AJC Poll: Metro Voters Narrowly Approve of Transportation Tax
Decatur Metro | September 26, 2011
Only time will tell whether my initial, casual observation that it was a good sign for transportation sales tax advocates that the AJC had to go all the way to Fayette County to find some intense opposition to Atlanta’s pending Transportation Sales Tax initiative.
But this new AJC poll would support the claim that I am clairvoyant. Here’s a selection of the AJC/WSB’s latest poll findings broken up into bullets by me…
- Overall, the poll shows 51 percent of metro voters would vote for the referendum if it were held today. An additional 13 percent were undecided.
- In Cobb and Gwinnett counties alone, at least 48 percent were in support, with an additional 10 percent undecided.
- Overwhelmingly, 91 percent of voters said it was important to address the region’s transportation problems to improve its quality of life and economic future.
- Additionally, 67 percent said the region’s traffic congestion is deteriorating their quality of life.
- And 82 percent said it was important to do more to encourage everyone to commute to work by bus or train.
Sort of interesting that 82% of respondents want more done to encourage transit, but only 51% would vote for the referendum. I’m not suggesting there aren’t valid reasons to support transit but not the tax, but, let’s be honest, you’ve gotta be a pretty well-educated transit junkie to make that argument. So what’s that 31point gap all about? Folks who want people other than themselves encouraged to take transit, but just verbally at no cost to tax payers?
And in case you’re wondering about the accuracy or details of the poll, it included 625 registered metro voters and has a 4% margin of error.
Latest from Decaturish
I love how that Tea Party [edited: no name-calling] thinks metro Atlantans shouldn’t have to shoulder the BURDEN of a tax for transportation improvements. Hmm, guess the region should just start pulling money out of its butt then. That’s how stuff gets paid for, right?
What is wrong with trying to find the money needed by evaluating how the department/city can be more efficient and save money, or cut spending elsewhere before burdening citizens with a new tax? My point is that we should hold govt. accountable for how (and on what) they spend money before we just agree to let them impose another tax. I think that is fair.
Walrus, do you expect efficiency improvements, or even cutting entire programs, would yield the tens or hundreds of millions we’re talking about? I guess I don’t see that as an issue here. No one argues about the responsibility of government employees and officials, and sometimes being more responsible and accountable means government gets more expensive, not cheaper.
I also think it is important to understand this is not simply polticians making decisions. People outside government, be they tea partiers, community groups, contractors who may bid on proposed projects, etc. are pushing elected officials on all sides on this issue. There is no “them.” This is about “us.”
p.s. Though I would not have used the word “loon” as did JonC, Debbie Dooley was busted by Politifact on a previous statement about how the funds raised under the tax would be distributed. That doesn’t help me get over my aversion to the entire tea party thing.
I am not defending this woman or the Tea Party. I just think that we should NEVER approve a new tax on anything unless the govt. can show us that they have cut all the waist in the budget and have used previous funds efficiently. By voting yes for a tax, you are basically saying that the govt. has done all it can do to come up with the funds by other means (cutting spending, making departments for efficient, etc.). I just don’t think that is the case at all and I refuse to give these politicians that easy way out.
I hope that also answers your question, DM.
“waste” not “waist”
What kind of proof are you looking for, if I may ask? These governments have auditors that review accounts and programs, find mistakes/waste, etc. And these findings are available to the public. Yes, they have waste, just like every group or organization on the planet. It is a cost of doing any kind of business.
If you don’t think that our state govt. can cut spending dramatically, then we will just have to agree to disagree.
But we are talking about the county and local governments, right? But I will bite on your state reference anyway.
I audited state government programs for eight years. As I said before, of course there is waste. But this is pennies compared to this topic. Rather, what most people call “waste” is simply programs they don’t like, don’t want the government involved in, like health care and many others.
Waste, defined as an inefficient use of funds, however, is not anywhere near as common as I expected to find when I started that job. Most people refuse to believe it when I say it. But hey, my job is not to change your mind. I’m just telling it like I saw it.
What auditor examines efficiency? I have never heard of that. How can an auditor say, for example, you have 10 people in department X, when you really need only 3? I don’t think the Dept. of Audits and Accounts examines that sort of thing.
The GA Dept of Audits has a Performance Audits division and this is what they do. That is where I worked. We audited, for performance, GDOT many times and of course they have problems. I could go on and on, but I won’t.
