Economic development and workforce impacts of state DOT highway expenditures

GEORGIA DOT RESEARCH PROJECT 12-19 FINAL REPORT
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND WORKFORCE IMPACTS OF STATE DOT HIGHWAY EXPENDITURES
OFFICE OF RESEARCH

GDOT Research Project No. 12-19 Final Report
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND WORKFORCE IMPACTS OF STATE DOT HIGHWAY EXPENDITURES
By Dr. Thomas D. Boston
Dr. Ruth Oyelere Georgia Institute of Technology
Contract with Georgia Department of Transportation
In cooperation with U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
January 2014
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the factual accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Georgia Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
1

1.Report No.: FHWA-GA-14-1219

2. Government Accession No.: 3. Recipient's Catalog No.:

4. Title and Subtitle: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND WORKFORCE IMPACTS OF STATE DOT HIGHWAY EXPENDITURES

5. Report Date: January 2014
6. Performing Organization Code:

7. Author(s): Thomas D. Boston & Ruth Uwaifo-Oyelere

8. Performing Organ. Report No.:

9. Performing Organization Name and Address: Georgia Institute of Technology 790, Atlantic Drive, Atlanta, GA 30332

10. Work Unit No.:
11. Contract or Grant No.: 0010766 (RP 12-19; UTC Sub-project) under RP 11-24)

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address:

13. Type of Report and Period Covered: Final; May

Georgia Department of Transportation

2012 January 2014

Office of Research 15 Kennedy Drive

14. Sponsoring Agency Code:

Forest Park, GA 30297-2534

15. Supplementary Notes: Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal

Highway Administration. 16. Abstract: The research measured the impact of Georgia Department of Transportation's highway

expenditures on economic activity in the State. The analysis covered awards made between January 2009

and April 2013. The research is unique in that it not only examined economic impacts statewide, but also for

each of Georgia's 159 counties and seven GDOT Administrative Districts. The IMPLAN model was used to

generate six impacts at each geographic level. They included the following: total output, value added in

production, new jobs created, household income, small business revenue and tax revenues. GDOT's highway

expenditures of $3.094 billion were estimated to have created 51,246 new jobs and generated $5.859 billion

in economic output. The study also found that expenditures supported by the Federal Fiscal Stimulus

program created 15,088 jobs. A most important finding is the impact per dollar spent differed significantly

across counties and GDOT Districts. In other words, $1.0 million spent on highway projects in County A did

not generate the same economic activity and number of jobs as did $1.0 million spent on identical projects in

County B. An important recommendation therefore is that GDOT planners must take these differential

impacts into consideration in order to maximize the effect of highway expenditures on local economic

development.

17. Key Words:
GDOT Economic Impact, Georgia Highway Expenditures Impacts, Highway Investment Impacts, GDOT Impact on Jobs

18. Distribution Statement:

19. Security Classification (of this report):
Unclassified

20. Security Classification (of this page):
Unclassified

21. Number of Pages: 72

22. Price:

2

Table of Contents
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................... 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................................... 7 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 8 PROCEDURE............................................................................................................................................. 10
Research Method .................................................................................................................................... 10 Data ......................................................................................................................................................... 13 Literature Review of Related Research .................................................................................................. 14 FINDINGS .................................................................................................................................................. 19 Summary of GDOT Highway Expenditures, 2009 - 2013...................................................................... 19 Location of GDOT's Highway Projects.................................................................................................. 21 GDOT Highway Expenditures by District.............................................................................................. 23 Summary of GDOT Highway Expenditures by Counties within Districts ............................................. 27 Summary of Statewide Economic Impacts ............................................................................................. 42 Summary of District Economic Impacts ................................................................................................. 46 Detailed Impact on Jobs Created: State, District and County Levels ..................................................... 48 Detailed Impact on New Household Income: State and District Levels................................................. 52 Detailed Impact on Total Economic Output and Value Added: State and District Levels ..................... 54 Detailed Impact on New Small Business Revenue: State and District Levels........................................ 57 Detailed Impact on New Tax Revenue: State and District Levels .......................................................... 59 Top Three Districts Ranked by Size of Impacts ..................................................................................... 61 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 62 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 64 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 66 Appendix ...............................................................................................................67
3

