Skip to main content

Tag: state funding

Voters overwhelmingly re-elect candidates who raise transportation revenue, analysis of general election results shows

Continuing a trend observed in the primaries, an updated T4America analysis of November’s election data shows that 90 percent of legislators supporting revenue increases in ten states won their re-election bids. Perhaps that knowledge will help legislators in 17 states (and counting) considering similar plans take similar action this year.

Share this graphic with others:

View our full page tracking and summarizing the data on these votes.

The conventional wisdom has been that supporting any sort of tax increase is a political death sentence, but recent data perhaps suggests the opposite conclusion — at least with regard to tax increases intended to invest in transportation.

Since 2012 at least ten states have done the “unthinkable” and either increased gas taxes or otherwise raised significant transportation funding through legislative action: Arkansas, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Wyoming.

Transportation for America has kept a close eye on those votes at the state level to raise revenue and the subsequent response from voters in the elections that followed. We first examined this data after the primary elections in 2014, when supportive state legislators won their primaries at an amazing 98 percent clip. With a full election cycle behind us, how did supportive state legislators fare?

  • A total of 961 legislators in these ten states ran for re-election after voting yes on a measure to raise transportation revenues by some mechanism.
  • 23 candidates lost their primary election, resulting in a 98 percent success rate in the primaries for those that voted yes and ran for re-election.
  • 939 supportive legislators reached the general election*.
  • 71 supportive candidates lost in the general election for a total of 868 supportive legislators retaining their seats.
  • The total re-election rate for supportive legislators who ran is 868/961, or 90 percent.

*1 Independent candidate (Adam Greshin in Vermont) did not run in a primary due to lack of party registration.

View our full page tracking and summarizing the data on these votes.

This encouraging trend could serve as a powerful object lesson for the legislators in the 17 states and counting currently considering legislative plans to raise the gas tax or other tax/fee increases for additional transportation revenue.

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.

As funding battles loom in legislatures, Transportation for America launches network to support state efforts to fulfill visions for economic success

For immediate release

DENVER, CO — With representatives from 30 states convening in Denver for a strategy conference, Transportation for America today announced the launch of a new network to support state efforts to pass legislation to raise transportation funding while improving accountability for spending it.

As Congress continues to postpone tough decisions on federal transportation funding, several states have responded by raising new revenues of their own for transportation. Other states are hoping to do the same in 2015. That is why T4America brought together more than 100 experts and participants for the Denver Capital Ideas conference, where they are sharing experiences and insights that can help other states take on the thorny issue of transportation funding in their state legislatures.

“Federal gas tax revenues are dropping and prospects of returning to robust national investment are uncertain, at best,” said T4America director, James Corless. “States that want to continue investing will have to explore new ways to raise funding for transportation on their own.”

Twenty states considered legislation to increase transportation funding in some form in 2013. Since 2012, 12 states have successfully raised new revenues. A handful of other state legislative leaders and governors have already indicated that transportation funding will be on the front burner in 2015.

“They say that states are the laboratories of democracy,” said John Robert Smith, the chair of T4America and former mayor of Meridian, MS. “And many are proving right now how to stand in the gap created by federal inaction. But to fulfill their homegrown solutions, they need help with everything from finding innovative revenue sources to crafting political strategies and legislative language. Our hope is that this new network will help replicate success across the country and empower states and regions that want to make this happen.”

At the same time, T4America is working with local leaders across the country to prepare for the possibility of action in the new Congress convening in January.

“There is still an enormous opportunity,” said Corless, “because Congress still must update the federal transportation program, MAP-21, by next May. This gives us an important chance to resuscitate and reinvigorate the program in exciting ways, so that it better suits the needs of people in the communities where they live.”

CAPITAL IDEAS (https://t4america.org/capital-ideas) is a two-day conference in Denver, convened by Transportation for America to support this kind of work at the state level. View the full agenda and list of speakers here: https://t4america.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/T4A-Capital-Ideas-Agenda.pdf

Contact: David Goldberg
Communications Director
202-412-7930
david.goldberg@t4america.org

Backup contact: Stephen Davis
Deputy Director of Communications
202-955-5543 x242
steve.davis@t4america.org

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!

Rhode Island’s first statewide ballot measure to support transit

Rhode Island’s first ever statewide transit ballot measure would issue $35 million in bonds to invest in the state’s transit infrastructure and improve bus service statewide, including new and reworked transit hubs to bring together different modes of travel.

The transit bonds (Question 6) are part of a larger $275 million package backed by Governor Chafee. The money would largely be invested in building and modernizing existing and new transit hubs — with a primary focus on building a statewide multi-modal transportation center adjacent to Providence Amtrak Station, the 15th busiest station in Amtrak’s national network and the 3rd busiest station in the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority’s commuter rail network. And it could serve as a source of local funds required to “match” most federal grant programs as well as for leveraging private investment, helping bring even more transportation investment into the state.

