambitious investments in transportation.

Seattle City Traffic Engineer Dongho Chang shows the MA leaders some of the particulars about the design of new separated bike lanes in downtown Seattle.

The group took a tour of the new SR-99 tunnel under Seattle, being built to replace an earthquake-damaged viaduct that is a barrier between downtown and the Puget Sound waterfront.

From the SR-99 tunnel tour to Seattle’s growing experiments with dockless bikeshare, study tour participants spent as much time interacting with transportation projects as they did taking in practical lessons from Roger Millar (Secretary of Transportation, Washington), Josh Brown (Executive Director, Puget Sound Regional Council), Shefali Ranganathan (Executive Director, Transportation Choices Coalition), and Peter Rogoff (Chief Executive Officer, Sound Transit).

Roger Millar from WSDOT walks the participants through the state’s multimodal approach to transportation.

Woven in the various presentations on a range of topics was a common thread: how to be intentional to ensure that the transportation network is about putting people first and providing access to economic opportunity, education, and key services.

As we’ve profiled here before, there’s a long history of partnership and cooperation between agencies at various levels that makes Seattle’s success possible. Participants were wowed to hear the details of how the Washington State Department of Transportation, King County, Sound Transit, Seattle Department of Transportation, and the Puget Sound Regional Council all work together to ensure transportation investments reap economic dividends in one of the fastest growing regions in the country.

As participants rode the ferry, light rail, bus service, and used their phones to unlock the new dockless bikes, we heard the participants focusing their discussion on the policies and programs that currently don’t exist in Massachusetts — and what they’d like to replicate. Transportation ballot measures, dynamic pricing, tolling to manage congestion, HOT lanes, dockless bike-shares, commuter ferries, and dedicated transportation equity managers were all discussed as promising ideas to take back to Massachusetts.

Transportation for America looks forward to supporting these local leaders in Massachusetts for years to come.

Our thanks to the Barr Foundation and T4Mass for their support and leadership of the study tour.

New Massachusetts academy will focus on performance measures

Following the success of last year’s academy sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration, the Barr Foundation is sponsoring a new Transportation Leadership Academy for regional planning agencies in Massachusetts focused on using performance measures to better assess the impacts and benefits of transportation investments. 

Beginning this October, leaders from regional planning agencies in Massachusetts — along with civic and business leaders from across the state — will participate in a new training academy focused on performance measures. Performance measurement is the practice of more carefully measuring and quantifying the multiple benefits of transportation spending decisions to ensure that every dollar is aligned with the public’s goals and brings the greatest return possible for residents.

This academy will educate teams made up of local business, civic, elected leaders, and transportation professionals, prepare them to act on opportunities within their regions, and plug them into a dynamic national network of leaders throughout the country.

We are still recruiting leaders from Massachusetts to apply and join the yearlong academy.

Learn more & apply

 

The academy will consist of in-person workshops, ongoing technical assistance throughout the year, regular online training sessions, and expert analysis of their plans and progress on deploying performance measures. During the academy participants will:

  • Develop performance measures that fit and match their agency’s size and capabilities.
  • Discover how performance measures can be applied at different stages of the planning, project development, or construction process.
  • Explores how RPAs promote future-ready transportation, and interact with federal and state agencies and transit operators to define their critical role in shaping local transportation decisions.
  • Design metrics for community goals that address topics such as health, access, and equity.
  • Improve their public engagement process and how to talk to skeptics about performance measures.
  • Discover ways in which social equity and access to opportunity can be incorporated into their work.
  • Focus on green house gas emissions and the environment.

The Massachusetts Transportation Leadership Academy is presented by Transportation for America, Transportation for Massachusetts, and the Massachusetts Association of Regional Planning Agencies, with support from the Barr Foundation.

To apply, please complete this brief form.

Recapping our discussion about states making transportation a key driver of their economic development agendas [video]

States are changing how they select transportation projects in order to save money and boost economic development. Catch up on our webinar explaining how states are attempting to focus state funds on more cost-effective investments in transportation.

We’d like to offer a hearty thanks to our two featured speakers, Kate Fichter, Assistant Secretary for Policy Coordination for the Massachusetts Department of Transportation and Charles Knutson, Executive Policy Advisor for Transportation and Economic Development to Washington Governor Jay Inslee.

Kate and Charles shared how each of their states have reformed how transportation projects are selected and built to ensure every state investment delivers the greatest bang for the buck and to reduce to overall cost of megaprojects. In the Q&A in the second half of the program, we talked about balancing local and state priorities, balancing needs across different regions of diverse states, as well as how each state is preparing for new automated vehicle technology.

Catch up with the full recording above.

Briefing book for governors

This webinar follows our recent guidebook for governors and their administrations explaining 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.

Download it today.

State policy network

State legislatures around the country are beginning new sessions as we speak, and this means a renewed focus on raising new state funding for transportation and also reforming the policies for spending those dollars. As legislators take a hard look at transportation programs, the policies and strategies in this new guidebook above — and in our previous resources — show how states can save money, improve projects, and make a stronger case to transportation spending through smart policy reforms. These resources are part of our State Transportation Advocacy, Research, & Training network. We provide policy information and connect a diverse group of state policy makers and advocates through this network.