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: GDOT Highway Expenditures by Amount, Number and Type, 2009- 2013.............................................20 Figure 2: GDOT Highway Expenditures by Year, Amount and Number of Projects, 2009 2013..........................20 Figure 3: Map of Georgia Counties, Color-coded by the Amount of GDOT Expenditures, 2009 - 2013.................22 Figure 4: Geographic Boundaries of GDOT's 7 Administrative Districts ................................................................23 Figure 5: GDOT Expenditures by Amount, District and Number of Projects...........................................................24 Figure 6: GDOT Expenditures Supported by the Federal Fiscal Stimulus Program, 2009 - 2010............................25 Figure 7: Number of GDOT Projects Supported by Federal Fiscal Stimulus Program, 2009 2010.......................25 Figure 8: GDOT Awards to Local Jurisdictions within District, 2009 - 2013...........................................................26 Figure 9: GDOT Total Expenditures in 2012 by District ..........................................................................................26 Figure 10: Map of Counties in District 1 Color-coded by Total GDOT Expenditures, 2009 2013........................28 Figure 11: District 1 - Total GDOT Expenditures and Number of Projects, 2009 - 2013 .........................................29 Figure 12: Map of Counties in District 2 Color-coded by Total GDOT Expenditures, 2009 - 2013 ........................30 Figure 13: District 2 - Total GDOT Expenditures and Number of Projects, 2009 - 2013 .........................................31 Figure 14: Map of Counties in District 3 Color-coded by Total GDOT Expenditures, 2009 2013........................32 Figure 15: District 3 - GDOT Expenditures and Number of Projects, 2009 - 2013 ..................................................33 Figure 16: Map of Counties in District 4 Color-coded by Total GDOT Expenditures, 2009 2013........................34 Figure 17: District 4 - GDOT Expenditures and Number of Projects, 2009 - 2013 ..................................................35 Figure 18: Map of Counties in District 5 Color-coded by Total GDOT Expenditures, 2009 2013........................36 Figure 19: District 5 - GDOT Expenditures and Number of Projects, 2009 - 2013 ..................................................37 Figure 20: Map of Counties in District 6 Color-coded by Total GDOT Expenditures, 2009 2013........................38 Figure 21: District 6 - GDOT Expenditures and Number of Projects, 2009 - 2013 ..................................................39 Figure 22: Map of Counties in District 7 Color-coded by Total GDOT Expenditures, 2009 2013........................40 Figure 23: District 7 - GDOT Expenditures and Number of Projects, 2009 - 2013 ..................................................41 Figure 24: Statewide Impact of GDOT Expenditures, 2009 - 2013 ..........................................................................44 Figure 25: Statewide Impact of GDOT Expenditures in 2012...................................................................................45 Figure 26: Statewide Impact of Federal Fiscal Stimulus Expenditures, 2009 - 2010................................................46 Figure 27: Impact of GDOT Expenditures on Jobs (State Level, District Level and for Stimulus Expenditures) ....49 Figure 28: Map of Georgia Counties .........................................................................................................................50 Figure 29: Map of Georgia Counties Showing Jobs Created by GDOT Expenditures, 2009 2013........................51 Figure 30: Impact of GDOT Expenditures on Wages (State Level, District Level and for Stimulus Expenditures) 53 Figure 31: Impact of GDOT Expenditures on Total Economic Output (State Level, District Level and for Stimulus Expenditures) .............................................................................................................................................................55 Figure 32: Impact of GDOT Expenditures on Value Added (State Level, District Level and for Stimulus Expenditures) .............................................................................................................................................................56 Figure 33: Impact of GDOT Expenditures on Small Business Revenue (State Level, District Level and for Stimulus Expenditures)..............................................................................................................................................58 Figure 34: Impact of GDOT Expenditures on Tax Receipts (State Level, District Level and for Stimulus Expenditures) .............................................................................................................................................................60 Figure 35: Appendix - GDOT Highway Expenditures by County, 2009 - 2013 ......................................................67
4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This research measured the impact of the Georgia Department of Transportation's highway expenditures (made between 2009 and 2013) on job creation and economic activity at the county, highway district and statewide levels. Impact Analysis for Planning (IMPLAN) software was used to conduct the assessment. Six (6) categories of economic impacts were estimated: 1. total economic output; 2. value added in production; 3. new jobs created; 4. household income arising from wages paid to employees; 5. revenue generated by proprietors of small businesses; and 6. tax receipts. The study is unique in that it not only estimated total economic impacts at the state level, but also for each of Georgia's 159 counties and seven GDOT Administrative Districts. Economic impacts were examined for three time intervals: (1) January 2009 through April 2013; (2) calendar year 2012 (the most recent full year for which data were available); and (3) 2009 - 2010 (the time during which GDOT's expenditures were supplemented by support from the Federal Fiscal Stimulus Program, ARRA).
Between January 2009 and April 2013, GDOT awarded $3.094 billion in connection with 1,271 highway projects. Multiple awards occurred in each of the State's 159 counties. The average award was $2.435 million and the median (midpoint) award value was $.845 million. During 2012, the most recent full year for which data were available, GDOT spent $.911 billion on highway projects. Finally, between 2009 and 2010, GDOT spent $1.264 billion on highway projects. That amount included $.604 billion received from the federal government under the Fiscal Stimulus Program.
GDOT's Highway expenditures had a significant impact on the State's economy. At a time when Georgia and the nation struggled to recover from the "Great Recession", GDOT's $3.094 billion in direct highway expenditures resulted in a combined statewide economic impact of $5.859 billion. This means every dollar of highway investment generated a total economic impact of $1.89. The impact occurred across
5

GDOT's seven Districts as follows: District 1 Gainesville: $634.1 million; District 2 Tennille: $759.9 million; District 3 Thomaston: $910.3 million; District 4 Tifton: $530.5 million; District 5 Jesup: $664.0 million; District 6 Cartersville: $481.6 million; and District 7 Chamblee: $880.0 million. GDOT's highway expenditures created an estimated 51,246 new jobs statewide. This means for each $1.0 million of direct highway spending, 16.6 new jobs were created. The highway expenditures also sustained numerous existing jobs. Employment gains occurred across GDOT Districts as follows: District 1 Gainesville: 5,872; District 2 Tennille: 7,910; District 3 Thomaston: 9,271; District 4 Tifton: 5,569; District 5 Jesup: 6,624; District 6 Cartersville: 5,323; District 7 Chamblee: 6,605. The study concluded that significant policy insights can be gained by examining economic impacts at the county and district levels, instead of limiting the analysis to statewide impacts only. Geographic differences in the industry composition of counties, as well as differences in supply chain characteristics and patterns of consumer expenditures cause notable differences in total impact per dollar spent.
For example, among all seven GDOT Districts, District 3 (Thomaston) experienced the highest rate of job creation per dollar spent (i.e. 16.4 jobs were created for each $1.0 million of highway expenditures). In contrast, District 7 (Chamblee, which encompasses the central counties of Metro Atlanta) experienced the smallest number of new jobs per $1.0 million of highway expenditures -- 12.9. In contrast, highway expenditures in District 7 led to the largest gain in small business revenue ($21.40 per $100.00 spent on highway projects) among all Districts. This is because of District 7's relatively strong supply chain characteristics, which resulted in fewer leakages of supply chain purchases to firms located outside the District.
By examining how highway expenditures affect local areas, policy makers can improve the effectiveness of resource allocation, be more responsive to stakeholders and maximize local economic development.
6

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was sponsored by the Georgia Department of Transportation in cooperation with U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration and the Georgia Institute of Technology National Center for Transportation Systems Productivity and Management. The authors thank these sponsoring organizations sincerely. We are particularly grateful to following persons for reviewing earlier drafts of the research and most importantly for facilitating access to data and resources: Supriya Kamatkar, GDOT Office of Research; Betty Mason and Kimberly King, GDOT EEO Office; and Michael Cooper, former employee of GDOT. The views expressed in the report, as well as its factual accuracy, errors or omissions, are the authors' responsibility exclusively.
7