This transportation list and the associated tax are good things, in my opinion. NOT because I love taxes and spending (i do not) but because this metro region has inadequate transit and awful traffic. Moreso, transportation politics in Georgia, at the state level in particular, is awful. They have had decades to fix it and have not, and this list and tax are the way around it. Real information has been provided with unfortunate nonsense from Ms. Dooley and the tea party spreading occassionally. And we will all benefit from the wisdom of Mayor Floyd being involved.
One concern I have is that the costs for these projects will be well above and beyond what they are estimated to be. For many reasons it almost always ends up that way in transportation projects. If this thing passes, the fight over this is hardly over.
Also if you just Google “GDOT audit” or “GDOT 2010 audit” you’ll find all kinds of articles about material weaknesses in their controls and procedures, account deficits, and other issues that would prevent GDOT from ever getting a clean audit opinion. The government agencies you audited may very well be clean as a whistle, but the agency most relevant to this discussion most certainly is not. Or at least hasn’t been in the past.
We’d all be interested in hearing some specific examples of thing you think should be cut. You seem so sure that there are some. We need $6B over 10 years.
+1 Steve
Here is a good read for you:
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2011/0225_states_greenstone_katz.aspx
Here’s data on Georgia’s GDP and state spending from 2000 to 2010. State spending increases have far outstripped economic growth over this time on a percentage basis, so it seems to me that amid this ever-rising tide of government spending we could find some money to re-direct to one of the few things the government does that is actually a core function. Also note the ever-rising spending on pensions for state workers. Maybe we could start there. Every state worker should be taken out of a defined benefit pension and put into a defined contribution plan immediately.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2000_2010GAb_11s1li011lcn_F0s00s
I always take the argument that “there’s nothing left to cut” with a massive grain of salt. At the federal level, you have politicians claiming that further cuts will devastate basic government services. At the same time, the federal DOT recently searched for an “Associate Administrator for Administration” at the salary of $119,000 to $179,000 per year, plus benefits! Nope, no bloat in these governments. None at all.
http://jobview.usajobs.gov/GetJob.aspx?JobID=100686348&JobTitle=Associate+Administrator+for+Administration&q=&where=Washington+DC&x=90&y=14&brd=3876&vw=b&FedEmp=N&FedPub=Y&pg=1&re=3&AVSDM=2011-07-12+01%3a13%3a00
Problem 1) When you link savings by cutting programs in one area to fund another, you now have two fights instead of one. For a person that likes the cut, another doesn’t (refer to the Balanced Budget Amendment fight added to the Debt Crisis last month). Nothing ever gets done that way. And how much would the change in pension plan save?
Problem 2) your example of the “Associate Administrator for Administration” (ES 34) is a good sound byte because it sounds as if a secretary is being paid way too much. Looks like this, however, is an executive level position. From HHS.gov: The Senior Executive Service (SES) (pay designation is ES) covers most managerial, supervisory, and policy positions, which are classified above the GS-15 pay grade”. And I am not sure you could make the determination that this position is completely unnecessary without a more thorough understanding of what the agency and position actually do.
Back to transportation, I don’t disagree that the public should keep on top of this. I just don’t buy the “government is wasteful, so let’s do nothing until they clean up their act” argument.
Agree that an SES position is a high level federal position. That level of pay is actually low for an SES position and overlaps many of the upper GS pay ranges.
Why do people not listen to others? Here we have a knowledgible person with first-hand experience and proof. But people just dig their heels in and fight. Why can’t we keep an open mind and admit when someone else has a good point?
“More expensive” and government really seem to go together, don’t they?
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your pov), poll responses like this do not necessarily translate to votes, especially in a non-Presidential election when most of the energy will be with those who are opposed to new taxes for any reason.
Yes, but I wonder how much of that may be off-set by avid transit junkies.
Given the general climate of people hating on government, I find this poll surprisingly good news. Who would have predicted anywhere near this level of support? And frankly while tthe transportation story has been in the news, there hasn’t been much promotion of the benefits. It is encouraging that residents across the region see the issue as important and see transit as part of the solution. Hopefully some political leaders will get the message that people want government to act, that people are williing to pay for it and transit has widespread support.
I hope transit advocates are cranking up a campaign to get out the YES vote. You can be sure the nay-sayers (sp) and haters will be.