Currently, there are few direct connections from one transit system to another in Providence. Building the hub will eliminate an inconvenient walk outside in the elements to get from the bus to the train, making travel and connections much more convenient and efficient.

Local and statewide business officials have identified improving the state’s transportation and infrastructure system as a necessity for staying competitive in the future.

Michael Lewis, director of the Rhode Island Department of Transportation, told the Providence Journal, “In any urban area, in any city, any state in the country, your transportation systems are critical to the economic health and vitality of any region.”

Even though most work is focused in Providence, these connections will expand access at key points throughout the state, says Lewis, including a complete re-vamp of RIPTA, the state bus system.

Having local dollars to match federal funds is a requirement for most federal grant programs like TIGER, and it can also help bring in other investment.

“This bond issue is going to enable Rhode Island to bring money to the table to leverage federal and private dollars so we can create the kind of transit system that’s going to make Providence and Rhode Island competitive,” Lewis said in an interview with WPRI News.

The “Move RI Forward – Yes on 6” campaign is spearheaded by Grow Smart RI and includes 63 members including the local and statewide chambers of commerce, businesses, construction and real estate companies, environmental organizations and even the American Automobile Association Southern New England. Scott Wolf, the executive director of Grow Smart RI and spokesperson for the “Yes on 6” campaign, said, “We believe a stronger transit system will attract new businesses and talented workers to Rhode Island, while also creating badly needed construction jobs, reducing congestion, and improving our air quality and our overall environment.”

Supporters argue that to stay competitive with other midsized cities such as Indianapolis and Eugene, Oregon, the state must attract and retain high-growth companies and highly talented workers. Wolf says Providence isn’t able to do that without the “boost to our public transportation system that this bond would provide.”

In September Rhode Island was awarded a $650,000 TIGER Grant to begin designing the multi-modal transit center, helping lay the groundwork to make these future bond dollars go as far as possible.

While there has been no organized opposition to Question 6, the Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity is against the bond package as a whole, arguing the state can’t afford to take on more debt.

“We start programs, the feds fund it for a limited period of time, the federal funding goes away,” said Mike Stenhouse, a member of the R.I. Center for Freedom and Prosperity. “We’re stuck with maintaining or keeping up payments that were started.”

Rhode Island is just one in a series of states looking to voters to approve greater investments in their transportation system. For more information on important ballot measures being decided this November, make sure to check out our full Transportation Vote 2014 page.

Transpo Vote 2014 promo graphic

Capital Ideas sidebar promoTo better serve the states and localities that are currently campaigning (or hope to campaign) for smart transportation investments, we are hosting the Capital Ideas Conference in Denver on November 13-14th. There’s still time to register for this event.

If you’ve been working on a transportation measure as part of a funding campaign, working to overcome a legislative impasse, or defending a key legislative win, this conference will offer a detailed, interactive curriculum of best practices, campaign tactics, innovative policies, and peer-to-peer collaboration to help your initiative succeed.

Texas looks to voters to ensure billions for highway funding

Facing a population and economic boom sufficient to give Texas seven out of the top 15 fastest growing cities, state legislators are looking to voters to direct more revenue to build more highways, but without raising new fees or taxes.

Texas has responded to the boom by building toll roads, wider highways, and some mass transit options in a few cities, but the state DOT and many state legislators feel that Texas isn’t building what they need to serve the 1,500 new residents moving there everyday — and they’re on the lookout for more money.

Texas currently has what they call a “rainy day” fund replenished with revenue generated from gas and oil drilling taxes and fees. The fund has been used in the past to help fill budget gaps and avoid budget cuts during economic slumps.

The legislature has placed a measure on this November’s ballot (Proposition 1) amending the state constitution to divert half of these funds for the next ten years to a State Highway Fund, to be used exclusively for highway construction, repair, and maintenance. This fund could not be used for toll roads.

Texas’ gas tax is currently set at 20 cents per gallon and was last raised in 1991. The coalition urging its passage says that Proposition 1 will raise an estimated $1.7 billion within the first year.

Both Republican gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott and his Democratic opponent Wendy Davis are supporting the measure while campaigning for office. Organized support comes from Move Texas Forward, Texas Future, Transportation Advocates of Texas, and a broad range of trade associations, chambers of commerce, and other advocacy groups across the state.