INTRODUCTION
Understanding the full economic impact of transportation infrastructure investments is a national priority because of the anemic job market recovery following the "Great Recession". On August 31, 2011, President Obama issued a Memorandum directing the heads of all executive departments and agencies to "identify and work to expedite permitting and environmental reviews of high priority infrastructure projects with significant potential for job creation".1 The requirement to measure job creation resulting from new infrastructure projects was a fundamental component of the Federal Fiscal Stimulus Program (technically known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009). Eight million jobs were lost during the recession of 2007:Q4 to 2009:Q2 and the pace at which the economy recovered was unusually slow. As a result, tracking the number of new jobs associated with highway projects became a top policy priority.
The Georgia Budget & Policy Institute (a nonpartisan organization) estimated the State lost 340,000 jobs between the start of the recession and the end of 2011. Further, Georgia's job growth during the recovery was among the slowest in the nation. In August of 2013, Georgia's unemployment rate was 8.7% while the national average was 7.3%. Fortunately, by December of 2014 Georgia's employment growth ranked among the fastest in the country, but its unemployment rate (6.9%) was still higher than the national average (5.6%).
This research documents the contribution of GDOT's highway expenditures to job creation in the State. The results imply that Georgia's job market recovery was enhanced significantly by highway expenditures. The research tracked all highway project expenditures made between January 2009 and April 2013. The impacts of those expenditures were measured at the state, district and county levels.
1 US Department of the Treasury and the Council of Economic Advisers (2012) A New Economic Analysis of Infrastructure Investment, March 23, 2012. http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/economicpolicy/Documents/20120323InfrastructureReport.pdf accessed November 7, 2013. P3.
8

Impacts were also examined over three time intervals: (1) January 2009 through April 2013; (2) calendar year 2012, which was the most recent full year for which data were available; and (3) 2009 through 2010, the period during which GDOT's highway expenditures were supplemented by funds related to the Federal Fiscal Stimulus Program (i.e. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009).
9

PROCEDURE
Impact Analysis for Planning (IMPLAN) was used to conduct the assessment. IMPLAN is one of the most frequently used software applications by governmental agencies and private organizations to estimate local, regional and national impacts. After classifying highway expenditures by industry and geographic location, the IMPLAN model was used to estimate six (6) categories of economic impacts, which are defined as follows:
1. Total Output: When new highway expenditures are injected into the economy, they set in motion three types of effects. The first effect is the initial spending that is undertaken by the firms that are the recipients of highway awards. This initial spending is referred to as, "direct effects". Second, the direct spending creates demand for goods and services among firms operating in the supply chains of related industries. This demand is classified as "indirect effects". Third, the direct and indirect spending effects result in additional compensation to workers. With the added income, households undertake additional spending. This additional spending is referred to as, "induced effects". Taken together, these three effects lead to an increase in final sales in the economy. Total output is the amount of final sales that are caused by the initial injection of new highway expenditures.
2. Value Added in Production: Value added is the output that occurs in an industry (as measured by final sales) minus the value of the intermediate goods and services required to create the new output. Value added measures the contribution to new economic output (resulting from highway expenditures) made by an individual producer, sector or industry.
3. New Jobs Created: Workers are required to produce the goods and services created by the direct, indirect and induced demand of new highway expenditures. The new demand helps to sustain the existing workforce and typically results in an expansion of new hiring. Jobs created measures the
10

number of new full and part-time employees that are needed to deliver each million dollars of final demand resulting from the initial highway expenditures.
4. Household Income: This is the compensation to employees paid in return for the work they performed in creating the new final demand.
5. Revenue to Proprietors and Small Business Owners: This consists of payments received by selfemployed individuals and unincorporated business owners as recorded on Federal Tax form 1040C. The payments reflect added demand resulting from the new total output.
6. New Tax Revenue: Additional tax revenues are derived from the increase in final sales. The revenues come from sales and excise taxes, customs duties, property taxes, motor vehicle licenses, severance taxes and special assessments.
Research Method Between 2009 and 2013, GDOT commissioned 1271 infrastructure projects costing $3.094 billion. Projects were initiated in every county of the State. The average award was $2.435 million and the median
(midpoint) award value was $.845 million.
Total economic impact is the cumulative effect of numerous rounds of spending set in motion by the original expenditures on highways and roadways. In other words, each highway investment set in motion secondary expenditures because prime contractors buy goods and services from suppliers, hire subcontractors and make payments to workers and suppliers. As suppliers, subcontractors and workers spend portions of their income on other goods and services, new rounds of spending occur. Total economic impact is the cumulative result of the successive rounds of spending.
11

At the county level, the economic impact of a local highway project depends upon the extent to which the successive rounds of spending recirculates within the county, or leaks out to other areas. Leakages occur when households and businesses make purchases from firms outside of the local economy. Examples include prime contractors hiring nonlocal subcontractors or buying supplies from nonlocal businesses. Another leakage is when households make purchases from vendors outside of the county. Thus, local economic impacts are influenced by the pattern of consumer spending, characteristics of businesses in the local economy, nature and location of firms in the supply chain and the kinds of products and services required by the highway construction project. The IMPLAN model attempts to capture these dynamic processes.
IMPLAN is an acronym for Impact Analysis for Planning. The software is widely used by governmental agencies and private organizations. It was created through a joint effort of the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). IMPLAN was used by the US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service to estimate the number of jobs created by the Fiscal Stimulus Act of 2009. Today, IMPLAN is one of the most frequently used software applications to estimate national and regional impacts.
The IMPLAN model is based on a 440 sector social accounting table and input output-matrix. The model replicates industry supply chain linkages and patterns of household expenditures occurring in each userdefined geographic location. It traces how expenditures on goods and services in one sector of the economy create demand for commodities and services in other sectors. The linkages are expressed numerically as multipliers. For example, the model of Georgia's economy produced a total output multiplier of 1.89 for highway construction expenditures. This means every dollar spent on highway projects generated a total economic impact of $1.89.
12

The study derived a separate model for each of Georgia's 159 counties. Secondly, counties were aggregated into GDOT's seven (7) Administrative Districts and district level impacts were estimated. Finally, impacts were estimated for the statewide economy.
Readers of this report should note that District and statewide economic impacts are not necessarily equivalent to the sum of county impacts. This is because the extent of leakages from an area depends in part upon how the area is defined geographically. As a result, one must develop separate models to estimate county, district and statewide impacts.
The multipliers produced by the IMPLAN model estimated how an initial dollar of highway investment affected final demand (total output), employment (jobs), wages (household income), value-added (new value created at each stage of production), small business revenue (proprietor's income) and tax receipts (county and state tax revenues). The multipliers create estimates of "direct effects", "indirect effects" and "induced effects".
Data The report is based on GDOT's prime contracting data covering the period January 2009 through April 2013. Contracting data included a detailed description of each project awarded during the timeframe of the analysis. Highway awards were classified by work code and industry (for example resurfacing, bridge construction, traffic signal installation, signing and pavement marking, intersection improvements, fencing and guard rail installation, drainage improvements, electrical contracting, etc.). Contracting data also included the geographic location of the highway project and other relevant information. Prequalification records were used to collect information on contractors, including the geographic location of their operation.
13

