METRANS Project 06-10 Final Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Metropolitan Sources of Electoral Support for Transportation Funding Final Report METRANS Project 06-10 June 2009 Jefferey M. Sellers, Doreen Grosvirt-Dramen and Lillyanne Ohanesian Department of Political Science University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA 90089-0044 This project was funded in its entirety under this contract to California Department of Transportation. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation, University Transportation Centers Program, and California Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government and California Department of Transportation assume no liability for the contents or use thereof. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the State of California or the Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Abstract This Report analyzes local variations in voting on transportation referenda at the state and county level over 1998-2006 in five metropolitan areas (Fresno, Los Angeles and San Francisco/San Jose in California, along with Seattle, Washington and Cincinnati, Ohio) to explore the sources of electoral support for transportation funding. The analysis employs several types of variation in voting patterns: (1) variations in support for successful ballot measures according to the ecological characteristics of communities, (2) comparison over time between results of successful and unsuccessful ballot measures in the same places, and (3) comparison of the ecological correlates of voting between successful and unsuccessful referenda in different counties or states. The results confirm several hypotheses about effective electoral coalition-building in support of ballot measures. • Support for transportation funding measures tends to be higher in regions with higher levels of congestion as well as rapidly increasing congestion, and lowest in regions with little congestion. • Successful highway funding referenda depend on support from urban, minority, relatively disadvantaged communities. • With the partial exception of areas where mass transit is more available (in this study, San Francisco and Seattle), successful transit funding referenda depend on attracting support from suburban, affluent and nonminority communities with little local interest in transit. • In areas where mass transit use is widespread, successful electoral coalitions can center around more urban, more transit-oriented communities. Even when this occurs, affluent and middle class users remain crucial constituencies for a transit ballot measure to succeed. • Successful referenda to fund mixed modes of transportation combine the coalition-building tendencies of highway and transit funding referenda. In doing so these measures build electoral coalitions across the class, ethnic and spatial divides that have often frustrated the governance of metropolitan areas. • Ballot measures that frame funding decisions in regulatory rather than allocational terms can attract support through appeals to collective rather than local goods. The results suggest that transportation ballot measures have added new dynamics of metropolitan coalition-building that may qualify as well as reinforce the role of middle class, suburban, white communities as influences on transportation policy. Table of Contents Abstract …………………………………………………………………………………...2 Table of Contents …………………………………………………………………………3 Tables and Figures………………………………………………………………………...4 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..7 Background and Hypotheses………………………………………………………………8 Design of the Research…………………………………………………………………..14 Overview and Initial Comparison………………………………………………………..19 a. Types of transportation and mechanisms……………………………………………..19 b. Existing transportation infrastructure as an influence on referendum support ………21 Comparing Patterns of Support by Types of Referenda…………………………………28 Highway Funding Referenda…………………………………………………………….28 a. Expectations about highway funding referenda………………………………………30 b. Ballot measures compared……………………………………………………………30 c. Political partisanship………………………………………………………………….30 d. Spatial contexts: Distance, commuters, homeowners………………………………..30 e. Socioeconomic status, race and ethnicity……………………………………………..33 f. Multivariate tests……………………………………………………………………...35 Transit Funding Referenda………………………………………………………………36 a. Expectations about transit funding referenda…………………………………………36 b. Ballot measures compared……………………………………………………………37 c. Political partisanship………………………………………………………………….38 d. Spatial contexts: Distance, commuters, homeowners………………………………..38 e. Socioeconomic status, race and ethnicity……………………………………………..42 Mixed-mode Funding Referenda………………………………………………………...43 a. Expectations about mixed-mode funding referenda………………………………….44 b. Ballot measures compared……………………………………………………………44 c. Political partisanship………………………………………………………………….45 d. Spatial contexts: Distance, commuters, homeowners……………………………….48 e. Socioeconomic status, race and ethnicity……………………………………………..51 f. Multivariate tests……………………………………………………………………...56 Alternative Framing of Referenda on Transportation Funding………………………….60 a. Expectations about mixed-mode funding referenda………………………………….61 b. Ballot measures compared……………………………………………………………61 c. Political partisanship………………………………………………………………….63 d. Spatial contexts: Distance, commuters, homeowners………………………………..63 e. Socioeconomic status, race and ethnicity……………………………………………..65 f. Multivariate tests……………………………………………………………………...65 Review of Main Tests……………………………………………………………………68 Conclusion and Recommendations………………………………………………………74 Implementation…………………………………………………………………………..75 Appendix One: Summary and Background Information on Referenda…………………76 Appendix Two: Variables Used in Correlations and Regressions……………………...118 Sources Cited………………..………………………………………………………….119 Tables and Figures Table 1. State and County Transportation Referenda: Types and Results, 1998-2006 Table 2. Congestion and Transportation Modes by Metropolitan Area, 1998-2005 Table 3. Congestion Levels and County Funding Referendum Success, 1998-2005 Table 4. Congestion levels and State Referendum Support Table 5. Local Contextual Correlates of State and County Referenda to Raise Funds for Highways Table 6 . Social and Demographic Correlates of Support for State and County Highway Funding Referenda Table 7. Multivariate Models of Sources of Support for State Highway Referenda Table 8. Local Contextual Correlates of Support for Transit Funding in County Referenda Table 9. Local Social and Demographic Correlates of Support for County Transit Funding Referenda Table 10. Local Contextual Correlates of Successful and Failed Transit/Highway Referenda, Fresno and Sonoma Counties Table 11. Local Contextual Correlates of Other County Transit/Highway Referenda Table 12. Local Contextual Correlates of Support for State Referenda to Raise Funding for Transit and Highways Table 13. Local Social and Demographic Correlates of Support for Transit/Highway Funding, Fresno and Sonoma Counties Table 14 Local Social and Demographic Correlates of Support for Other County Highway/Transit Referenda Table 15. Social and Demographic Correlates of Support for State Highway/Transit Referenda Table 16. Multivariate Models of Sources of Support for State Highway/Transit Referenda Table 17. Local Contextual Correlates of Support for Referenda to Protect or to Cut Back Transportation Funding Table 18. Social and Demographic Correlates of Support for State Referenda to Protect and Cut Transportation Funding Table 19. Multivariate Models of Support for Other State Referenda Table 20. Results of Tests for Hypotheses About Highway Funding Table 21. Results of Tests for Hypotheses About Transit Funding Table 22. Results of Tests for Hypotheses About Mixed Transportation Ballot Measures (County Level Measures) Table 23. Results of Tests for Hypotheses About Mixed Transportation Ballot Measures (State Level Measures) Table A-1. Comparison of 1998 and 2000 Measure B Appendix 2. Variables Used in Correlations and Regressions 6 Introduction Increasingly, states and localities have turned to electoral referenda as a means to raise funds for transportation infrastructure. Despite the growing importance of these ballot measures, there have been few systematic comparative studies of who supports and who opposes transportation funding in ballot measures. In particular, there has been little systematic exploration of how local contexts in the interconnected metropolitan regions where the overwhelming proportion of citizens live affect support for referenda. Decisions about transportation infrastructure pose a familiar, pervasive problem for governance in the United States: how to build support for collective goods in institutionally fragmented, segregated, diverse and far-flung metropolitan regions. The mechanism of direct democracy highlights the problem of building regional coalitions for governance in the most transparent terms possible. An analysis of the types of communities and constituencies that have come together in successful electoral coalitions offers important insights into why some referendum campaigns have succeeded while others have failed. It can also generate more general lessons about the prospects for metropolitan governance. In California, but also in the United States