Directing a portion of money generated by the very thing driving Texas’ economic boom right now (oil and gas) into the transportation network seems rational. However, it would be even smarter to leave those dollars flexible enough to address pressing needs in the transportation network wherever they arise, not just on the highway system. With several large and growing metropolitan areas, the state is going to need to invest in trains, bus lines, freight projects, passenger rail to connect cities, and local street networks as well.

The Houston Chronicle describes opposition to the proposal as “token and largely unorganized.” President of the Houston Property Rights Association, Barry Klein, hoped for a defeat so it “would force transportation official to confront their spending demands, possibly leaving the state better off when it comes to prioritizing projects.”

Transpo Vote 2014 promo graphicFor more on important ballot measures to watch this Nov. 4, visit our Transportation Vote 2014 page.

To better serve the states and localities stepping up to try and raise revenue to invest wisely in transportation, we are hosting the Capital Ideas Conference in Denver, Colorado on November 13-14 shortly after this year’s election. If you’ve been working on a transportation measure as part of a funding campaign, working to overcome a legislative impasse, or defending a key legislative win, this conference will offer a detailed, interactive curriculum of best practices, campaign tactics, innovative policies, and peer-to-peer collaboration to help your initiative succeed.

Voters in two states consider measures to restrict funding to transportation uses

Facing the uncertainty of stable federal transportation funding and often unwilling to raise their own taxes to fund transportation, some states have seized upon the idea of protecting their transportation revenues for transportation uses. On Nov. 4, Maryland and Wisconsin voters will be deciding on similar measures that would put transportation funds into protected accounts that can’t be appropriated for non-transportation uses.

Transpo Vote 2014 promo graphic

Unlike the protected federal trust fund for transportation, the revenues gathered from the systems’ users in many states (gas taxes, fees and other sources) can be appropriated for other non-transportation needs. In Maryland, more than $1.3 billion intended for transportation has been appropriated to other items in the budget over the last few years, according to Greater Greater Washington’s detailed look at the measure.

Currently, the various transportation taxes in Maryland go into a state trust fund for improving safety, reducing congestion, and improving mass transit, air travel, and port facilities — but those funds can be easily moved by legislators each year to fill other gaps in the budget.

Maryland’s Question 1 would require the governor to declare a state of fiscal emergency and get a three-fifths vote from both houses of the General Assembly before any funds could be taken out of the transportation trust fund.

Supporters of Question 1 argue that by placing revenues in a “lockbox” it will ensure stable funding for long-term projects, improve accountability, and help restore the confidence of voters and those paying into the system. After all, if Maryland wanted to increase their gas tax some day in the future, it certainly becomes easier to convince voters of the need when they can also guarantee that any new revenues would be spent on transportation needs.

Proponents include a range of business groups, AAA, transit advocates in the Baltimore and Washington, DC regions, and real estate professionals; with little organized opposition to the measure.

Wisconsin is considering a similar measure. With a conservative governor, Scott Walker, and a legislature resistant to raising the gas tax or registration fees, Wisconsin’s referendum would amend the state constitution to require any revenues derived from the transportation system to be spent on transportation projects and making them non-transferable to other needs. To date, $1.3 billion has been transferred out of the transportation fund, according to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

The Wisconsin proposal actually had its genesis several years ago and has only now reached the ballot because state law requires two consecutive legislatures to approve a joint resolution before it can be placed on the ballot.

Supporters under the banner of “Vote Yes for Transportation” include chambers of commerce, corporations, and labor unions. While some advocates, such as Forward Lookout and Bus, Bike, Walk Wisconsin have expressed concern that this could be the first step toward restricting the use of transportation user fees for transit or other multimodal projects, nothing in this legislation appears to do anything like that, and according to Vote Yes for Transportation, “Wisconsin’s segregated transportation fund is the sole source of state funding for the entire transportation system – highways, air, rail, transit, harbors, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.”

There is no organized opposition, though some state legislators question the need for such a lockbox. Senator Fred Risser (D-Madison) expressed concerns about special interests groups, saying, “It guarantees the highway lobby a lock on certain funds. To give one special-interest group a constitutional lock on a hunk of money, I do not think is good public policy. “

According to most of the data we’ve seen, both measures are likely to pass, but we’ll be keeping an eye on the results, and posting them on Transportation Vote 2014 after the election, so check back. You can keep track of the other state and local transportation ballot measures we’re following there as well.

To better serve the states and localities stepping up to try and raise revenue to invest in transportation, we are hosting the Capital Ideas Conference in Denver, Colorado on November 13-14 shortly after this year’s elections. If you have been working on a transportation measure as part of a funding campaign, working to overcome a legislative impasse, or defending a key legislative win, this conference will offer a detailed, interactive curriculum of best practices, campaign tactics, innovative policies, and peer-to-peer collaboration to help your initiative succeed. Join us there.