Literature Review of Related Research Numerous studies of transportation impacts have been conducted with IMPLAN software and similar models. A comprehensive list of such studies is provided by Babcock and Leatherman (2011).
Title: Methodology for Measuring Output, Value Added, and Employment Impacts of State Highway and Bridge Construction Projects, Babcock and Leatherman (2011). The research provides a methodology for measuring the economic impact of state highway projects. It does so by applying the IMPLAN model to highway expenditures in Kansas; specifically, the Kansas Comprehensive Transportation Program (CTP). This program spent $5.2 billion on highway and bridge projects between 1999 and 2009. Firms receiving highway project awards were identified and interviewed. A 345 sector input-output model was used and calibrated to the year 2006, the midpoint of the project. Researchers identified the portion of project expenditures that occurred outside of the state and estimated the total impact on jobs (50,483). Multipliers were derived for the purpose of allowing policy makers to estimate the impact of highway projects on job creation. The authors provided a comprehensive bibliography of related studies.
Title: Mississippi's Unified Long-Range Transportation Infrastructure Plan, Mississippi Department of Transportation (2011). This report was commissioned by the Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT) in response to the national recession. The research was part of the MULTIPLAN 2035 long-term planning process and was used to make a stronger case for transportation investments.
MDOT used the IMPLAN model to estimate the economic impact of transportation infrastructure spending over the planning horizon. It was estimated that the implementation of the Plan would require $14.5 billion in infrastructure expenditures between 2008 and 2035. The plan calls for expenditures on highways ($9.2 billion), bridges ($2.6 billion), transit ($1.0 billion), bicycle/pedestrian
14

paths ($140 million) and aviation ($1.6 billion). The study estimated the cumulative impact on jobs created at 189,930.
Title: A New Economic Analysis of Infrastructure Investment, US Department of the Treasury and the President's Council of Economic Advisers (2012). The two agencies conducted an updated report on the impact of the $50 billion infrastructure investment scheduled in President Obama's FY 2013 budget. The upfront investment was connected to a six-year reauthorization of the Surface Transportation Program in the amount of $476 Billion. The President's "August 31, 2011 Memorandum" directs heads of all executive departments and agencies to expedite infrastructure projects with significant job creating potential. This report was designed to estimate the effect of transportation infrastructure investments in the United States. The analysis concluded that such infrastructure investments would be highly beneficial to the US economy in the short-run and long-run. Citing authoritative research studies, the report noted that infrastructure projects accelerate economic growth because they lead to significant productivity gains.
Increases in infrastructure investments were found to be positively correlated with improvements in property values and housing affordability. Finally, the analysis concluded that transportation investments can spur long-term economic growth, increase productivity and land values and improve economic development, energy efficiency and public health.
Title: Performance Driven: A New Vision for US Transportation Policy, National Transportation Policy Project (2009). This bipartisan report makes an argument for a broad set of transit goals to capture the full impact of transit investment. The report used information collected from test cases, best practices and interviews with subject matter experts, politicians and policy makers. The five key outcomes of highway investments were identified as follows: increased economic growth per dollar invested; more
15

efficient national connectivity among people and goods across regions; greater metropolitan accessibility and efficiency of access to jobs; greater energy security and environmental protection; and improved safety. Along with outlining goals, the report also identified several performance based metrics that can be used to capture benefits.
Title: Economic Impact of Public Transportation investment, Weisbrod & Reno, Economic Impact of Public Transportation Investment (2009). The research examined the specific impact that public transit investments can have on the economy. In particular, it examines wages, employment, and business income. The authors identified short-term impacts, such as jobs and income. They also identified longterm impacts, such as greater economic efficiency and productivity. According to Weisbrod and Reno, capital investments (in the form of purchases of vehicles and equipment and infrastructure investments to support transit activities) generate about 24,000 jobs per one billion dollars spent. Operational investments (i.e. management, operations and maintenance of equipment and facilities) generate about 41,000 jobs per year for every one billion dollars spent. Metrics used to capture short-term impacts include jobs (employment), output (business sales), Gross Domestic Product (measured by the value added technique), Labor Income (wages), and Tax Revenue. Specific long-term impacts that were tracked included travel and vehicle costs savings for passengers; reduced traffic congestion; lower business operating costs associated with improved worker reliability and reduced congestion; improved business productivity as a result of greater labor accessibility to diverse markets; and increased business growth resulting from higher worker productivity. The study noted that these factors enhance the global competitiveness of local areas.
Title: The Economic Effects of Public Investment in Transportation and Directions for the Future, deBettencourt (2012). The report examined techniques employed by various organizations to estimate the effect of public transit investment. The findings were based on information gathered from nine
16

state transportation agencies, several metropolitan planning organizations and an exhaustive literature review. After closely examining the research, the author derives several main conclusions:
1. The typical measures of direct user benefits do not fully capture the full impact of investments because they omit factors such as livability, which is measured by factors such as environmental quality, health, land, resource use, walkability; regional economic development arising from short-term employment gains, employment and employment shifts, induced development, value capture and fiscal impacts; benefit-cost and cost effectiveness associated with lower travel time and travel costs and improved safety, equity and accessibility; and system performance enhancements such as greater utility and connectivity and improved operational finances.
2. The increased interest in determining the economic benefit of transportation investment is in part a response a new national priority.
3. The scope of benefits should be broadened to capture factors such as improved access to medical and education services.
Title: Transit Investment and Economic Development, Vickerman (2008). The author argues that urban economists are concerned with accessibility, i.e. how increased access allows different economic activities to occur more efficiently by reducing costs and increasing mobility in urban areas. Vickerman provides an overview of the links between urban transit and the urban economy, their influence on land rent and land values, and the agglomeration effect (i.e. wider effects that are not captured). The findings indicate the impact of specific investments depend upon the context. Specifically, each situation and city requires different rules and calculations.
17

Title: Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis: Techniques, Estimates and Implications, Litman (2009). This guidebook presents the latest techniques used in quantifying the full costs and benefits of various modes of transportation. The book provides a comprehensive review of transportation benefit and costs and identifies techniques that can be used in planning and policy analysis. Included in this research are summaries of previous transportation impact studies and descriptions of how nonmarket factors are estimated.
18