Sign up for updates and more information here.

How are states making transportation a key driver of their economic development agendas? [Webinar]

Join us in two weeks as we explore how two states have made transportation a key piece of their economic development agendas and have focused state funds on cost-effective investments in transportation.

Updated 2/2/17: Watch the full recording below.

This session is tied to the guide we recently produced for governors and their administrations which shows 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.

On a webinar Friday, January 27th at 3:00 EST, learn how two administrations – under Gov. Charlie Baker (R) in Massachusetts and Gov. Jay Inslee (D) in Washington – have utilized transportation as a tool that helps them accomplish their economic goals. The webinar will feature:

  • Charles Knutson, Senior Policy Advisor for Transportation and Economic Development to Gov. Inslee.
  • Kate Fichter, Assistant Secretary for Policy Coordination for the Massachusetts Department of Transportation.

State legislatures around the country are beginning new sessions as we speak, and this means a renewed focus on raising new state funding for transportation and also reforming the policies for spending those dollars. As legislators take a hard look at transportation programs, the policies and strategies in this new guidebook above — and in our previous resources — show how states can save money, improve projects, and make a stronger case to transportation spending through smart policy reforms. Download it today, and join us on January 27th for a terrific discussion.

If you want to get up to date on the legislative discussions we’re keeping a close eye on, or if you’re someone who is engaged at the state level on funding or policy, join our START network today.

How one state is using transportation to boost their economy — a story of success from Massachusetts

Massachusetts’ recent economic development success is attributable in part to the leadership of the past two gubernatorial administrations — one Democratic, one Republican — and their efforts to focus state investments on improving public transit, repairing critical infrastructure and doubling down on supporting and creating the walkable communities that are in high demand.

This short story is adapted from Transportation Innovations That Save States Money and Attract Talent, our new short policy guide for governors. It shows how a fresh approach transportation is fundamental to creating quality jobs and shared prosperity while running an efficient government that gets the greatest benefit from every taxpayer dollar. – Ed.

Flickr photo by Massachusetts Office of Travel. https://www.flickr.com/photos/masstravel/29675157103/

Massachusetts won a major endorsement for their strategy when, in 2016, General Electric announced it would relocate its corporate headquarters from suburban Fairfield, CT, to the Seaport neighborhood in Boston. GE reportedly turned down sizable tax-incentive offers from other states and chose, instead, to locate in a walkable and transit-served location where the company could draw educated younger workers. GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt said that in Boston, GE found “an ecosystem that shares our aspirations.”

GE was just one of dozens of companies that have located to town or city centers in Massachusetts in recent years, as chronicled by Smart Growth America’s Core Values research. Boston and adjacent cities like Cambridge and Somerville are booming and are magnets for educated, young workers.

Over the past two gubernatorial administrations the state has invested in these walkable communities that anchor a talented workforce and foster economic development.

Former Governor Deval Patrick’s (D) administration championed new funding for transportation projects and inked an agreement that combined funding from the state, the federal government, and a private real estate developer to finance a new subway stop at Assembly Square. The station opened in 2014 and anchors a major mixed-use development that has transformed a former industrial site. The Patrick administration also advanced plans for an extension of the Green Line light rail service to more Somerville neighborhoods.

Though Governor Charlie Baker (R) won while running against future automatic increases to the state gas tax, he clearly understands that improving transit and investing in these walkable places was critical to the state’s prosperity.

MassDOT Secretary Stephanie Pollack presenting at T4America’s Transportation Leadership Academy focused on performance measures.

To achieve this vision, he appointed Stephanie Pollack, a transportation expert and transit advocate, to run MassDOT, the state’s department of transportation. While some in the state were surprised by his pick of a notable transit advocate to run MassDOT, Governor Baker and Secretary Pollack have a shared interest in reforming the state’s transportation programs to ensure that transportation investments are connected to economic development goals. They’re intent on measuring the results that are important for voters and taxpayers and holding the agency accountable for meeting them.

“Transportation is not important for what it is, it’s important for what it does,” Pollack frequently says — as she did at the last gathering of our Transportation Leadership Academy.

The Baker administration considered abandoning the Green Line project when faced with escalating costs. But the benefits of the project were too significant for the state to walk away.

As Pollack has said, “The return on investment in transportation, whether it’s the Green Line extension or another [project], is not just measured in how many people physically use it. It’s also measured in improvements to the economy, decreases in people’s commuting time, creation of new jobs and reduction in greenhouse gases.”

Instead, the state’s largest transit agency, the MBTA, found ways to lower the expected costs by redesigning stations and is contracting new management for the project. While focusing intently on reforming MBTA, Baker sought workable plans in order to maintain the commitments that the commonwealth, under previous administrations, had made to communities.

