Insufficient federal transportation funds have forced counties and cities to propose local taxes to fund new transportation, meaning poor coordination across jurisdictions. This article examines similar taxes conducted multi-jurisdictionally as a potential solution. This study uses archival evidence, legal statutes, and interviews to understand how a seven-county Bay Area proposal was put together, and how this process compared with what is known about local option tax processes. It concludes that this multi-jurisdictional funding measure shared a similar process to single-county ones, but lacked blanket authorization for a regional agency to place the proposal on the ballot, which made the process overly dependent on a single well-connected politician to put it together. This makes it hard to propose a regional process with great frequency, and gives the politician great influence over the projects selected. The study concludes with recommendations to facilitate institutionalization and greater use of multi-jurisdictional funding mechanisms.
AdamsM.HiattR.HillM.RussoR.WachsM.WeinsteinA. (2001). Financing transportation in California: Strategies for change (UCB-ITS-RR-2001-2). Berkeley: Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Berkeley.
FrugG. (2002). Beyond regional governance. Harvard Law Review, 115(7), 1763-1836.
30.
GerberE.GibsonC. (2009). Balancing regionalism and localism: How institutions and incentives shape American Transportation Policy. American Journal of Political Science. 53, 633-648.
31.
Golden Gate Transit District. (2011, February9). Capital and grants program manager.. Personal Interview.
32.
GoldfarbJ. A. (1982). BART: A regional actor in the multi-tiered metropolis (Master’s thesis). University of California, Berkeley.
33.
GoldmanT. (2003). Local option Taxes and the new subregionalism in transportation planning (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley). Retrieved from http://www.uctc.net/research/diss113.pdf
34.
GoldmanT. (2007). Transportation tax ballot initiatives as regional planning processes. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1997, 9-16.
35.
GoldmanT.DeakinE. (2000). Regionalism through partnerships? Metropolitan planning since ISTEA. Berkeley Planning Journal, 14, 46-75.
36.
GoldmanT.WachsM. (2003). A quiet revolution in transportation finance: The rise of local option transportation Taxes. Transportation Quarterly, 57(1), 19-32.
37.
GoldmanT.WachsM.CorbettS. (2001a). Local option transportation taxes in the United States (Part One: “Issues and Trends”) (UCB-ITS-RR-2001-3). Berkeley: Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Berkeley.
38.
GoldmanT.WachsM.CorbettS. (2001b). Local option transportation taxes in the United States (Part Two: “State-by-State Findings”) (UCB-ITS-RR-2001-4). Berkeley: Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Berkeley.
39.
GonzalesS. (2002, February20). Plan would increase bridge tolls; extra $1 on state-owned spans would be used for more transit, to ease congestion, senator says. San Jose Mercury News. Local Section, p. 3B.
GreenA. (2006). Life in the fast lane: Transportation finance and the local option sales tax. State and Local Government Review, 38, 92-103.
42.
GuoZ.WilsonN. (2004). Assessment of the transfer penalty for transit trips: Geographic information system-based disaggregate modeling approach. Transportation Research Record, 1872, 10-18.
HellingA. (1998). Collaborative visioning: Proceed with caution! Results from evaluating Atlanta’s Vision 2020 project. Journal of the American Planning Association, 64, 335-349.
47.
HessD. B.LombardiP. (2005). Governmental subsidies for public transit: History, current issues, and recent evidence. Public Works Management Policy10, 138-156.
48.
InnesJ. E. (1996). Planning through consensus building: A new view of the comprehensive planning ideal. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62, 4, 460-472.
49.
InnesJ. E.BooherD. E. (2003). Collaborative policymaking: Governance through dialogue. In HajerM.WagenaarH. (Eds.), Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in a network society (pp. 33-59). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
50.
InnesJ. E.BooherD. E. (2010). Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. New York, NY: Routledge.
51.
KanafaniA. K. (1983). Transportation demand analysis (Ch. 7, pp. 189-217). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
52.
KingdonJ. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission Staff. (August23, 2002–April14, 2003). Handwritten Meeting Notes from Toll Bridge Advisory Committee meetings, and related meetings.
