Unfortunately, we are no longer in the era where local municipalities can expect federal and state dollars to provide the majority of funding for transportation projects.
While there is still federal grant money available, these are not unconditional and require local funding and, as the president’s waffling on the omnibus spending bill, even this cannot be counted on.
Despite Washington’s parsimony, cities and counties still desire to build modern transit systems. Their solution? Transit referendums.
Referendums, proposals that are referred by lawmakers to the voters to approve or reject, have become an increasingly common way local governments fund projects even when their constituents are resistant to higher taxes. By using referendums, voters can weigh in on whether or not they agree with that one particular use for taxes.
While referendums, and its sister the voter initiative, have a long history in western states like California and Washington, increasingly state legislatures have granted lower level governments the authority to hold referendums on tax increases to fund local transportation projects. This has allowed cities like Indianapolis and Nashville to vote to fund transit expansion.
While no longer having to convince state legislatures to fund transit projects, local governments are now faced with what is often an equally challenging task: convincing voters.
Luckily, we can learn a lot from previous failed and successful referendums.
A crucial part of passing a referendum is providing something for everyone. Research on transportation ballot initiatives suggest that multimodal packages and geographic equity are important to successful propositions; both of these, in slightly different ways, provide something for everyone.
Multimodal packages (i.e. packages including a number of different modes such as bus, rail, and pedestrian infrastructure) is fairly self-explanatory. Multiple modes can appeal to multiple groups and needs, encouraging them to support the proposition. These modes are also fairly easy to include in propositions. Geographic equity, however, can be more complex and is often far more difficult to implement and adapt to transit plans.
Geographic equity is the idea that the amount spent building the new transit system is equitably distributed based on the amount each area paid in taxes for the new system. The concern is that one neighborhood could be paying significantly higher taxes but never get any of the beneficial improvements.
While this can be an important concern, it can get in the way of sensible planning. For example, in Washington State, the Sound Transit authority tackled concerns for geographic equity by dividing their jurisdiction into five “subareas” and ensured that projects built in each subarea were equal in cost to the amount of tax dollars raised there.
This caused problems when Sound Transit wanted to build a second tunnel in downtown Seattle but the taxes from the subarea could not afford it. Transit officials amended the policy by saying that projects built with a subareas taxes only had to benefit it, not necessarily be built in it.
Chasing geographic equity can also lead to planners overpromising which leads to failed projects that never get implemented, even if they get voter approval. In Miami, voters approved a tax increase to fund the construction of 89 miles of rail, however, less than 3 miles were ever built.
Transportation referendums are increasingly becoming a fact of life and both transportation planners and voters must learn to adapt. In order to build systems that benefit everyone, voters must accept that even if they do not live next to a project, they can still benefit from it.
As well, voters should be wary of proposals that sound too good to be true or do not have clear sources of funding. It is the job of transportation planners to make the case to voters that the project will benefit them.
Planners should also resist the temptation to promise the impossible in order to secure voter support. Voter approval of an unfeasible plan does not make it any more feasible.
Photo by Elvert Barnes.