In order to achieve clear outcomes with transportation dollars, MassDOT began to implement a new, performance-based process to help select projects in which to invest. Evaluating the expected outcomes from every possible project helped the agency put together a capital plan that balances repair of critical infrastructure and further improvements to transit.

In addition to funding transit, MassDOT has also targeted funding specifically at making local streets better for walking and biking through an incentive-based complete streets program. A small investment of state funds leverages local funds to plan and build projects to make streets better for people traveling by foot and by bicycle.

Massachusetts is enjoying economic returns from administrations that understood how tailored transportation investments could support walkable communities. The leadership and reform efforts under both Democratic and Republican administrations is paying off with a state that is attracting talented workers, drawing relocating businesses, and creating quality jobs.

Read our full guide for Governors, which covers how state transportation policy too often fails to accomplish these types of goals, and offers recommended, proven solutions with a track record of success in other states.

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.

 

Going deep with regional leaders on using performance measurement

We wrapped up an in-person workshop today with seven local groups of metropolitan leaders, learning how performance measures and a data-driven approach to assessing the costs and benefits of transportation spending can lead to better decisions and a smarter transportation network.

Transportation Leadership academy boston 1 Transportation Leadership academy boston 2 Transportation Leadership academy boston 3

Throughout yesterday and today in Boston, MA, a team of T4America staff have been joined by some notable experts with on-the-ground experience to dive deep into the topic of performance measures with metropolitan leaders from seven regions across the country. It’s part of our yearlong Transportation Leadership Academy focused on performance measures.

What’s performance measurement? More carefully measuring and quantifying the multiple benefits of transportation spending decisions to ensure that every dollar is aligned with the public’s goals and brings the greatest return possible for citizens.

If you’ve been following along, we’ve been writing regularly about how the transportation law that Congress passed in 2012 (MAP-21) created a new system for states and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to measure the performance of their investments against federally-required measures.

This year’s iteration of our Transportation Leadership Academy is focused on providing these local leaders with tools and support to incorporate this new system into their processes of creating plans, selecting projects, and measuring the effectiveness of each transportation dollar that gets spent. This program, created in partnership with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is educating these seven teams made up of local business, civic, elected leaders, and transportation professionals.

Though the academy is focused on working with regional leaders, a few states also have experience with performance measures. In Massachusetts, as part of a 2013 deal to raise new revenue for transportation, the legislature required the DOT to develop and use performance-based criteria in the state’s transportation investment decisions. Stephanie Pollack, the head of MassDOT, shared her experience with this week’s attendees and why it makes sense to assess transportation projects together and against one another, rather than just sone-by-one.

“Transportation works as a network and fails as a network,” she said. “So why do people think we can fix the network project by project by project? I’m most interested in what is the best suite of projects.” She went on to describe why data matters, but only if you measure the right things. “You should be asking people what matters to them and measure that. If you don’t, you are telling your customers that what matters to them is unimportant. …Data is only useful if it helps you tell a story or make better decisions.”

There are other metro areas that have been using performance measures for years and have valuable experience to share.

The MPO for the Bay Area, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), has done more than most metro areas when it comes to using data and sophisticated modeling to aid and assess their decision-making. Participants got to hear the Hon. Steve Kinsey discuss MTC’s deep experience using cost-benefit analysis and their quantitative approach to performance measures.

And Robin Rather, a strategic communications veteran who has done deep research into the topic, explained how the messages and language matter, i.e., making the case for performance measures in economic terms is one of the most effective ways to get skeptical MPO board members or the public to buy-in to the idea.

This second academy workshop wraps up early this afternoon, marking the end of the academy’s in-person gatherings. Training will continue via other forms through the rest of the year, and we’ll be following up with some thoughts on the academy and sharing the perspectives of some of the participants. Stay tuned.

A look at progress around the country on improving state transportation policy & raising new funding

Scores of state legislatures are still in session or nearing the end of their sessions. With transportation funding and policy on the docket in scores of states, here’s a roundup of the progress being made in states working to create more transparency, build more public trust in transportation spending, and even raise new money.

Many state legislatures are in the crunch time of crossover days and committee deadlines. Many more are already taking the long view and looking ahead to big policy changes later this year or after the next election. Here’s a roundup of the top stories:

tracking state policy funding featuredOur refreshed state policy bill tracker is the best way to keep tabs on the most current information about these states attempting to raise new funding in 2016, states attempting to reform how those dollars are spent and states taking unfortunate steps in the wrong direction on policy — all tracked in three separate searchable, sortable tables of that information.

In addition, our hub for state policy and funding related resources includes all past and current reports, bill trackers, and other state-focused resources.

LOCAL FUNDING

After an up-and-down last few years when it comes to transportation funding, the Georgia state legislature successfully passed a pared-back bill last week that will allow voters in the City of Atlanta to decide the question of raising new funds for expanded transit service throughout the city, in addition to other transportation investments in the city.