FINDINGS
Summary of GDOT Highway Expenditures, 2009 - 2013 The research team examined each prime contract awarded during the relevant time frame (2009 to 2013). The contracts amounted to $3.094 billion in construction expenditures. Figure 1 provides detailed information on GDOT's expenditures. Expenditures in the figure are broken down by work code, value and percent distribution. Figure 2 records the year of awards, value and number of awards made during the year. Figure 1 indicates that 67.7% of the projects funded by GDOT (i.e. 861 out of 1271) involved resurfacing activities. Those projects accounted for $2.386 billion or, 77.1% of all expenditures. The second largest category of expenditures was bridge construction and rehabilitation, which accounted for 10.1% of the number of awards and 14.0% of the total award value ($.435 billion). It is also important to note that GDOT awarded $84.9 million in transportation expenditures to local jurisdictions such as cities, townships and state parks. Those jurisdictions either executed highway projects using their internal workforce or they engaged prime contractors to do so.
19

Figure 1: GDOT Highway Expenditures by Amount, Number and Type, 2009- 2013

TYPE OF GDOT HIGHWAY PROJECTS BY TOTAL EXPENDITURE AND WORK CODE AREA JANUARY 2009 - APRIL 2013

HIGHWAY PROJECT AWARDS

PROJECT EXPENDITURES

% TOT. EXPENDITURES

NO. OF PROJECTS

PLANT MIX RESURFACING

$

2,386,502,034

77.1%

861

BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION AND REHIBILATATION

$

434,692,113

14.0%

128

TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION AND UPGRADES

$

48,278,103

1.6%

44

SIGNING AND PAVEMENT PARKING $

9,231,195

0.3%

10

INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT,

$

39,976,406

1.3%

7

ROAD WIDENING

DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS

$

65,110,346

2.1%

5

FENCING, GUARDRAIL INSTALLATION $

4,796,603

0.2%

6

OTHER VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION $

12,468,552

0.4%

10

ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING

$

8,301,475

0.3%

10

LOCAL JURISDICTIONS: CITIES, TOWNSHIPS, STATE PARKS Total

$

84,897,979

2.7%

$

3,094,254,806

100.0%

190 1271

SOURCE: All competitive bid projects and awards to local jurisdictions

PERCENT OF PROJECTS 67.7% 10.1%
3.5% 0.8% 0.6% 0.4% 0.5% 0.8% 0.8% 14.9% 100.00%

Figure 2: GDOT Highway Expenditures by Year, Amount and Number of Projects, 2009 2013

GDOT HIGHWAY PROJECTS BY YEAR, TOTAL EXPENDITURE AND NUMBER OF PROJECTS
JANUARY 2009 - APRIL 2013 HIGHWAY PROJECTS

TOTAL

NUMBER OF

EXPENDITURES PROJECTS

YEA R OF EXPE NDIT URE

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total

$ 723,756,828 $ 539,857,840 $ 817,279,331 $ 911,016,410 $ 102,344,396 $ 3,094,254,806

SOURCE: All competitively bid projects plus awards to local

jurisdictions

354 211 284 380 42 1271

20

Location of GDOT's Highway Projects Multiple highway projects were commissioned in every county of the State. Chatham County received the largest value of project awards ($212.1 million or 6.9%). It was followed by Fulton County ($187.9 million or 6.1%), DeKalb County ($134.4 million or 4.3%), Cobb County ($116.9 million or 3.8%), Gwinnett county ($93.7 million or 3.0%) and Dooly County ($92.5 million or 3.0%). The Appendix (entitled Figure 35) provides an alphabetical listing of all counties with the number of projects and total expenditures made in each county. Figure 3 geographically depicts counties in the State with a map that is color-coded according to the value of projects awarded within each county. The smallest classification represents total project expenditures that ranged from $.29 million to $6.7 million. The largest classification included values that ranged from $134.4 million to $212.1 million.
21

Figure 3: Map of Georgia Counties, Color-coded by the Amount of GDOT Expenditures, 2009 - 2013 22

GDOT Highway Expenditures by District Figure 4 depicts the geographic boundaries of Georgia's seven GDOT Districts while Figure 5 records total expenditures on projects awarded in the Districts. Figure 5 lists total value of awards in each District, the percent distribution of awards by District and the number of awards made within each District.
Figure 4: Geographic Boundaries of GDOT's 7 Administrative Districts
23

Figure 5: GDOT Expenditures by Amount, District and Number of Projects

GDOT HIGHWAY PROJECTS BY HIGHWAY DISTRICT, TOTAL EXPENDITURE, NUMBER AND PERCENT JANUARY 2009 - APRIL 2013

HIGHWAY PROJECTS

TOTAL

PERCENT OF

EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURES

NUMBER OF PROJECTS

District 1 - Gainesville

$ 387,541,849

12.5%

187

District 2 - Tennille

$ 511,158,514

16.5%

174

District 3 - Thomaston

$ 565,913,056

18.3%

224

District 4 - Tifton

$ 345,522,400

11.2%

183

District 5 - Jesup

$ 442,533,459

14.3%

183

District 6 - Cartersville

$ 330,836,134

10.7%

131

District 7 - Chamblee

$ 510,749,394

16.5%

189

Total

$ 3,094,254,806

100.0%

1271

SOURCE: All competitively bid projects plus awards to local jurisdictions

PERCENT OF PROJECTS
14.7% 13.7% 17.6% 14.4% 14.4% 10.3% 14.9% 100.0%

In descending order, the largest value of awards occurred in District 3 (Thomaston) 18.3%; District 2 (Tennille) 16.5%; District 7 (Chamblee) 16.5%; District 5 (Jesup) 14.3%; followed by District 1 (Gainesville) 12.5% and District 4 (Tifton) 11.2%.
Between 2009 and 2010, Georgia undertook $604.1 million in projects with funding provided by the Federal Fiscal Stimulus Program. Stimulus awards were made in all counties of the State and Figure 6 records the amount of fiscal stimulus awards made to each District. Figure 7 records the number of fiscal stimulus awards made to Districts. Figure 8 records the awards made by GDOT to local jurisdictions within each district. They include cities, townships and park authorities. Finally, Figure 9 records information on projects made during 2012, the latest period for which data were available for the entire year.

