Funding Transportation in California: A History of Crises

Garrett, Mark

doi:10.5070/p2cjpp8432848

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With increased numbers of automobiles came increased revenues from diesel and gasoline taxes and other user fees and, in turn, increased federal and state spending on roads (47,48). As a result, GO bonding decreased as post-New Deal transportation financing relied increasingly on user fees (2).…”

Section: Ballot Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Centuries of Ballot-Box Transportation Planning in Los Angeles

King

Wachs

2020

Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation R

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since 1980, many have marveled at Los Angeles’“innovation” of funding transportation through ballot measures that are raising billions for transportation improvements. In fact, historically much transportation infrastructure in Los Angeles was financed by local voter-approved revenues. It began in 1868 with a narrowly approved $225,000 bond measure to build the region’s first railroad, followed by an 1876 measure to grant the Southern Pacific railroad a $602,000 subsidy to entice the company to route its transcontinental line through the region. Angeleno voted on an additional 23 different transportation-related ballot measures between the passage of the Good Roads Act (1908) and the end of the New Deal (1937)—a key period of Los Angeles’ history that saw dramatic population increase and with it political contention over the direction of the region’s growth. Overall, these early transportation measures fared well with voters. Of the 25 transportation-related ballot measures in Los Angeles County from 1860 to 1960, only seven (28%) failed to pass, a far better record than nontransportation measures of which 21 of 31 (71%) went down to defeat. Regardless of whether, as some contend, Los Angeles missed a golden opportunity to create the backbone of an effective transit system that would have reduced the need for automobiles and spending many billions on freeways, it is clear that local voters have long faced competing visions for the future of Los Angeles and arguments over whether to fund transportation systems to serve these visions.

show abstract

Section: Ballot Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%