TSPLOST: A Noble Idea Has Been Hijacked
The chairman of The Council on Public Policy explains why the organization encourages voters to oppose the Transportation Investment Act on July 31 at the polls.
Photos
Kent Gildersleeve, acting chairman of The Council of Public Policy writes:
The Council on Public Policy, at its regular meeting this month, determined to recommend a “NO” vote on the regional transportation referendum, a.k.a. “TSPLOST.”
This tax will not relieve traffic congestion; it will dry up other transportation funding for years, and it offers nothing to many suburbs.
TSPLOST does not meet the declared objective of the legislation–reducing regional traffic congestion. Proponents admit that the 52 percent allocated to transit is intended to stimulate commercial property development. The Atlanta Beltline is not a regional project. Major regional needs, such as the I-75 to I-285 Interchange don’t get a dime.
The monies allocated to transit projects will only pay for initial phases. The $689 million budgeted to the Cobb transit is only the beginning of a $3 billion project. Transit construction will commit us to additional taxes beyond the 10-year TSPLOST to pay for maintenance and operations. Look to MARTA for proof of the ongoing losses. Once the 1 percent sales tax starts, it will be extremely difficult to get other local SPLOSTS passed. Local improvements will become rare.
Important suburbs like Southwest Cobb will pay the taxes but get no significant projects. Other items, such as I-85 in Gwinnett, are just studies. There is no money for completing the projects.
TSPLOST started as a noble idea, a way to really help traffic congestion. Now the vision has blurred, as special interests cut their slice from the pie. The existing legislation provides for a new referendum after two years.
The Council on Public Policy recommends a NO vote on July 31st.
The Council on Public Policy is an Atlanta-based organization of active civic and business leaders dedicated to open exploration of issues, ideas and alternatives for optimal performance of our governments. The Council employs a balanced and consistent process of issue definition, study, deliberation, debate and collective resolution to matters of local importance. Recommendations arising from this process are channeled to influence public policies and actions. The Council is politically non-partisan.
Do you agree with The Council on Public Policy's stance on TSPLOST? Did it begin as a noble idea? Tell us below in the comments.
You might also be interested in reading:
- TSPLOST and Metro Atlanta "Cooperation"
- Tax Increase, TSPLOST Slammed at Chairman's Forum
- Patch Survey of GOP Leaders Shows Widespread Opposition to TSPLOST
- VIDEO: Doug Stoner Talks TSPLOST at Public Forum
- Council Representative Reminds Voters About TSPLOST's Local Impact
Brian
11:37 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Yes, T-Splost has been hijacked, by suburbanites who love roads and hate transit...
> "TSPLOST started as a noble idea, a way to really help traffic congestion. Now the vision has blurred, as special interests cut their slice from the pie. The existing legislation provides for a new referendum after two years."
My response: Incorrect. T-Splost started years back as purely transit-oriented for metro Atlanta, mainly to get the beltline built and get some rail built to suburban counties. It then expanded into a state-wide concept and then was hijacked by people who preferred more lanes to progress. It wasn't until recently, to bow down to the suburbanites, that it was re-images as meant to cut traffic congestion. However, it has enough transit left in it to satisfy me.
I don't think some people realize how long it has been in the works. It has been in the works about 5 years now, if I remember correctly. It started as a state vote just to allow regional tax zones. I have followed it the whole way.
Mike Lowry
10:07 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Transit does not relieve congestion in a region with the low density of Atlanta. We are a network of suburban clusters, an inappropriate environment for transit to function. If the transit-lovers had to pay the true cost of their convenience, they would not use it either.
Brian
11:40 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Explain why the beltline isn't a regional project. You can't generally have a regional project that covers every county in the region, that's why they are broken up between counties. However, regional projects in a single county can impact commuters from other counties.
The beltine provides a better jumping off point for light rail to the suburbs than MARTA. It gets past the most congested roads and provides a loop for light rail to connect into suburbs down arterials.
I see the beltline as the beginning of regional light rail, so it definitely has regional potential. For people in Cobb County, it'll also provide a fast connection to Brookwood, Lindbergh, and Atlantic Station without having to go to the Arts Center first (the beltline will cross the I-75 BRT/light rail at the beginning of the connector.
Obviously, the arguments it has economic improvement potential is true, and not a bad thing. Why is economic development a bad thing for Atlanta? Especially in an economy like this? For instance, the results of increasing land value on the NW edge of the beltline at Marietta Blvd and W Marietta Street along with the improving land values at the Bankhead and West end areas will be felt in S. Cobb as well.
Southern parts of Fulton County will benefit from the beltline as well as will Douglas County.
Obviously, Dekalb County will benefit the most outside Fulton County, since it flanks the beltline.
Brian
11:44 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Finally, the Council on Public Policy is a conservative group.
It says it is politically non-partisan, however that's a misnomer when you are conservatively bias. It is pushing the same conservative ideals that got us where we are during the last 50 years, eroded our rail infrastructure, and caused suburban sprawl. It's time for a change. It will always be against rail projects. So don't consider this article anything of a surprise.
What is also not a surprise, is that the writer got her facts wrong about the project being hijacked by rail. As I mentioned, the idea of T-splost being to relieve traffic through road projects was not the original intention. Keep in mind that as you pile people into an area, rail scales much better. That's why it helps relieve traffic - not based on present projection but based on population growth.
Mike Lowry
10:10 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
"...as you pile people into an area..."
I don't think this is the preferred vision for the region that most of us have. That's why we have developed into a large network of suburban clusters rather than a dense urban core. This is actually a very strong civil structure if we grasp it and make it work better.
Jacqueline Archer
8:12 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
I suggest www.traffictruth.net for additional details on the TSplost issue.
Erik Fernald
10:39 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
I think Brian's 3 page diatribe speaks volumes of why we should not vote for this albatross of high taxation. Once this is soundly defeated, we should turn our attention to eliminating our state income tax. Taxing nearly 50% of our income hurts the poor and middle class the most. Any politician who supports this garbage should be soundly defeated in the primaries next time around, that goes for both of our current senators and congressman who currently support this insane tax on the people.
Brian
10:16 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
I've never heard of a 50% tax rate for middle class or those in poverty - especially for state taxes. In fact, there are earned income credits for the working poor.
Bruce
7:17 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
The wrong tax at the wrong time with the wrong projects.