A similar bill (SB 313) earlier this year would have allowed all counties served by MARTA to raise sales taxes for transit, but that one stalled due to opposition from outside the city. We wrote about the new alternative compromise package last week after its passage:

The legislation (SB 369) enables three new local funding sources, each dependent on approval through voter referenda. 1) The City of Atlanta can request voter approval for an additional half-cent sales tax through 2057 explicitly for transit, bringing in an estimated $2.5 billion for MARTA transit. 2) Through a separate ballot question the city could ask for another half-cent for road projects. 3) And in Fulton County outside the city, mayors will need to agree to a package of road and transit projects and ask voters to approve up to a ¾-cent sales tax to fund the projects.

The bill passed the House 159-4 on March 16 and passed the Senate last week, on the last day of the session.

While empowering local voters to raise new local funds is a step forward, the Georgia legislature also took a step back last week, passing a bill that requires a successful voter referendum before any county can spend money on fixed-guideway transit projects. Georgia doesn’t require a similar hurdle for highway projects. This bill (SB 420) exempts current MARTA service areas, the Beltline and the Atlanta streetcar, but it would slow down planned bus rapid transit projects in Cobb County in suburban Atlanta.

Support is building in Massachusetts for a proposal introduced by Rep. Chris Walsh (D-Framingham), a START network member, to enable cities and towns to raise local taxes to fund transportation projects with approval through voter referenda. See some of the supportive arguments for Massachusetts’ bill here and here. T4America provided a national perspective and supported the bill at legislative briefing earlier this month at the capitol. Also briefing legislators was Mayor Greg Ballard, former mayor of Indianapolis, a region that recently gained legislative approval to raise local taxes for transit projects. Ballard provided lessons learned from his efforts at the state capitol and preparation for an expected ballot question this fall.

START logo t4 feature webWhat’s the START Network?

We support efforts to produce and pass state legislation to increase transportation funding, advance innovation and policy reform, empower local leaders and ensure accountability and transparency through our State Transportation Advocacy, Research & Training (START) Network of state and local elected officials, advocates and civic leaders. Join the START network today.

STATE FUNDING

Louisiana legislators just ended a special session on the budget without a comprehensive or long-term plan to fully close the state’s structural budget deficit. With more red ink looming in the state’s general budget, efforts to raise new revenue for the transportation fund face long odds.

Looking past the budget deficit, new Gov. John Bel Edwards (D) identified new Baton Rouge-to-New Orleans rail service as a priority, vowing to do “everything he could” to get new trains rolling.

Connecticut’s transportation committee advanced a “lockbox” provision (HJ 1) to dedicate certain revenue only for transportation projects. Republicans warn they will still oppose the measure unless the wording is tightened to prevent any diversion of money from the state’s special transportation fund. Constitutionally dedicating revenue from fuel taxes, vehicle fees, and a portion of the gas tax is seen as a necessary prerequisite to raising these taxes to bring in new money for transportation. While there is bipartisan support, at least in principle, a measure earlier this year failed to reach the necessary supermajority when a bloc of Republican House members said the measure would not go far enough in dedicating transportation dollars.

Gov. Dannel Malloy (D) called for big investments in all modes across the state in the 30-year, Let’s Go CT plan. But adding a new lane in each direction on I-95 across the state, one of the biggest and most expensive projects on the list, is drawing substantial opposition. Opponents note that a new lane will do little to ease traffic or advance the state’s 21st century knowledge economy. The state DOT counters that their plan for new capacity coupled with dynamic management through new electronic tolling would cut down on “induced demand” by making it more expensive, and so less desirable, for new drivers to fill new space on the roads.

A proposal in the Mississippi Senate to raise transportation taxes or issue bonds to fund road projects (SB 2921) was kept alive, but just barely. A procedural move allows negotiations to continue and may allow a last-minute agreement on the issue later in the session.

Minnesota’s legislature is in the fourth week of a short session that must conclude May 23. In that time, legislators will need to find $135 million for the next phase of the Twin Cities’ light rail system — or risk losing $895 million in federal funding and drastically setting back the planned project. Twin Cities local governments are expecting the state to do its part — they’ve already directed $118 million in local funding into the project. Transportation funding was a top issue in last year’s legislative session and members are again looking for a compromise to get more state funding— possibly including new revenue — to roads, bridges, and transit.

STATE REFORM

The Maryland House passed two bills to add objective scoring to the way the state DOT selects projects (HB 1013) and to create a new board to give local oversight over the state transit agency (HB 1010). Both measures are still being revised in the Senate; they must pass both chambers by the time the session ends on April 11th.

MOVING BACKWARD

Tennessee’s bill that would restrict gas tax receipts for any bicycle or pedestrian projects may be losing steam. The bill (HB 1650/SB 1716) was slowly making progress in the House, but this week the House delayed a hearing and the Senate scheduled a hearing for the bill on the last day of the session – a common way to signal the bill will not be passing this year.

FUNDING & POLICY TRACKER

You can access the full list of funding bills being considered and policies we are tracking throughout the country at our tracker here. As always, get in touch if there are bills you are working on that we should have our eyes on.