I haven’t decided which way I will vote yet, but I’m not sure that labeling nay voters as “haters” is really helpful. Why should a person who may already be cash-strapped and/or expecting more efficiency from their government (as Walrus discusses above) be labeled a hater if they vote against it?
Maybe I should have said “people who exploit fears”.
Fear of what?
Fear of paying 1 more penny on the dollar.
Fear of that one more cent getting squandered.
This is truly an insignificant number and, as was said above, the waste isn’t nearly as bad as even professional feared.
Would I want 99.5 percent of those funds spent on more car infrastructure? No, I think that we already subsidize cars enough out of general funds. But if that’s what it takes to get even that 1/2 of 1 percent for sharrows, bike lanes, sidewalks, etc, I’m resigned to more car infrastructure.
I’m a hater of this idea. First, I hate projects based on pie-in-the-sky projections. How anyone could possibly know how much revenue this “temporary” tax will pull in is beyond me, especially in this economic climate. If the past few years haven’t taught us that economic forcasting is completely unreliable, then nothing ever will. I also hate shoddy economic planning and budgeting. And, for example, including the Clifton corridor in thos project at less than half funding would be quite shoddy. But last I heard, that was the plan.
Most of all, I hate bait and switch sales pitches. And let me take a wild guess: revenues will not meet projections, costs will vastly exceed projections, the half-budgeted projects will need the other half of the money, and the “temporary” tax will turn into a “not so temporary” tax.
The law provides that the tax must be re-approved after 10 years. That’s what makes it temporary.
Additional funding is going to have to come from somewhere after the ten years are up. This is one reason I’m leaning towards no: transit will be built or partially built with no money for operations unless the tax is extended, and meanwhile additional lanes and roads will have been built outside of the gas tax. The state is also trying to offload one of the few transit operations they fund, GRTA, onto this bill. I know it’s been pointed out a gazillion times, but state support for transit here is virtually non-existent; this plan would actually reduce even that minimal level of support.
So governments can never do anything beyond the current year? Well, I guess that’s out too because even those budgets are based on previously estimated revenues.
No but if they are executing a 10 year plan it need to be on clearly sound fiscal footing. I have yet to see any indication that this project qualifies, and the half-funded transit projects on the list are a very strong indication to the contrary.
Steve I understand that the project as proposed is a temporary tax. What I am saying is that if you believe that is how it will work in practice, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
I found that stat about “82 percent said it was important to do more to encourage everyone to commute to work by bus or train” very encouraging. It shows a greater support for mass transit in general than I thought existed in the metro.
As for the disparity between that and the approval of the referendum, I think it’s understandable for a person to favor mass transit without agreeing with this specific project list enough to vote for it. I’ve found myself flip-flopping into that category a few times.
I doubt 82% of Atlanta folk would consider riding MARTA to anywhere but the airport. Mass transit doesn’t work well here because of lack of density and lack of infrastructure.
I enjoyed being carless in NYC 10 years ago. Public transport was still slow and marginally convenient, but you could get close to your destination without too many transfers.
Here my 11 mile commute takes 22-35 minutes in the car, 40 minutes on my bike, and 1.5-2 hours on Marta. Obviously the bike is the cheapest compromise, but not a choice many people will make in a hilly town like Atl.
Mass transit and density are not necessarily related. People commuting long distances and mass transit are related.
Mass transit and density are related because, the more dense an area, the more customers can be served by an expensive mile of tunnel, an expensive mile of bridge, an expensive quantity of fuel, an expensive maintenance cycle.
When a transit system tries to serve suburbia, we get routes which go long distances (gas, wear & tear) with low ridership (low revenue).
Dense areas can provide more stops and higher frequency due to the higher income per distance.
Your augment is sort of weak when you look at places like NY, Chicago, LA, etc, where people commute 30 miles or more on commuter rail. There are people in Atlanta who commute 30 miles in a car to downtown.
I’m almost inclined to be part of the 31 % gap of those who want public transit encouraged but will not vote for the referendum. But that’s because I hate to vote for more taxes to build more roads, and half of the money raised goes to roads. It seems to me we’ve had plenty of funding to build roads. Why do we need a tax for that? I’d guess we have more highway lanes running through our city than any other in the nation. And where has that gotten us? More roads are only a short term solution–they just lead to more cars and more traffic.
That said, I’ll still vote for it because I don’t realistically see more public transit being built without it.
