As the midterm election dust settles across the country, transportation pundits and observers are wondering if the anti-spending Congress and governors in waiting will spell doom for transit investments.  They point to recent statements made by governors-elect in Wisconsin and Ohio to halt high-speed rail projects as a sign of things to come for transit in 2011.  However, the overwhelming success of transit measures at the ballot on Election Night suggest that the anti-“tax and spend” political narrative spells doom for transit only if elected officials fail to listen to the public’s needs and concerns.

In fact, the Center for Transportation Excellence found that 43 out of 56 transit ballot measures won in 2010.  Voters from California to West Virgina approved increases in vehicle fees, sales taxes, property taxes or bond measures to support transit projects (often as part of broader transportation measures).  Such success suggests that people support transit investments when they know exactly what they will get in return for their money (i.e.: increased vehicle fees for transit projects in San Fransisco, CA or an increased property tax to support transit in Toledo, OH).

On the other hand, national polling shows that when the benefits from transportation investments are less clear, specific and tangible, public support wanes. After surveying residents in five states, the Pew Center on the States and the Public Policy Institute of California found that respondents cared the least about protecting infrastructure spending when compared to health care or education.  In fact, 75% of respondents said they opposed paying additional taxes to fund transportation.

Would results change if questions are reworded to include the type of transportation outcomes the public would get?  Examples from our region certainly suggest so. In 2008, a Quinnipiac University poll asked New Yorkers whether they supported congestion pricing, which would have created a toll cordon around central Manhattan. Respondents opposed the plan 58%-37%. They were then asked how they felt about congestion pricing “if the money were used to improve transit in and around New York City.” The results flipped: 60% were in favor, with 37% opposed.

Getting public support behind robust transit investments means taking transportation from the abstract into the specific realm of tangible benefits.  As previously noted on MTR, tracking transportation spending decisions at the federal and state level is no easy feat. That is why one of the key reforms in the next federal transportation bill must include performance-based measures and outcome-based objectives so the American public knows exactly what they are getting in return for federal transportation spending.

In Transportation for America’s press release following Tuesday’s elections, James Corless reminded us that transportation has historically been an bipartisan issue: “Historically, this is one arena in which both Democrats and Republicans have been able to work together, and this time should be no different. Previous bills have been passed by divided governments under presidents Nixon, Reagan, George H. W. Bush and Clinton. Updating this bill for the 21st century would be a huge win for rural areas undergoing difficult change, for metropolitan areas in desperate need of more and better travel options and for an economy that absolutely must become more efficient in energy use and goods movement if we are to succeed globally.”

Voters in red and blue states alike support smart transportation investments when they know what they’ll be getting in return.  It remains to be seen if Congress understands this.

Image: TSTC graphic using Quinnipiac University poll data.