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 featuredTracking 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.

START logo t4 feature web

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?

State Policy Report Jan 2016 featured graphicAs 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.”

hb2 project apps

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.

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.

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.

Important transportation ballot measures decided yesterday

Despite the defeat Tuesday of some high-profile measures, transportation funding asks continue to be approved at very high rates – and a few key wins may have impact for years to come.

While some of the key measures we were tracking did not fare well, on the whole, transportation (and transit specifically) did well at the ballot box (See the full list of measures we’re tracking below.) According to the Center for Transportation Excellence’s final results, 72% of all transit or multimodal measures were approved this year, including yesterday’s results – similar to the trend of recent years.

One of the most significant measures at the state level was considered in Massachusetts, where voters were deciding whether or not to repeal a legislature-approved provision to index the gas tax so revenues could keep up with inflation and allow the state to keep up with their pressing transportation needs. The measure to repeal was approved, albeit at a fairly close margin (52.9-47%), which means that Massachusetts will lose a portion of their new funding for transportation, but not all — they also raised their gas tax by three cents, but that was unaffected by this ballot measure.

The Massachusetts vote was definitely one that other states were watching closely as a potential bellwether for attempts to raise new revenue elsewhere. As Dan Vock at Governing Magazine wrote today, “That is not good news for transportation advocates, who are looking for politically feasible ways to raise money for infrastructure improvements.” Though a handful of other states did succeed in raising their gas taxes over the last couple of years, it’s possible that more states hoping to raise revenues in the next few years will consider a shift away from the per-gallon tax to a sales or wholesale tax (as Virginia and Maryland did for example) rather than trying to add in automatic indexing, which many voters saw negatively in Massachusetts.

Rhode Island voters approved a statewide ballot measure to fund some pretty significant transit improvements across the state, including new transit hubs to connect their popular passenger rail services with buses and other forms of transportation, and improvements to the statewide bus network. Scott Wolf, the executive director of Grow Smart RI, which ran the campaign on the measure, was full of praise today:

We commend our fellow Rhode Islanders for recognizing that these investments will provide benefits far beyond their costs and make it easier for the state to retain and recruit a young, talented and mobile work force.  If we can continue to pursue this kind of asset based economic development strategy under Governor-Elect Raimondo, we at Grow Smart RI are confident that Rhode Island’s best days will still be ahead of us.

At the local and regional level, there was perhaps no more significant symbolic vote than the one taken in metro Atlanta yesterday. For the first time in more than 40 years, Atlanta’s MARTA system will be expanding into a new county, as Clayton County, Georgia overwhelmingly approved (73% in favor) a one-percent sales tax increase to join MARTA, expand bus service into the county, and save half of the projected revenue for planning and implementing a possible rail connection into the county.

Clayton was the only one of Atlanta’s five core counties that lacked a local public transit system, and there was a surge of momentum for this referendum after a limited county bus system  folded in 2010. When it did, Clayton State University saw a drop in enrollment and scores of jobs at Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson Airport got much harder to reach for county residents.

From a regional perspective, with more of the region now having a stake in MARTA — it was intended to serve all five metro counties when it was created, but only two opted in — the agency will expand their base of users and bring more local officials to the table who care about seeing it succeed. And the resounding vote of support with local dollars will likely help continue develop support from the state legislature, where MARTA CEO Keith Parker has been hard at work to create allies for the only major transit agency that receives no dedicated funding from the state.

The news was not so good one state further south, where Pinellas County, Florida (St. Petersburg/Clearwater) saw their Greenlight Pinellas referendum roundly defeated, with only 38% in favor. (A smaller similar measure was also defeated in Polk County, to the east of Tampa.) The referendum would have made enormous expansions to their existing bus service, added new bus rapid transit corridors, and begin laying the groundwork for light rail running through the spine of the county.

It’s a blow not just for Pinellas County, the most densely populated county in the state, but also for the Tampa region at large. Business and civic leaders were hoping that Pinellas would take a first step that Tampa would follow in 2016 with a measure of their own, as they stitch together a region with two major cities divided by the bay. Pinellas leaders can take heart, however, in the fact that many places have lost their first (or even second) run at an ambitious ballot measure, before winning in the end.

We’ll be back shortly with a look at some of the national and state candidate races, and the implications of all the moves in Congress will have on the precarious nature of the nation’s transportation fund, and the upcoming reauthorization of MAP-21 in 2015.