And after widening all these roads 25-35 miles out, what will our new “neighbors” in Hickory Flat and southern Forsyth County, or from beyond Loganville and Dacula, or those from around Brooks and Senoia, or Chattahoochee Hills mean to us? More extravagant office parties?
“even if next year’s transportation referendum passes, the metro area’s largest transit system will still face $2.3 billion in unfunded maintenance needs over the next decade. We do not have an answer of how it’s going to be funded,”
http://www.ajc.com/news/marta-chief-warns-of-1189259.html
If I didn’t know better, I would think MARTA is intentionally trying to doom this. I support public transit, but any reasonable person would wonder when reading that, if they can be trusted with more money. What is their deal?
politics and industry?
The politics part- most definitely. Industry- no. It’s not really fair to compare it to a private business that would have failed in a similar predicament, but at some point you have to see that they have been behind the curve in managing their financial problems. And instead of attempting to fix them from the inside out, they cut things here and there (way too late) in an attempt to justify a drastic raise in rates.
Even if the tax goes through, even if they could get to money not currently accessible, they’ll be back asking for BILLIONS within 10 years. Because as they have said, they haven’t a clue how they’re going to get it. This is just an unacceptable response to managing predicted financial woes.
I sincerely hope we all get out of our cars, sooner rather than later. But my opinion of the people running MARTA, is as low as it is of the government in general. Inept, and instead of getting creative with financial matters, all they know how to do is hold their hand out.
For Clifton Corridor, I’ve been told unofficially that they’re hoping for Emory and the Fed to close the money gap. Since you need to have concrete fiscal commitment by the community in order to get the attention of other entities, you often have to start out with a proposal that doesn’t full fund the project, but shows that you’re serious about getting it built.
I actually like the idea of the Clifton Corridor project, and Emory would definitely kick in some dough, no doubt, Feds too.
But the billions I was referring to, is just maintenance costs, not attached to new projects. In addition to…
“As a member of the American Public transportation Association (APTA), you are part of an international organization that has been representing the transit industry for over 100 years, since 1882.”
http://www.apta.com/about/Pages/default.aspx
Fair enough. Doesn’t do anything to change my opinion though. Membership isn’t based on any sort of worthiness, or rate the standing of the members. You just need to pay a fee, and have a connection to something that rolls. Not exactly a high bar.
OK, but the answer to your question can probably be found by looking at what their industry peers have been doing and how competing industries operate.
I do not see how just stating the need for infrastructure investment, dooms the possibility of that investment. How is that?
They have billions in projected maintenance needs for infrastructure already in place, that they have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA how they are going to meet, according to them. They have raised fares as much as they can, and cut what they said they can. So where is this money supposed to come from? Not even they know.
That’s like saying, I hope Santa Claus drops $3 billion in our laps, because if not, we’re screwed.
Their projected predicament, just doesn’t inspire confidence they’ll be able to handle anything new.
I don’t see how this fact leads to your conclusion. MARTA does not have the funds to maintain the what they have. To me that means they may need more revenue.
“let’s be honest, you’ve gotta be a pretty well-educated transit junkie to make that argument”
Why do you think that?
Maybe there are more people who ‘just get it’ than you expect. If memory serves, Seattle voters rejected a roads+transit tax before they passed a transit tax.
Because the sales tax itself is darn complicated and most people don’t have the time to study up on it enough to say, “I like transit, but I don’t believe that particular allocation and/or a lack of a regional plan is sufficient to Atlanta’s needs.”
And I’m not sure Seattle is the best example, since rejection of a roads/transit tax and approval of a transit-only tax is very likely just the result of a liberal voting populace.
My kids want soda, but I think they should consume alternatives to sugar water. In this case, I buy no soda or diet soda, but I don’t think it would make sense to put diet and non-diet soda in my grocery cart.
I think there is no question that there are going to be some strange bedfellows in this process. The advocates for roads need the transit advocates because, for the most part. they are the ones willing to pay more tax. And then there will probably be a Republican statehouse trying to move the referendum to the general election day because they know they need Democrat votes to have any chance of passing this (and the business community is putting a lot of pressure on the Republicans to get this done.)
Personally, I haven’t decided yet, but I’m determined that if there is any further reduction in transit in the plan my vote will be no.
DM, I didn’t intend to equate Seattle voters to Atlanta voters. But let’s say you have characterized Seattle voters correctly; we should ask why a roads+transit referendum went to the voters.
