Benita M. Dodd: TSPLOST - Is it about mobility? Or about money?
by Benita M. Dodd
Columnist
April 18, 2012 12:01 AM | 1818 views | 10 10 comments | 15 15 recommendations | email to a friend | print
The “Untie Atlanta” commercials on radio and TV are nothing if not clever. Frustrated commuters can relate to the visual onslaught on TV of roads tangled in a giant knot and the radio announcement, accompanied by blaring horns, that says “Traffic in metro Atlanta is tied up in knots … Let’s untie the knot. Vote yes for the July 31 Regional Transportation Referendum.”

Without a doubt, inadequate transportation spending has led to congestion and reduced mobility in this state.

If voters in each of the 12 regions support the referendum, a penny transportation special local option sales tax (TSPLOST) will fund its tailored list of projects.

Some of them — most notably, Savannah’s port-area improvements — are good transportation policy and long-overdue, cost-effective measures. Unfortunately, others won’t move the needle toward mobility while still others are massive boondoggles that will put this state at a disadvantage for decades to come.

The prime folly, of course, is metro Atlanta’s list. The TV commercial is at least honest in admitting the list will be “unclogging a few roads:” 52 percent of the $6.14 billion funding goes to transit in a region with 5 percent transit use. It includes a push for fixed-guideway transit instead of more flexible bus rapid transit options that could move with population demographics, plus it would commit the region to wasteful spending on questionable projects for long past the 10-year sales tax.

In Denver, Colo., where voters approved a 0.4 percent sales tax for their 12-year regional transit plan in 2004, officials are back this year seeking a doubling of the tax and delaying the project completion date.

The project lists, especially Atlanta’s, have been discussed and debated ad infinitum. But the problems run deeper, first being the voter “education” effort. The Foundation has long held that “Georgia’s transportation policy must be geared toward increasing mobility and limiting congestion, not ‘livability,’ ‘sustainability’ or other liabilities to congestion relief.”

Proponents, however, are focusing their “education” effort on “economic development,” “jobs” and “public safety,” not on promising that Georgians and freight will be able to travel from Point A to Point B as quickly, efficiently and cost-effectively as possible.

Second is the decision to use a sales tax funding mechanism. With a sales tax, unlike the motor fuel tax paid by road users and dedicated to roads and bridges, the burden is borne by all Georgians instead of allocating more of the costs to users of the various modes of transportation. It’s essentially a subsidy to users and a bad model that dilutes efforts to price roads and transportation appropriately.

Sales tax revenue also fluctuates with the economy, a painful lesson learned in Denver during the recession and one of two major reasons for its proposed new tax. And adding the special sales tax for transportation diminishes the chances of persuading jaded Georgians to vote for a consumption-based tax in order to implement personal income tax rate cuts (eventually eliminating it) that enhance Georgia’s competitiveness and hold far greater promise of “economic development” and “jobs.”

Third is TSPLOST advocates’ insistence that there is no “Plan B.” Planners and policy-makers who maintain that the TSPLOST is the end-all are exhibiting a serious lack of leadership. What happens if, despite the millions of dollars spent on advocacy, voters reject the tax increase?

True leaders would be examining the alternatives, including:

* Is a penny tax necessary, or would a portion of a penny be more realistic and give regions more flexibility with other tax changes?

* What projects would truly improve mobility, relieve congestion and save taxpayers from a headache?

* Who should make project decisions and how should they be prioritized to avoid the horse-trading that taints the current list?

* Would a user fee, such as more tolls on roads and an inflation-tied increase in the motor fuel tax be a more consistent, reliable and responsible funding mechanism?

Focusing more on the needs of transportation users — commuters, freight or casual users — would have produced a far different mix of projects than the current list of wants. Georgians need less congestion and improved mobility.

Do you want it now or do you want it right? Is this a prudent use of tax dollars over the next 10 years or relegating Georgia to gridlock again? This is what voters must answer on July 31.

Benita M. Dodd is vice president of the Georgia Public Policy Foundation (www.georgiapolicy.org), an independent think tank that proposes practical, market-oriented approaches to public policy to improve the lives of Georgians.
Comments
(10)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
Maatf
|
April 18, 2012
We are not ready to vote on a plan when we don't even have the studies completed on which to base the plan. I am not voting "yes" on something that includes a "maybe" on how most of the money will be spent.

Vote NO
URKiddingRight?
|
April 18, 2012
It's all about the Benjamins!!