65.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission Senior Transportation Planner. (2010, September13). Representative to Toll Bridge Advisory Committee meetings. Personal Interview.
66.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission Senior Transportation Analyst. (2010, September13). Personal Interview.
67.
Michigan SB 909. (2012 legislative session).
68.
Michigan SB 911. (2012 legislative session).
69.
ParksR.OakersonR. (2000). Regionalism, localism, and metropolitan governance: Suggestions from the research program on local public economies. State and Local Government Review, 32, 169-179.
70.
RapportE. (2010, September17). Personal Interview.
71.
RapportE. (2014, August22). Personal Interview.
72.
RoseE. (2011). Leveraging a new law: Reducing greenhouse gas emissions under Senate Bill 375. Oakland: Center for Resource Efficient Communities, University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved from http://crec.berkeley.edu/LeveragingNewLaw.pdf
73.
San Francisco MUNI Staffer (2011, 23February). Personal Interview.
74.
SchneiderM.TeskeP.MintromM. (1995). Public entrepreneurs: Agents for change in American government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
75.
Senate Pro Tem. Burton Legislative Staff Member. (2010, September15). Personal Interview.
Toll Bridge Advisory Committee (TBAC). (2002). Completed submittals. Digital files of project proposals sent to MTC staff from each agency applying for funds.
80.
Toll Bridge Advisory Committee (TBAC). (2002, September24–2004, January22). Evaluation matrix. Digital files recorded by staff at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
81.
Toll Bridge Advisory Committee (TBAC). (2002, July12). Minutes. Recorded by staff at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Digital files provided to the author by MTC.
82.
Toll Bridge Advisory Committee (TBAC). (2002, July26). Minutes. Recorded by staff at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Digital files provided to the author by MTC.
83.
Toll Bridge Advisory Committee (TBAC). (2002, August9). Minutes. Recorded by staff at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Digital files provided to the author by MTC.
84.
Toll Bridge Advisory Committee (TBAC). (2002, August23). Minutes. Recorded by staff at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Digital files provided to the author by MTC.
85.
Toll Bridge Advisory Committee (TBAC). (2002, September6). Minutes. Recorded by staff at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Digital files provided to the author by MTC.
86.
Toll Bridge Advisory Committee (TBAC). (2002, September13). Minutes. Recorded by staff at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Digital files provided to the author by MTC.
87.
Toll Bridge Advisory Committee (TBAC). (2002, September20). Minutes. Recorded by staff at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Digital files provided to the author by MTC.
88.
Toll Bridge Advisory Committee (TBAC). (2002, September27). Minutes. Recorded by staff at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Digital files provided to the author by MTC.
89.
Toll Bridge Advisory Committee (TBAC). (2002, October4). Minutes. Recorded by staff at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Digital files provided to the author by MTC.
90.
Toll Bridge Advisory Committee (TBAC). (2002, October25). Minutes. Recorded by staff at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Digital files provided to the author by MTC.
91.
Toll Bridge Advisory Committee. (TBAC). (2002, November8). Minutes. Recorded by staff at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Digital files provided to the author by MTC.
92.
Toll Bridge Advisory Committee (TBAC). (2002). Narrative evaluation sheets. Digital files recorded by MTC staff evaluating proposals submitted in terms of its nexus strength and other performance criteria.
VorderbrueggenL. (2000, April18). Perata seeks shift in planning; Senator’s plan stresses regional transportation system and housing near public transit stations. Contra Costa County Times, p. A1.
WachsM. (2003b, Spring). Local option transportation Taxes: Devolution as revolution. Access, 22, 9-15.
100.
WachsM.DillJ. (1999). Regionalism in transportation and air quality: History, interpretation, and insights for regional governance. In AltschulerA.MorrillW.WolmanH.MitchellF. (Eds.), Governance and opportunity in metropolitan America (pp. 296-323). Washington, DC: National Research Council.
101.
WhitehurstJ. (2011, February9). Personal Interview.
102.
YinR. K. (2009). Case study research: Design methods (4th ed.). New York, NY: Sage.