24

Figure 6: GDOT Expenditures Supported by the Federal Fiscal Stimulus Program, 2009 - 2010
GDOT EXPENDITURES BY FEDERAL FISCAL STIMULUS SUPPORT AND DISTRICT, 2009 - 2010

STIMULUS AND NON-STIMULUS FUNDED PROJECTS

STIMULUS SUPPORTED PROJECTS

NON-STIMULUS SUPPORTED

TOTAL

PROJECTS

EXPENDITURE

DISTRICT

TOTAL

SHARE OF

TOTAL

SHARE OF STIMULUS AND

EXPENDITURE DISTRICT EXPENDITURE DISTRICT NON-STIMULUS

EXPENDITURES

EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURES

(ROW %)

(ROW %)

District 1 - Gainesville $ 96,162,659

59.3%

$ 66,050,375

40.7%

$ 162,213,035

District 2 - Tennille

$ 105,607,435

62.4%

$ 63,632,034

37.6%

$ 169,239,469

District 3 - Thomaston $ 128,831,320

42.5%

$ 174,391,090

57.5%

$ 303,222,410

District 4 - Tifton

$ 45,220,173

47.9%

$ 49,188,083

52.1%

$ 94,408,256

District 5 - Jesup

$ 58,893,154

25.9%

$ 168,641,605

74.1%

$ 227,534,759

District 6 - Cartersville $ 42,602,254

42.0%

$ 58,946,401

58.0%

$ 101,548,655

District 7 - Chamblee $ 126,764,047

61.7%

$ 78,684,038

38.3%

$ 205,448,085

Total

$ 604,081,043

47.8%

$ 659,533,625

52.2%

$ 1,263,614,669

SOURCE: All competitive bid projects and awards to local jurisdictions

Figure 7: Number of GDOT Projects Supported by Federal Fiscal Stimulus Program, 2009 2010
NUMBER OF GDOT PROJECT AWARDS BY FEDERAL FISCAL STIMULUS STATUS, 2009 - 2010

STIMULUS AND NON-STIMULUS FUNDED PROJECTS

STIMULUS SUPPORTED NON-STIMULUS SUPPORTED NUMBER

SHARE OF

SHARE OF

NUMBER OF DISTRICT NUMBER OF DISTRICT

PROJECTS PROJECTS OF PROJECTS PROJECTS

(ROW %)

(ROW %)

District 1 - Gainesville

36

43.9%

46

56.1%

District 2 - Tennille

33

44.0%

42

56.0%

District 3 - Thomaston

43

40.6%

63

59.4%

District 4 - Tifton DISTRICT District 5 - Jesup

31

47.0%

35

53.0%

28

29.2%

68

70.8%

District 6 - Cartersville

24

41.4%

34

58.6%

District 7 - Chamblee

41

50.0%

41

50.0%

Total

236

41.8%

329

58.2%

SOURCE: All competitive bid projects and awards to local jurisdictions

STIMULUS AND NON-STIMULUS
SUPPORTED
82 75 106 66 96 58 82 565

25

Figure 8: GDOT Awards to Local Jurisdictions within District, 2009 - 2013
GDOT AWARDS TO LOCAL JURISDICTIONS WITHIN DISTRICTS

District 1 - Gainesville

District 2 - Tennille

District 3 - Thomaston

DISTRICT

District 4 - Tifton District 5 - Jesup

District 6 - Cartersville

District 7 - Chamblee

Total

SOURCE: All awards to local jurisdictions

AWARDS TO ALL

LOCAL

JURISDICTIONS

$

19,047,107

$

5,173,293

$

13,944,035

$

9,823,267

$

4,190,629

$

17,279,696

$

18,770,083

$

88,228,110

Figure 9: GDOT Total Expenditures in 2012 by District
GDOT HIGHWAY PROJECT EXPENDITURES IN 2012 BY DISTRICT

HIGHWAY PROJECT AWARDS

TOTAL PROJECT EXPENDITURES

NUMBER OF PROJECT AWARDS

District 1 - Gainesville

$ 146,972,635

64

District 2 - Tennille

$ 178,857,061

54

District 3 - Thomaston $ 113,157,135

60

District 4 - Tifton DISTRICT
District 5 - Jesup

$ 126,448,062

60

$

79,678,424

53

District 6 - Cartersville $ 102,412,940

35

District 7 - Chamblee

$ 163,490,152

54

Total

$ 911,016,410

380

SOURCE: All competitive bid projects and awards to local jurisdictions

26

Summary of GDOT Highway Expenditures by Counties within Districts

Figure 10 - 23 Illustrate highway expenditures by districts and counties. The figures containing maps illustrate counties within each district color coded by the value of awards received from January 2009 to April 2013. There are five color categories: lighter colors represent smaller award values while the darker colors represent larger values. A summary figure is provided after each map. The figures give the dollar amount of awards and the corresponding number of projects funded in the county. The ten counties receiving the largest value of awards were as follows:

County

Ranked by Total GDOT Expenditure

1. CHATHAM

$ 212,097,628

2. FULTON

$ 187,887,067

3. DEKALB

$ 134,363,239

4. COBB

$ 116,860,880

5. GWINNETT

$ 93,704,343

6. DOOLY

$ 92,486,465

7. HALL

$ 83,899,932

8. RICHMOND

$ 69,943,119

9. FLOYD

$ 62,369,901

10. CHEROKEE

$ 59,180,921

The ten counties that were awarded the largest number of projects are as follows:

County

Ranked by Number of GDOT Funded Projects

1. FULTON

90

2. DEKALB

53

3. COBB

36

4. GWINNETT

35

5. CHATHAM

29

6. HENRY

26

7. HALL

25

8. COWETA

20

8. DOUGLAS

20

8. RICHMOND

20

27

Figure 10: Map of Counties in District 1 Color-coded by Total GDOT Expenditures, 2009 2013 28

Figure 11: District 1 - Total GDOT Expenditures and Number of Projects, 2009 - 2013

DISTRICT 1 - GAINESILLE: GDOT HIGHWAY EXPENDITRES BY COUNTY

2009 - 2013

TOTAL EXPENDITURE

NUMBER OF PROJECTS

BANKS

$

2,076,103

6

BARROW

$ 20,562,906

14

CLARKE

$ 26,259,554

14

DAWSON

$

7,443,037

9

ELBERT

$

3,785,741

7

FORSYTH

$ 22,671,499

13

FRANKLIN

$

8,431,138

11

GWINNETT

$ 93,704,343

35

HABERSHAM

$ 17,019,236

14

HALL

$ 83,899,932

25

COUNTY

HART JACKSON

$

7,037,709

9

$ 10,760,022

16

LUMPKIN

$

3,307,278

7

MADISON

$

5,407,368

8

OCONEE

$ 18,639,427

10

RABUN

$

3,108,453

9

STEPHENS

$

5,627,418

10

TOWNS

$

1,512,585

6

UNION

$

2,846,866

7

WALTON

$ 22,254,613

8

WHITE

$ 21,186,620

8

DISTRICT TOTAL

$ 387,541,849

246

29

Figure 12: Map of Counties in District 2 Color-coded by Total GDOT Expenditures, 2009 - 2013 30