Transpo Vote 2014 promo graphic

State

Massachusetts – Question 1 to repeal state’s new funding for transportation
Result: Measure Approved (52.9% – 47.1%)
T4A summary: Massachusetts vote a bellwether for efforts to raise state transportation revenue

Rhode Island – Question 6 transit bond measure
Result: Measure Approved (60% – 40%)
T4A summary: Rhode Island’s first statewide ballot measure to support transit

Wisconsin – Question 1 for transportation funding
Result: Measure Approved (79.9% – 20.1%)
T4A summary: Voters in two states consider measures to restrict funding to transportation uses

Maryland – Question 1 on transportation funding
Result: Measure Approved (81.6% – 18.4%)
T4A summary: Voters in two states consider measures to restrict funding to transportation uses

Texas – Proposition 1 to direct rainy day funds into highways
Result: Measure Approved (79.8% – 20.2%)
T4A summary: Texas looks to voters to ensure billions in highway funding

Louisiana – State infrastructure bank
Result: Measure Defeated (67.5% – 32.5%)

Local

Clayton County, GA – One percent sales tax to join MARTA and re-start bus service
Result: Measure Approved (74% – 26%) 
T4A summary: After spurning it for decades, suburban Atlanta county seems poised to join regional transit system

City of Seattle, WA – Proposition 1 to add a 0.1% sales and use tax to prevent bus cuts
Result: Measure Approved (59% – 41%)

Austin, Texas – Proposition 1 for $600 million bond for light rail
Result: Measure Defeated (43% – 57%)

Pinellas County, Florida (St. Petersburg) – Greenlight Pinellas for improving transit service & adding light rail
Result: Measure defeated (38% – 62%) 
T4America summary: Leaders say St. Petersburg measure key to economic success

Alameda County, CA – Measure BB for a half-percent increase in sales tax to fund local transit and transportation projects
Result: Measure Approved (70% – 30%)

Gainesville, FL (Alachua County) – 1% sales tax for a range of transportation improvements
Result: Measure Defeated (40% – 60%)

Massachusetts vote a bellwether for efforts to raise state transportation revenue

In 2013, the Massachusetts legislature came together on an ambitious plan to raise necessary revenues for transportation, passing a three-cent gas tax increase as well as indexing it to inflation. Now, a year after the legislature approved it, voters on Nov. 4 will decide whether or not to repeal part of the package.

MA bridgesThough more than 20 states seriously considered plans to raise new transportation revenue since 2012, Massachusetts was on a short list of 12 states that managed to coalesce around a successful plan. The final plan to raise the gas tax by three cents and index it to inflation, providing an additional $600 million each year to invest in transportation, received at least a partial endorsement from voters this year when all but one of the legislators who supported it won their primary elections.

However, an anti-tax organization took issue with the move to allow the gas tax to rise with inflation and gathered enough signatures to get it on this year’s ballot.

About a third of states index their gas taxes to ensure that growing construction costs don’t result in a net loss of funding to maintain and build their networks. This has become especially important as declining driving and improved fuel efficiency are further reducing revenue from the fuel taxes that provide the bulk of transportation funding. (Question 1 on the ballot only repeals the indexing to inflation, not the three-cent increase, which will stay in place no matter how this measure turns out.)

Supporters of the measure argue that taxes shouldn’t automatically increase without legislative action. The flip side of that argument is that leaving them at a static level basically amounts to regular tax breaks in today’s dollars.

States have all the more reason to index to inflation given the declining contribution expected from the federal program, given a Congress that has not acted to raise the gas tax since 1993.

Kristina Egan, the director of Transportation for Massachusetts, offered further reasons to index to Governing Magazine:

[Egan] said requiring legislators to vote on gas tax hikes every year is “impractical,” because the state legislature focuses on transportation, at most, every five or six years. Because transportation projects typically take years to plan and build, she said, “having a predictable and stable revenue source helps us think ahead for which bridges we can repair and which we can’t afford. If you put that up for a vote every year, you’re undermining that planning process.”

Massachusetts has one of the oldest transportation systems in the country, and even with a focus on repair and maintenance, the backlog of deferred maintenance is outpacing the revenues that the current model brings in.

At an average age of 57 years, Massachusetts has some of the oldest bridges in the entire country, well over the national average of 43 years old. The average age of all structurally deficient bridges is an astonishing 75 years old, also well outpacing the national average of 65. Twenty-seven bridges have been closed altogether in recent years. According to state data, bad roads and potholes cost drivers $2.3 billion per year. Improving the ability of the state to simply keep up with these kinds of repairs is a major focus for the coalition of groups and organizations (http://saferoadsbridges.com/) opposing this ballot measure to repeal funding.

The state is still paying for the Big Dig, and nearly 100 percent of the transit authority’s fares (MBTA) actually go towards paying down debt service on the state’s transportation debts, making it a financial challenge to maintain and expand new service to meet the burgeoning demand in the growing metro region. (The Big Dig debt ended up on the “T” books a few years ago when transportation agencies were merged.)

Question 1 has been an issue in this year’s gubernatorial election as well. Republican Charlie Baker has been campaigning on repealing the indexing of the gas tax, and Democratic challenger Martha Coakley wants to keep the current funding system intact.

