Contributing Editors

Jerome Lyle Rappaport

Jerome Lyle Rappaport
Founder and Board Member
Read Bio

Edward Glaeser

Edward Glaeser
Professor of Economics at Harvard University
Read Bio

Stephen P. Johnson

Stephen P. Johnson
Executive Director of Phyllis and Jerome Lyle Rappaport Foundation
Read Bio

Greg Massing

Greg Massing
Executive Director for the Rappaport Center for Law and Public Service
Read Bio

Alasdair Roberts

Alasdair Roberts
Professor of Law and Public Policy at Suffolk University Law School
Read Bio

Joseph Curtatone

Joseph Curtatone
Mayor, City of Somerville
Read Bio

Tim H. Davis

Tim H. Davis
Independent Research Consultant
Read Bio

Scott Harshbarger

Scott Harshbarger
Senior Counsel, Proskauer Rose LLP
Read Bio

Vivien Li

Vivien Li
Executive Director of The Boston Harbor Association
Read Bio

Guest contributors

Monika Bandyopadhyay
Suffolk University Law Student

David Barron
Harvard Law School and former Deputy Counsel for the Office of Legal Counsel in the US Department of Justice

Linda Bilmes
Senior lecturer in public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. Assistant Secretary of Commerce during the Clinton Administration.

Brandy H.M. Brooks
Director, Rudy Bruner Award for Urban Excellence, Bruner Foundation

Felicia Cote
Rappaport Fellow, Harvard Law School/Harvard Kennedy School.

Amanda Eden
Suffolk University Law School student

Sara Farnum
Student, Suffolk Univ. Law School

Kristin Faucette
Student at Suffolk University Law School

Benjamin Forman
Research Director, MassINC

Arthur Hardy-Doubleday
JD/MBA student at Suffolk University Law School and the Sawyer School of Business

Theodore Kalivas
Boston Green Blog, Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy

David Linhart
Student, Boston University School of Law

Antoniya Owens
Research Analyst, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

Susan Prosnitz
Senior Advisor, TSA, Washington, DC

Ben Thomas
Boston Green Blog, Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy

Matthew Todaro
Student at Boston College Law School

Alexander von Hoffman
Senior Researcher, Joint Center for Housing Studies

Brett Walker
Student, Boston College Law School

Margarita Warren
Student at Suffolk University Law School

Transit Projects Taxpayers Can Trust

Saturday, December 13th, 2008
By

On Election Day, voters from around the country showed Massachusetts how to prevent imminent fiscal train wrecks at both the Pike and the MBTA and to fund other transportation needs as well.

Specifically, in states where voters must approve tax hikes that fund new borrowing for capital projects, the electorate approved more than 80 percent of proposed measures that together will provide more than $50 billion for roads, trains, schools, libraries, parks, hospitals, sewers, and other forms of infrastructure. The successful measures included sales tax hikes for transit in both Los Angeles County and the Seattle metro area and property tax hikes for roads in Charlotte, Tulsa, and Denton County, Texas.

Because our state constitution neither requires nor allows such votes, Bay State voters won't get the chance to vote on a similar measure. But the state's elected officials still can learn four important lessons from the long history of successful - and occasionally unsuccessful - bond referenda from around the country.

First, while voters generally have approved tax hikes for transportation, they will reject plans that don't specify how the money will be spent. Second, they are likely to reject plans that primarily focus on serving downtown commuters. Third, they frequently reject measures that focus on a single mode. Finally, they are wary of giving money to entities that have a (real or perceived) history of management problems.

Illustratively, from the late 1960s until the early 1990s, voters in the Seattle region voted against several proposals to increase taxes to fund a new downtown-oriented rail transit system. Finally, in 1996, they approved such funding, but only as part of a package that also included money for other projects that would appeal to suburbanites who wouldn't be served by the new rail lines. These included money for expanded express bus service, new ramps to carpool lanes on highways, more commuter parking lots, and a provision requiring that each part of the region would get back most of the new revenues raised from that area's residents.

Similarly, in the 1960s and 1970s voters in Los Angeles County rejected several measures that primarily would have funded new rail lines. Finally, in November 1980 they approved a measure that combined rail funding with two other provisions. To win support from poorer, inner-city residents who would not be served by the new rail lines, the package funded reductions in bus fares for at least three years. And to win suburbanites' support, it gave local governments money for - and the power to select - local road and bridge projects.

These experiences and similar histories in other locales strongly suggest that statewide tax hikes designed to help the MBTA and the Turnpike must be linked to firm commitments to pursue specified projects outside of the Boston core. Moreover, given the Big Dig's problems, the package also must address concerns that the state can neither correctly estimate the cost of major projects nor effectively oversee their construction.

Here the history of bond referenda offers more reasons for caution. New rail lines funded by referenda in Seattle and Los Angeles (and other locales) all cost significantly more than what was estimated when voters approved them.

One way to address these concerns would be to link new funding with the creation of an independent entity charged with reviewing cost and usage estimates for proposed projects, the management of projects that are being built, and the record of completed projects. This effort might draw on an innovative effort to systematically review cost estimates for proposed projects developed by the Washington State Department of Transportation when it was headed by Doug MacDonald, the former head of the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, which built the Deer Island sewage treatment plant on time and under budget.

Taken together, these approaches might break the dangerous gridlock over transportation funding in Massachusetts. Doing so will not be easy and some measures may well be controversial. But, the experiences of others suggest that this approach actually can work. 


Comments

No comments have been added.

(required, but never shown publicly)

» Show all posts

Gov. Deval Patrick speaking at the Rappaport Center's Gubernatorial Speakers Series
Triumph of the City: Ed Glaeser talks about his new book on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
HKS Professor Jeffrey Liebman (left) spoke about new ways to spur policy innovation at a State House briefing sponsored by State Representative (and former Rappaport Urban Scholar) Charles Murphy (right).
Statnet panel of current and former heads of local performance management programs including Stephanie Hirsch (far right), former head of SomerStat and Devin Lyons-Quirk, third from right.
Mayor Menino attends Marshall-Brennan Constitutional Literacy Course for high school students
 MA Attorney General Martha Coakley Hearing on Sexual Exploitation Online
Arianna Huffington and Alan Khazei speaking at the Rappaport Center
U.S. Representative Barney Frank speaking at the Harvard Kennedy School, cosponsored by the Rappaport Institute.
Former Lt. Governor Kerry Healey speaks about political parity at the Rappaport Center

News and Events


Add your Event

Word Cloud