Figure 13: District 2 - Total GDOT Expenditures and Number of Projects, 2009 - 2013

DISTRICT 2: TENNILLE - GDOT HIGHWAY EXPENDITRES BY COUNTY

2009 - 2013

BALDWIN

TOTAL EXPENDITURE
$ 33,483,783

NUMBER OF PROJECTS
11

BLECKLEY

$

9,846,241

6

BURKE

$

4,415,152

5

COLUMBIA

$

9,721,661

9

DODGE

$

6,313,838

9

EMANUEL

$ 39,371,339

8

GLASCOCK

$

1,465,841

5

GREENE

$ 12,336,531

11

HANCOCK

$

4,116,731

6

JASPER

$

7,141,674

9

JEFFERSON

$ 14,942,435

13

JENKINS

$

2,655,523

6

JOHNSON

$

5,944,588

8

LAURENS

$ 42,054,737

15

COUNTY LINCOLN

$ 22,626,498

7

MCDUFFIE

$ 12,053,601

9

MORGAN

$ 19,475,692

12

NEWTON

$ 15,118,954

13

OGLETHORPE

$

2,619,862

5

PUTNAM

$ 38,881,056

6

RICHMOND

$ 69,943,119

20

SCREVEN

$

3,465,672

7

TALIAFERRO

$

2,855,122

5

TREUTLEN

$ 29,497,299

5

WARREN

$

5,347,758

8

WASHINGTON

$ 41,175,219

9

WILKES

$

4,564,144

6

WILKINSON

$ 49,724,444

9

DISTRICT TOTAL $ 511,158,514

242

31

Figure 14: Map of Counties in District 3 Color-coded by Total GDOT Expenditures, 2009 2013 32

Figure 15: District 3 - GDOT Expenditures and Number of Projects, 2009 - 2013

DISTRICT 3: THOMASTON- GDOT HIGHWAY EXPENDITRES BY COUNTY 2009 - 2013

COUNTY

BIBB BUTTS CHATTAHOOCHEE COWETA CRAWFORD DOOLY FAYETTE HARRIS HEARD HENRY HOUSTON JONES LAMAR MACON MARION MERIWETHER MONROE MUSCOGEE PEACH PIKE PULASKI SCHLEY SPALDING STEWART SUMTER TALBOT TAYLOR TROUP TWIGGS UPSON WEBSTER
DISTRICT TOTAL

TOTAL NUMBER OF EXPENDITURE PROJECTS

$ 57,428,370

17

$ 12,148,335

10

$

288,727

3

$ 46,022,395

20

$ 4,486,468

8

$ 92,486,465

13

$ 28,128,421

13

$ 7,322,984

8

$ 7,018,028

6

$ 47,332,059

26

$ 23,103,687

13

$ 2,134,348

7

$ 14,234,145

12

$ 4,590,307

9

$ 5,163,148

8

$ 8,756,890

10

$ 9,103,107

11

$ 35,374,497

11

$ 17,285,591

12

$ 11,119,161

9

$ 2,778,228

6

$ 1,863,785

5

$ 36,764,891

15

$

418,512

3

$ 8,710,152

8

$ 5,223,934

5

$ 2,234,895

5

$ 27,195,295

8

$ 28,831,375

10

$ 15,835,552

9

$ 2,529,306

5

$ 565,913,056

305

33

Figure 16: Map of Counties in District 4 Color-coded by Total GDOT Expenditures, 2009 2013 34

Figure 17: District 4 - GDOT Expenditures and Number of Projects, 2009 - 2013

DISTRICT 4: TIFTON - GDOT HIGHWAY EXPENDITRES BY COUNTY

2009 - 2013

ATKINSON

TOTAL

EXPENDITURE

$

2,947,658

NUMBER OF PROJECTS
7

BAKER

$

4,314,857

7

BEN HILL

$

2,635,505

7

BERRIEN

$

4,868,820

7

BROOKS

$

12,074,953

10

COUNTY

CALHOUN CLAY CLINCH COFFEE COLQUITT COOK CRISP DECATUR DOUGHERTY EARLY ECHOLS GRADY IRWIN LANIER LEE LOWNDES MILLER MITCHELL QUITMAN RANDOLPH

$

4,350,563

6

$

28,726,447

9

$

2,228,901

6

$

19,534,692

13

$

21,970,891

12

$

2,852,099

5

$

3,575,726

6

$

26,184,782

12

$

33,407,336

12

$

15,466,783

9

$

1,671,780

4

$

10,306,366

13

$

1,711,860

6

$

2,480,282

6

$

2,432,497

7

$

28,008,600

13

$

6,661,060

10

$

13,228,862

9

$

6,101,287

4

$

17,175,978

10

SEMINOLE

$

6,782,461

8

TERRELL

$

5,285,953

9

THOMAS

$

10,701,909

8

TIFT

$

30,042,507

17

TURNER

$

5,879,284

9

WILCOX

$

4,173,519

8

WORTH

$

7,738,184

8

DISTRICT TOTAL $ 345,522,400

277

35

Figure 18: Map of Counties in District 5 Color-coded by Total GDOT Expenditures, 2009 2013 36

Figure 19: District 5 - GDOT Expenditures and Number of Projects, 2009 - 2013

DISTRICT 5 JESUP - GDOT HIGHWAY EXPENDITRES BY COUNTY

2009 - 2013

TOTAL

NUMBER OF

EXPENDITURE

PROJECTS

APPLING

$

5,471,750

9

BACON

$

4,888,284

11

BRANTLEY

$

13,982,124

17

BRYAN

$

11,487,266

12

BULLOCH

$

21,446,316

19

CAMDEN

$

16,266,943

11

CANDLER

$

10,818,662

15

CHARLTON

$

10,391,925

12

CHATHAM

$

212,097,628

29

EFFINGHAM

$

4,957,193

10

EVANS

$

2,976,007

9

GLYNN

$

22,185,223

10

COUNTY JEFF DAVIS

$

5,983,259

7

LIBERTY

$

5,706,708

8

LONG

$

4,667,821

7

MCINTOSH

$

1,391,475

6

MONTGOMERY

$

13,584,665

14

PIERCE

$

9,202,822

12

TATTNALL

$

10,305,271

14

TELFAIR

$

4,434,232

11

TOOMBS

$

18,568,863

10

WARE

$

10,832,383

8

WAYNE

$

7,128,190

15

WHEELER

$

13,758,447

11

DISTRICT TOTAL $

442,533,459

287

37

Figure 20: Map of Counties in District 6 Color-coded by Total GDOT Expenditures, 2009 2013 38