There’s a significant coalition statewide opposing the measure, including business groups, the local AAA chapter, more than a dozen mayors, public health groups, and others. As Rick Dimino, President & CEO of A Better City in Boston, wrote in recent op-ed (pdf):

Losing this money for transportation means that we won’t have adequate resources for critical investments that will grow jobs and the economy…The outcome of this ballot question will impact the day to day quality of life for virtually everyone in the commonwealth. The gas tax may not be everyone’s favorite thing or even the ideal way that some would want to pay for transportation. But the vote to keep last year’s progress in place should be an easy choice

The Massachusetts vote will be watched with great interest in many other states that have or are considering plans to raise new transportation dollars in 2015 and beyond. We’ll be watching the returns and will be reporting back here in detail on how Question 1 fares at the ballot.

Capital Ideas sidebar promoDo you live in one of those states that are considering plans to raise new transportation dollars in 2015 and beyond? Do you want to learn more about this campaign in Massachusetts and hear lessons direct from the MA campaign on this measure? We’ll have Kristina Egan from Transportation for Massachusetts on hand in Denver for Capital Ideas on Nov. 13-14, unpacking the lessons they’ve learned from their campaign to raise transportation funding in MA, as well as this effort to repeal it. Don’t miss it!

Important state and local transportation measures will be decided at the ballot this year

This November a handful of measures will be decided at ballot boxes across the country to raise (or reduce in one case) new revenue for transportation at the local or state level. It’s not quite a new phenomenon — local communities have often gone to voters to raise additional money for transportation investments — but it’s grown in importance the last few years as federal transportation funding has been facing an increasingly uncertain future.

We will be keeping a close eye on a number of important races, including some that we’ve been following for some time.

In Pinellas County, Florida (St. Petersburg), voters will be deciding a question to raise the sales tax to build a light-rail system and put more buses on the road. According to the St. Pete Tribune, $30 million in property taxes that fund the transit agency would be replaced by an estimated $130 million a year from a one-cent sales tax hike. The new revenue would pay for the Greenlight Pinellas plan, which includes a 65 percent increase in bus service (including development of dedicated lanes for bus rapid transit) and development of new light rail. Supporters have brought together an impressive coalition, including vocal members of the business community. Michael Kalt, a senior vice president with the Tampa Bay Rays, told Greenlight that, “Transit is really the linchpin to economic success and improving the quality of life in any major metropolitan area.”

Just four years after their bus service was completely canceled, Clayton County, Georgia, one of metro Atlanta’s core counties, will go to the ballot to vote on approving a penny sales tax to restore local transit operations and join the regional MARTA system — something voters, local leaders and citizens alike strongly support. When Clayton County lost their bus service, they lost something that employers — especially those at mammoth Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson Airport — depended on to get employees to work every day. There are thousands of airport-related jobs at the edge of Clayton County, and a good transit connection was a boost for residents and businesses desiring access to that economic magnet. This vote was made possible when the Georgia general assembly passed a measure to enable the local voters to raise that revenue; something known as “enabling legislation.” (Something we’ll be going into detail on with the agenda for Capital Ideas! -Ed.)

The Massachusetts legislature passed an ambitious plan in 2013 to raise the gas tax three cents and index it to inflation and requiring the state’s transportation agencies to raise more money from tolls, fees, fares, and others. Though all but one of the legislators who voted for the bill won their primaries earlier this year, opponents succeeded in getting a measure added to this November’s ballot to reverse the plan to index the gas tax to inflation (keeping the 3-cent increase, however.) In response, a broad coalition has been organized to urge MA voters to vote against Question 1 on the ballot to avoid cutting vital transportation funding that would help the state keep up with one of the oldest transportation systems in the country.

One consistent thread in these state and local stories is that 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.

Shortly after these important elections in November, the focus will turn to 2015 and what can be done to raise more money for transportation at the state level. Which is one reason why we’re convening a special conference called Capital Ideas on November 13th and 14th in Denver to bring those people making 2015 plans together with experts and veterans of successful plans to raise revenue at the state level.

Whether you are just beginning a funding campaign, working to overcome a legislative impasse, or defending a key legislative win, Capital Ideas will offer a detailed, interactive curriculum of best practices, campaign tactics, innovative policies, and peer-to-peer collaboration to help your initiative succeed. (Find out more about that here.)

 

Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts follow the trend: voters support transportation revenue increases

As voters have been proving over and over during primary season this year, raising taxes or fees for transportation isn’t a political death sentence – no matter the party or political affiliation. In the past two weeks, Vermont, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire’s state legislators faced their first primary since voting to pass bills to raise additional state revenue for much needed transportation and infrastructure projects.

See all the primary results in states that have approved transportation fee increases here.

Vermont passed House Bill 510 in March 2013, to diversify their transportation revenue by introducing a 4 percent sales tax on the price of gas. This raises the overall gas tax by 7.5 cents, though it put a floor and a cap on the new sales tax portion so that Vermont drivers will never pay less than 13.4 cents per gallon or a maximum of 18 cents. H.B. 510 also authorized $10.38 billion in bonds.

“It was not an easy choice to move in this direction, and we didn’t make this decision lightly,” said House Transportation Chair Pat Brennan (R-Colchester) said at the time.“ We explored anywhere between 15 to 20 different funding options, and we ended right back here every time.”