Ah, good point.
I hope when people are considering the cost of investing in public transport vs not, they are factoring in the cost of not investing and having too much traffic on the roads. Too much traffic on the roads causes businesses to locate elsewhere (difficult to move around the city, employees don’t want to move to a place with congestion and bad air quality), it causes a need for more road building, it causes financial penalties due to an increase in air quality violations, and the pollution causes increased health problems that must be paid for by someone (ultimately us all).
+1
The Transportation Investment Act aims to extend and perpetuate the current pattern of growth.
Or the math can be done the other way. If you invest in public transport, how much money is recouped by new businesses being more willing to move to the area, less roads needing to be built, less penalties due to fewer violations of the air quality laws, and fewer health expenses on pollution related health problems….
I hear what you’re saying. But I think it is important to go into this with eyes wide open. So at the risk of giving ammo for opponents…
Many of these projects are roadway improvements that will not get people out of their cars. Maybe they would improve traffic flow and reduce idling times and therefore some pollution, but most pollution comes from industrial sources anyway, coal power plants in particular.
And the major transit projects on the list – Clifton and the East, Northeast, and Northwest corridors namely which account for about $1.5 to $2B of the total $6B – have extremely low ridership projections for when they would open in 2025. For example, the I-20 East Corridor is estimated to have only 11,700 weekday boardings while Clifton only 10,200. And these aren’t people, only boarding events; so this means only a few thousand people served each week for each corridor. It doesn’t look like this will take many people out of their cars, at least not unless or until it caught on, which I hope it does.
Question: If this vote fails, as I expect it to, what are the chances of the state allowing the five metro counties to vote individually on a sales tax for transit? I think the answer to that may be a factor in my vote.
I’m not sure there would be any reason to do it that way. If only Dekalb and Gwinnett approved it, for example, what transit would make sense in only those
Two counties that would address the transportation problems we have in the metro area. Certainly the other counties wouldn’t get the benefit if they don’t pay the tax. This is a regional problem, therefore treated as one district. I also think you need a tax base from all areas included. That’s the way I think about it at least.
“what transit would make sense in only those two counties”
I think the Clifton Corridor plan would have a regional benefit. Extending the rail line further into N.Fulton makes sense from a regional standpoint too. Let Clayton, Cobb, and Gwinnett vote on joining MARTA. In the meantime, it is far past time for MARTA to use a distant-based fare system, including an airport surcharge. It’s flabbergasting that a person can ride the train thirty miles to the airport for two bucks. But I digress…
I’m unconvinced this regional, road/transit amalgamation, even it manages to win voter approval, is going to end well. Frankly, I’d rather pay another penny to strengthen and maintain our existing transit infrastructure than pay anything more toward lane-widening, highways etc.
brianc,
The Transportation Investment Act of 2010 reconstituted MARTA’s board, removing representation for Clayton and Gwinnett. The same section allocates two seats to Clayton, Cobb, and Gwinnett, pending a referendum in those counties.
The Act also exempts any ‘metropolitan area system of public transportation’ sales tax passed after 01-Jan-2010 and before 01-Nov-2012 from the cap. This would appear to prevent DeKalb and Fulton from adding a TSPLOST to boost transit capital but may permit the others to add MARTA (though, in that event, the state legislature may move to exclude MARTA from the provision).
Cobb’s current TSPLOST expires this year. Clayton’s TSPLOST goes until 2014, but I think they were already granted specific provision to join MARTA (and Clayton voters passed a non-binding referendum to do so last year).
The interests that fund our politicians (and dominate the will of our commissioners) want you to think that you need to spend now or else – don’t buy in.
Thanks for the explanation. I’m still not clear about the earliest possible date for any transit referendums in Dekalb and Fulton, but I’d definitely be inclined to vote against the TIA if I thought there were a reasonable chance of a SPLOST in those counties for an all- transit plan.
Under existing law, I believe DeKalb would need to quit HOST (likewise Fulton and its LOST); it’s probably way more likely that the exceptions to the sales tax cap would be amended, as with TIA (the maximum duration for a SPLOST would need to be similarly waived).
The route I prefer is removing all road capital from the “constrained list.” The full roundtable could do that before October 15, or we could try that in 2014 (unless the referendum passes in 2012). The 2014 scenario could be squashed by legislature.