Transportation at the ballot box

Was transportation one of the foremost issues on your mind when you went to the polls yesterday (or within the past three weeks, if you voted early or by mail)? I’m sure some of you considered candidates’ positions on rail funding and policies when you filled out your ballot. But I’m guessing that the answer for most of you is no, unless there was a transportation-specific measure or referendum on your ballot, or a transportation issue was a particular topic of contention in one of your local races. When you considered candidates for Congress and for state legislatures and executive offices, it is likely that the economy, national security, or social issues were more on your mind. 

Transportation is something many take for granted. People assume that railroads, roads, air travel, buses, waterways and pipelines are going to be there and that they will be maintained, at least at a basic level, because the consequences would be disastrous otherwise. But at the same time, most people understand that a functioning transportation system that allows people and goods to get where they need to go when they need to be there is an essential precondition for a healthy economy. 

Adequate infrastructure is necessary for all businesses to be able to function, but overall is not something that pays for itself or makes a profit (North American freight rail being a notable exception). Hence, if left to its own devices, the “free market” (which I put in quotes because it is an idealized concept that does not exist in reality — all markets are regulated in some way and feature a less-than-perfect exchange of information between buyers and sellers) would not provide a sufficient level of infrastructure. This is why it is necessary for governments to spend public funds to build and maintain transportation networks, along with creating and enforcing the “rules of the game” that keep businesses from taking advantage of each other and protect consumers. 

Americans, however, tend to resist being taxed and tend to oppose ballot measures that are perceived as raising taxes. This sentiment runs up against the heavy toll that decades of building out roadways to serve a spread-out, overly automobile-dependent population has exacted upon public coffers to produce the road funding shortfalls most of the country is experiencing. However, voters tend to respond more favorably if revenue from a proposed tax or fee increase is being dedicated towards a specific purpose that is understandable and that citizens will see as having a positive impact on their daily lives. By their nature, such specific purposes tend to be local projects. So when it comes to voters’ likelihood of supporting increased investment in transportation infrastructure, the old adage “all politics is local” rings very true.

Yesterday’s results do not make me optimistic about how passenger rail and public transit development will fare at the national level, and at many state levels, over at least the next two years. Even though polls show a majority of Americans of all political persuasions support increased investment in passenger trains, a dissatisfaction with federal leadership combined with a lack of energy amongst constituencies that traditionally support Democrats has led to majorities in both chambers of Congress that are likely to be more sympathetic to efforts to starve Amtrak and deny the states the matching funds for investment in passenger train equipment and infrastructure that many have been clamoring for.

However, there is reason to celebrate the results of many local measures where voters were asked to tax themselves to support improved public transportation — and to consider how to apply lessons learned from their success to work at the state and national levels. While the vast majority of these funds will go to bus service rather than rail, my instinct tells me that electorates that support new or improved bus service would also tend to support new or improved rail service. By my count, 14 out of 23 measures explicitly to fund transit or transit facilities were approved, and the Center for Transportation Excellence (which also counts transportation funding measures that aren’t transit-specific) counts 42 wins and 16 losses for the year to date, a success rate of 72%. Among the highlights:

• The City of Seattle adopted a sales tax and automobile property tax increase to fund transit exclusively.
• Three California counties passed sales tax or bond measures to fund transit, and two transit-friendly charter amendments were adopted while a transit-unfriendly amendment was defeated.
• Clayton County, Georgia overwhelmingly voted to adopt a one-cent sales tax to join the regional transit system, MARTA.
• Rossford, Ohio voters rejected a move to opt the city out of the Toledo area regional transit system.
• Hamilton County, Ohio (including Cincinnati) voters approved a very small sales tax hike to provide $170 million to restore Cincinnati’s Union Terminal, used by Amtrak trains three days a week.

Ultimately, a successful campaign to make increased passenger rail (intercity, regional and local) funding a higher priority in national and state-level elections would do well to base itself off of local ballot measure campaigns that demonstrate just what citizens are getting for their money. Getting there will be a two-way street: voters will have to start raising the issue more often with their elected officials and candidates, while candidates will have to sell the transportation parts of their platforms to voters. But in the end, successful campaigns will be those that connect the national issue of transportation financing to giving people more and better ways to get around on the local level.