The measure passed 128-42, with 18 Republicans and 104 Democrats voting “aye.” Of the 15 supportive Republicans who ran again, just one lost in the primaries on August 26th. Leigh Larocque (R-Barnet) lost to Marcia Robinson Martel. All of the 86 Democrats who supported the bill and ran for re-election won their primaries.

Massachusetts’ ambitious H3535, enacted in 2013, raised the gas tax 3 cents and indexed it to inflation, while also requiring the Massachusetts Department of Transportation and Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority to raise a greater portion of their costs – up to an additional $229 million a year — through various avenues including tolls, fees, fares, and others.

In the heavily Democratic state, the bill passed 158-38, with 157 Democrats and just one Republican voting yes. All but one of the 133 supportive Democrats running for re-election won their primaries, with Rep. Wayne Matewsky (D-Everett) losing his seat to Joseph McGonagle, Jr.

(There is a footnote to these results in Massachusetts. A measure has been added to this year’s November’s ballot to reverse the legislation completely. One benefit of that is that, after these primaries, we’ll have another public referendum on raising transportation revenues put directly to the voters. It’s just one of many important ballot measures we’ll be keeping a close eye on here this November, so check back. – Ed.)

New Hampshire has a very similar story. In 2013, lawmakers approved Senate Bill 367, which increased the per gallon tax by 4 cents. The funds raised were dedicated to rehabilitation and bridge repair projects for the next two years. In the last version of our report on bridge conditions in 2013, New Hampshire had the eighth-worst bridges in the country, with 14.9% of all bridges rated structurally deficient. The bill also added bonds for the widening of Interstate 93.

The bill passed 208-150, with 186 Democrats and 22 Republicans voting in favor of upping the state’s investment in transportation. Just three of those supportive legislators running for re-election failed to keep their seats, meaning 98.13 percent kept their seats after supporting SB 367. 21 state legislators decided not to run for re-election for various reasons.

John Graham (R-Bedford), William O’Neil (D-Manchester), and Steven Briden (D-Exeter) lost their seats in Tuesday’s primary. As of this writing there is no indication that the transportation revenue vote was a primary culprit.

Among all states holding primaries after a transportation tax increase – these three plus Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, and Wyoming – supportive legislators have kept their seats at a rate of 98 percent. Voters clearly have been rewarding their state legislators who are brave enough to make the hard decisions when it comes to funding transportation and infrastructure.

All of the primaries this season in the states that we’re following have occurred, so we’re wrapping up this series for now. But all of these results are chronicled in one place now on our website, along with our page tracking all of the considered and enacted state plans to raise transportation revenue.

Massachusetts is attempting to lead the way on a performance-based system for selecting transportation projects.

Last year, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts passed a landmark bill to fund urgently needed statewide transportation investments over the coming years. But how will the state ensure that those dollars go where they’re needed most and can have the greatest impact? Advocates, state officials and other stakeholders in Massachusetts are in the midst of figuring that out.

To support and encourage them in pioneering a more inclusive, sophisticated approach to picking projects, we partnered with Transportation for Massachusetts this month on a conference in Boston called “Measuring Up: Getting More Bang for the Buck in Transportation Project Selection.” More on the event in a moment, but first a bit more context.

Why institute a process for picking better transportation projects in the first place? With public confidence in the process at alarmingly low levels, it’s more important than ever to quantify the public benefits and let voters know what their money is going to buy — especially when attempts are being made to raise new money for transportation to fill the gap.

Massachusetts’ 2013 funding bill established a new council to develop criteria for selecting projects, with the purpose of ensuring that new state funding will go to the most deserving projects across the commonwealth, not the ones that have simply been in the pipeline the longest.

T4Mass Performance Measures Event

That panel, the Massachusetts Project Selection Advisory Council (PSAC), has been hard at work gathering public input for their report of recommendations to the legislature. The Measuring Up event brought together members of the PSAC, transportation planners, local leaders and advocates to discuss criteria for evaluating the priorities the PSAC has identified: improving safety, lowering congestion, and helping connect workers to their jobs. Their report of recommendations is due by December 31st.

The keynote speaker, Massachusetts’s Secretary of Transportation, Richard Davey, noted his department had set a goal — known as Mode Shift — to increase walking, transit and biking trips by one-third by 2030. Realizing that goal “will require a strategic approach to project selection,” said Davey. “We just can’t do what we’ve always done.”

“We are honored to convene a group that will tackle this challenge and help balance regional priorities with transportation, environmental, economic, and social concerns,” said Kristina Egan, director of Transportation for Massachusetts. “With limited resources but knowing that transportation investments must last for generations, we have to make smart choices.”

Transportation for America is proud to support this kind of work at the state level that will improve accountability for our transportation dollars and help drive and fund transportation and infrastructure projects based on performance and data.

If you would like to know more about what PSAC has accomplished since they have started working, we have listed some resources below including a handout (pdf) and powerpoint presentation (pdf).

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.

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.

Revenue proposal - ballot measures

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.