Skip to main content

Yankee efficiency paired with southern hospitality is one recipe for successful passenger rail

Our country’s burgeoning passenger rail renaissance has not gone unnoticed in the deep South, and at least one coalition of southern leaders are working hard to grow and expand service in three states in the deep South. This week I had the privilege of traveling on the rails through the northeast with the Southern Rail Commission on a trip to inspire and see firsthand how other regions and cities have invested in passenger rail and used it as an economic catalyst for their communities.

Southern Rail Commission new england rail trip

John Spain, left, John Robert Smith, Dick Hall, Knox Ross, Joe McHugh, an Amtrak employee, Greg White, a second Amtrak employee and Bill Hollister pose outside an Amtrak train during the trip. John Spain, Knox Ross and Greg White are members of the Southern Rail Commission’s executive committee, Dick Hall is the Mississippi Central District Transportation Commissioner, and Joe McHugh and Bill Hollister are with Amtrak.

Transportation for America is proud to partner with the Southern Rail Commission on their work to help restore and expand passenger rail service through the states of Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana. SRC’s mission is to promote “the safe, reliable and efficient movement of people and goods to enhance economic development along rail corridors; provide transportation choices; and facilitate emergency evacuation routes.”

John Robert Smith

T4America chair and former Mayor of Meridian, MS, John Robert Smith

While expanded service in the booming northeast corridor or between other major coastal cities gets frequent publicity, many Southern states have moved past merely fighting to preserve what limited passenger rail service they have, to aggressively seeking opportunities to grow and expand service. Leaders in these states are seeking to connect more people to the tourism markets, health care systems and educational centers that drive their regional economies, and they see passenger rail as a critical option for doing so.

And the South wants to do it right the first time. They eagerly want to learn from the successes of other regions that have created, implemented, marketed and managed passenger rail that is responsive and right-sized for the populations they serve.

To that end, I led a delegation of the Southern Rail Commission (SRC) and Mississippi Central District Transportation Commissioner Dick Hall to experience and learn from two services in the Northeast. Although they’re structured differently, both lines we rode are highly successful and located far beyond the Mason-Dixon Line: the Downeaster and the Vermonter. The Downeaster runs from Boston through Portland and onto Brunswick, ME and the Vermonter runs from St. Albans, VT to New York City through Massachusetts and Connecticut.

Getting inspired along the route

Traveling north from Boston’s South Station, our departure point, the Downeaster carried us through urban centers and college towns, all with an inviting face turned toward the track. It was clear that each city and town recognized that the asset traveling through their backyards is an important part of who they were and who they aspired to be.

The similarities between these northeastern towns and our own southern hometowns were striking.

The train station in Durham, which sits in the middle of the campus of the University of New Hampshire, got me thinking: what would such a station placement mean to Tuscaloosa and the University of Alabama or Baton Rouge and Louisiana State University? Imagine getting on the train in Atlanta on a fall Friday with hundreds of other alumni to head to your old college town for a weekend of college football.

In Saco, ME, the warehouses and abandoned garment mills we saw transformed and reborn as upscale apartments and condominiums could be replicated in Hattiesburg or Meridian, Mississippi. Old Orange Beach, ME, was alive with beach and carnival goers on Memorial Day evening and the train filled with families from Boston and Montreal headed to join the fun. Don’t all of our southern cities have festivals and events worthy of sharing with our neighbors? And equally important, wouldn’t we all want to see our neighbors leaving their tax dollars in our cash registers?

Learning how to run a successful passenger rail service

Patricia Quinn with Southern Rail Commission

Patricia Quinn

Time spent with Patricia Quinn, executive director of the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority (NNEPRA), while in Portland, was invaluable for SRC as they seek management models for expanded passenger rail service in the South. The strong state-supported Downeaster line managed by Patricia and her small but efficient staff demonstrates the value that attention to detail, on-time performance and a quality ride has for their customers — and potential new customers.

Wayne Davis, chairman of Train Riders Northeast and a NNEPRA board member, gave the tour of Freeport, ME beginning at their well-located Downeaster stop that welcomes visitors directly into the extensive retail shopping Freeport is noted for — anchored by the L.L. Bean main corporate store. Retail activity was brisk and many beautiful historic structures were enjoying new life as retail, restaurant and office space; all within an easy walk of the Downeaster rail connection.

Transit-oriented development, indeed!

Traveling through the White Mountains and Crawford’s Notch brought us to Montpelier, VT, and our meeting with Chris Cole, Deputy Secretary of Transportation, and his staff. The Vermonter and Ethan Allen lines are also state-supported routes, but unlike the Downeaster, they are operated not by an authority but by the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans).

John Robert Smith with Southern Rail Commission

Deputy Secretary Cole explained their need for a dedicated Amtrak liaison staffer within VTrans — similar to the position that Maine and the Downeaster has — whose only mission is to manage their passenger rail contacts and focus on the on-time performance, maintenance and rider experience; a position that will be filled in the future.

Vermont has felt the positive economic impact of investing at the state level in both freight and passenger rail, buying closing shortline railroads, re-laying tracks and actively marketing the passenger rail service to its people. An especially smooth ride on the Vermonter back to New York City proved the value of VTrans’ investment.

Chris Parker, executive director of the Vermont Rail Action Network, riding with us as far as Brattleboro, Vermont, shared with us successful examples of advocacy built on partnerships and timely information shared with constituents. These goals are already a focus of the SRC and were validated by the visit with Chris, and lessons for improvement were also provided.

A special thank you to both Joe McHugh and Bill Hollister with Amtrak for coordinating and facilitating the trip to make this sharing of ideas, best practices and lessons learned, possible.

While the gracious hospitality we received rivaled that we’re accustomed to receiving in the South, it was the Yankee efficiency and ingenuity we witnessed that most impressed. Like all good southerners, SRC has the hospitality down, but taking a solid dose of that Yankee efficiency and ingenuity back home would serve the SRC well.

We’re excited to help our friends at SRC use these lessons learned to build something that will help their regions prosper. As they say at SRC: “Ya’ll Aboard.”

Southern Rail Commission website yall aboard

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.

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.

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.

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.