The SAME people who are funding the one-sided MAVEN propaganda campaign to promote a yes vote on TSPLOST are the SAME political and special interest insiders who compiled the project list and the SAME ones who will benefit from the $7 billion worth of projects on that list.

I call it linear corruption!!!
jrev
|
April 18, 2012
I'd like to point out that the reason why only 5% of people use transit is because our transit system has been horribly underfunded for decades. Imagine if NYC's subway system had the same amount of stations/stops as MARTA does. I know we can't compare the two cities exactly, but it does illustrate my point. If MARTA was actually convenient, not only to get TO, but also to arrive AT your desired destination (i.e. being able to walk from a MARTA stop to my destination...not having to take 2 buses), I believe that 5% figure would increase dramatically. However, I agree with you regarding a user/mileage fee to fund all transportation, nixing the gas tax altogether (federal and state both). I also think we need an apolitical means to determine our transportation needs, and not the Governor deciding which roads/transit options to build. Real leaders would have done all of this without a referendum. I'm voting NO because I want MORE transit, not less, and for all the reasons I've stated above. I never thought I'd actually be on the same side as the Tea Party on ANY issue, but here we are (for different reasons). I also resent anyone saying that voting NO means we won't get any of these projects or that "there is no Plan B". Hogwash. Last time I checked, legislature is in session every year, and they have an opportunity each year to do something good. Unfortunately, TSPLOST shows a lack of understanding and leadership. But, hey, at least hunters can use silencers now and raped women will be forced to go out of state to get an abortion after 20 weeks. Heck, they couldn't even make a decision about sunday alcohol sales without a referenDUMB. I should copyright that word.
what the
|
April 18, 2012
"The legislature is in session every year, and they have an opportunity each year to do something good." Lots of luck jrev but don't hold your breath. I've lived in Georgia 67 years and they haven't done anything good yet.
Wait one Second
|
April 19, 2012
Do you actually think by voting NO on this that when and if they do reconvene a group to produce a new list that it would somehow magically have more transit that the current list. That is absolute lunacy. If your main concern is more transit then a YES vote for this balanced list is a step in the right direction towards where you ultimately want our region to be.
SG68
|
April 19, 2012
@ Wait a Second

It would have at least the same amount of transit and maybe the chance for more.

And it would provide an opportunity to put the proposed transit facilties in the right place.

Take the Atlanta Beltline Trolley for instance.

That's transit, but it is not regional transit. It is a local trolley system that serves a very limited population.

That $600M could be redirected to something more regional in nature.

The point being there is room for a vast improvement in the TIA project list and a chance to improve the project list would be worth a two year delay.
SG68
|
April 18, 2012
Very good Ms. Dodd.

You have hit on many of the points that numerous commentors to this forum, other MDJ columnists and MDJ editorials have made for many months now.

You have even come up with some potential alternatives to the TSPLOST sales tax method of funding.

Without reiterating all of your cogent points I wholeheartedly support your suggestion of:

If we are going to do this, then let's do it right!!

Let's revisit the proposed method of funding transportation improvements

and

Let's revisit the TIA project list.

Thanks again for your articulate and insightful viewpoint.
WestCobber
|
April 18, 2012
It is very apparent from the amount of money that must be being spent that their is MONEY somewhere in this equation. Either someone has a lot of money to spend to get this passed - or someone knows there will be a lot of money available if it does pass. I am highly suspicious of this entier endeavor - kind of like sending more money to DC so they will have more money to spend.
Thomas J. Palmer
|
April 19, 2012
@WestCobber: You are quite astute to notice the MONEY being spent. Rest assured, those spending money to influence voters are not motivated by altruism. Do you feel educated or advocated by the Cumberland CID, Citizens for Transportation Mobility MAVEN and UNTIE ATLANTA? MARTA=AMTRACK, never ending subsidies for both. FAT CATS with ARC will move big money to contractors and traffic flow will not improve...taxpayers continue to pay for more studies. Government at work?
Rebelish
|
April 18, 2012
Ms. Dodd, and her organization, again offer a public service by exposing some of the TSPLOST foolishness. Hidden agendas and ulterior motives on the part of the promoters of this goat rope is about the only explanation for the utterly confused and unaccountable "process" by which taxes for this false cure are proposed, after which we'll still be sitting in traffic. Reject this bad idea. Re-do it from scratch. And next time do it right.

Thanks, Benita

Rebelish
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, spam, and links to outside websites will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides