georgia's transportation investment act: lessons learned

Georgia’s Transportation Investment Act

Lessons LearnedTRB Annual Meeting

January 2013

Valdosta – Lowndes Metropolitan Planning Organization

Agenda

• What is the TIA?• Education• Transparency & Accountability• Challenges• Politics• Conclusions


Why Does GA Need Money?

• One of lowest motor fuel tax in nation• One of lowest per capita spending on

transportation• 2009 Statewide Strategic

Transportation Plan– $72 billion needed to fix burning issues,

facilitate economic growth, and transform our transportation network


Transportation Funding in GA

• Federal Funds – Subject to congressional district balancing for equitable

distribution

• State Motor Fuel– Limited by law to highways and bridges– Subject to congressional district balancing for equitable

distribution– LMIG is 10-20% of Motor Fuel Collections (FY13= $110M)

• 10% match if tax passed, 30% match if it did not

• General Fund– Transit, airports, rail, etc.

• Local Funds (SPLOST, General fund, etc)


Transportation Investment Act (TSPLOST)

• 12 Special Tax Districts based on RC boundaries• Each District can levy 1% sales tax for 10 years (≈8%)• Exemptions: off road fuel, ATL jet fuel, motor fuel,

Manf. Energy, transit fuel, >$5,000 car• Individual Counties cannot opt out• Money raised in District stays in District• Money is not subject to congressional balancing• Project Criteria established by Local Roundtable• Local Roundtables ultimately select projects• Vote will be Primary election of July 31, 2012• Funds start flowing in 1st quarter of 2013


Different Pots

75% Regional75% of the Region’s

proceedsWill be used to fund all

projects on the final project list approved by the roundtable and ultimately the citizens of the region

GDOT will be responsible for project delivery

25% (15%) Local25% (15%)of the Region’s

proceedsFormula based on proportion

of population and centerline road miles

Discretionary transportation money to be used for projects like resurfacing


Ideas Behind the Bill

• Allowed voters to implement tax, spent in their region, on projects selected locally

• Carrot and Stick– Penalties (incentives) in Law acted as a

stick to encourage passage


The vote…• If the Voters do not approve

the referendum then…– All local governments

must match their state funds at a rate of 30%, wait 24 months to start process over

• If the Voters do approve the referendum– All local governments

must match their state funds at a rate of 10%, can use 25% local discretionary as the match

– Citizen’s Review Panel


County by County Vote


Two Phases

• Selecting Projects– Regional Transportation Roundtable– Local Elected Officials– Public Meetings– Champions

• Referendum Education– Public Education– Overcoming Myths


Follow-up Interviews

• State DOT Board Members• Regional Commissions• Chambers of Commerce• MPOs• News Articles• Local Officials• Business Community


Project Selection

• Elected Officials vs. Planners• Significant Time Commitment• Fairness to all local governments– Donor Communities & Direct/Indirect Benefits

• Focus on regional needs/connectivity• Local control by local elected officials– Too much input from DOT?– Sub-regions provide accountability

• Champion to carry the message


Public Education

• Communicating ‘value for the money’– Local SPLOSTs have traditionally done

well with identified project lists

• Is ‘tax’ a four-letter word?– Taxed Enough Already

• Federal and State cubacks• Job creation did not resonate well– Did ARRA have anything to do with this?


Public Education

• Law was hard to understand, led to misinformation

• Metro Atlanta vs. Rest of Georgia– Debate on all matters in Georgia

• Just getting the word out, voters were confused, uninformed– Struggle to look beyond local boundaries

• Proactive Involvement of Planners


Transparency and Accountability

• Law mandated transparency and accountability– Ability to overcome historical DOT

mistrust– Opponents cited past trust issues with

DOT

• Lots of information available– Project lists, estimated revenue, etc.– Not all information matched


Responding to Myths

• Conspiracy theories and trust• Bad information kept spreading– Editorials, blogs, etc.– Hands off vs. Respond

• Educating the public about transportation funding (sources, match rates, accounting, YOE, etc.)


Challenges to Overcome

• Idea of a new tax was a bigger issue than working in regions– Local elected officials found a way to

work together

• Skepticism over DOT accountability and transparency

• Change the discussion– How transportation should be funded vs.

current sources


Politics of it All

• Different political campaign strategies work in different areas of the state– Diverse/overlapping media markets– Is an “all of the above” approach right

• Politics are local, different issues in regions• Unlikely Ally’s: Tea Party, Sierra Club, NAACP– Traditional Media and Social Media helped their

message spread

• Getting the business community involved• Was it poor timing economically?


Conclusions

• Local officials will work together– Regional Need vs. Local Wants– All roads are local – HOG paving list

• New activist groups identified– Bring them to the table for long range

transportation planning discussions

• The public does not understand transportation funding– More transparent and accountable process


Conclusions

• Get the facts out there– Respond to myths and falsehoods

• Directly or indirectly (social media works great)• Upfront, proactive communication with traditional

media

– One go-to source for facts• Include all of the information in all formats and

methods

• Changing the DOT Institution– Times have changed; trust, accountability,

transparency


Conclusions

• Gave people the opportunity to know what the tax was for– Did the voters exercise that opportunity?– Was it explained well?

• Misconception of penalty, failed to get attention of local governments/voters– How is transportation funded


AJC Poll – Dec. 9, 2012

• Strong distrust of all areas of government• Feel money is wasted• 2/3 + would pay a new fee/tax to reduce

congestion, if a program is well designed• Who should control the money?– No clear preference (local, regional, state)– By a thin edge people preferred small groups of

counties voluntarily working together– Want federal involvement least of all


AJC Poll – Dec. 9, 2012

• Strong suburban support for transit– 64% would pay a new fee/tax to create

well designed public transit options to benefit the region

• 79% said regional connections are strong


Wrapping it All Up

• Commitment• Recognized Funding Need• Trust• Transparency• Accountability• Public Education (Elected Officials)• Needs vs. Wants• Institutional Changes


Questions?

Corey Hull, AICPValdosta-Lowndes MPO

Southern Georgia Regional Commission

[email protected]

www.sgrc.us/transportation

georgia's transportation investment act: lessons learned

Documents