Figure 21: District 6 - GDOT Expenditures and Number of Projects, 2009 - 2013

DISTRICT 6: CARTERSVILLE - GDOT HIGHWAY EXPENDITRES BY COUNTY

2009 - 2013

COUNTY

BARTOW CARROLL CATOOSA CHATTOOGA CHEROKEE DADE FANNIN FLOYD GILMER GORDON HARALSON

TOTAL

NUMBER OF

EXPENDITURE

PROJECTS

$

55,368,844

15

$

15,932,884

14

$

6,029,280

9

$

1,179,660

4

$

59,180,921

19

$

1,516,067

4

$

2,448,637

6

$

62,369,901

10

$

728,910

4

$

53,192,023

13

$

6,790,533

9

MURRAY

$

8,324,474

10

PAULDING

$

10,110,957

11

PICKENS

$

1,244,032

5

POLK

$

648,948

4

WALKER

$

7,743,894

11

WHITFIELD

$

38,026,171

5

DISTRICT TOTAL

$

330,836,134

153

39

Figure 22: Map of Counties in District 7 Color-coded by Total GDOT Expenditures, 2009 2013 40

Figure 23: District 7 - GDOT Expenditures and Number of Projects, 2009 - 2013

DISTRICT 7 CHAMBLEE - GDOT HIGHWAY EXPENDITRES BY COUNTY

2009 - 2013

TOTAL

NUMBER OF

EXPENDITURE PROJECTS

CLAYTON

$ 22,297,560

17

COBB

$ 116,860,880

36

DEKALB

$ 134,363,239

53

COUNTY DOUGLAS

$ 34,166,827

20

FULTON

$ 187,887,067

90

ROCKDALE

$ 15,173,821

14

DISTRICT TOTAL $ 510,749,394

230

41

Summary of Statewide Economic Impacts
GDOT spent $3.094 billion on 1271 highway projects between January 2009 and April 2013. Projects were implemented in each of Georgia's 159 counties. The average award was $2.435 million and the median (midpoint) award value was $.845 million. The median denotes the midpoint, i.e. one-half of the expenditures were greater than and one-half were less than that amount. During 2012, the most recent full year for which data was available, GDOT spent $.911 billion on highway projects. Between 2009 and 2010, GDOT received $.604 billion under the Federal Fiscal Stimulus Program.
Multiple highway projects were commissioned in every county of the State. The largest value of highway projects occurred in Chatham County ($212.1 million). Awards in Chatham accounted for 6.9% of the total value of all highway projects. The county ranking second in the amount of highway project awards was Fulton ($187.9 million). This represented 6.1% of all highway projects. Other large awards were made to the following counties: DeKalb County ($134.4 million or 4.3%), Cobb County ($116.9 million or 3.8%), Gwinnett County ($93.7 million or 3.0%), and Dooly County ($92.5 million or 3.0%).
For the statewide economy, the multiplier derived for total GDOT expenditures indicated that every new dollar of GDOT highway investment generated a total economic impact of $1.89. Therefore GDOT's $3.094 billion in direct highway expenditures (between January 2009 and April 2013) resulted in a combined statewide economic output of $5.859 billion. The total economic impact of the fiscal stimulus program, implemented between 2009 and 2010, was $1.143 billion. Figure 24 records impacts that resulted from project expenditures awarded between January 2009 and April 2013. Figure 25 records the impact of project expenditures awarded during calendar year 2012. Figure 26 records impacts associated with the Federal Fiscal Stimulus Program, 2009 2010. The impacts that are reported include the number of new jobs created (employment), the total dollar
42

amount of new wages (wages), the total dollar amount of small business income (small business income), the total dollar amount of new tax revenue (taxes), the amount of total output (output), and the total new value added in production (value).
43

Figure 24: Statewide Impact of GDOT Expenditures, 2009 - 2013
Figure 24 displays statewide impacts of GDOT expenditures. This includes the impact on new value added in production, new tax revenue, new small business income, new output, new wages and new jobs created from January 2009 to April 2013.
44

Figure 25: Statewide Impact of GDOT Expenditures in 2012
Statewide Impact Most Recent Calendar Year (2012)
TOTAL IMPACT

VALUE ADDED($) TAXES($)
SMALL BUSINESS INCOME($) OUTPUT($) WAGES($)
EMPLOYMENT(# of Jobs)

$921,708,098 $46,798,913 $152,400,291 $1,725,141,669 $696,831,897
15,088

Figure 25 displays statewide impacts of expenditures made in fiscal year 2012. Again, the figure records total new value added to production, new tax revenue, new small business income, new output, new wages and new jobs created during the most recent full calendar year of 2012.

45

Figure 26: Statewide Impact of Federal Fiscal Stimulus Expenditures, 2009 - 2010
Statewide Impact Fiscal Stimulus Year 2009-2010
TOTAL IMPACT

VALUE ADDED($) TAXES($)
SMALL BUSINESS INCOME($) OUTPUT($) WAGES($)
EMPLOYMENT(# of Jobs)

$611,170,538 $31,031,643 $101,054,301 $1,143,915,047 $462,058,570
10,005

Finally, Figure 26 records statewide impacts resulting from Federal Fiscal Stimulus Funds awarded to Georgia between 2009 and 2010. Summary of District Economic Impacts The total economic impact per dollar spent on highway projects varied significantly by county and district. This was a fundamental finding of the report. In short, $1.0 million spent on a highway project in County A may not yield the same economic impact or generate the same number of jobs that would occur if the same amount were spent in County B. For example, Highway District 3: Thomaston experienced the largest number of jobs created per $1.0 million spent on highway projects (16.4 jobs per $1.0 million expenditure). This was followed by District
46

4: Tifton, 16.1. In comparison, District 7: Chamblee, which contains the main counties of Metro Atlanta, had the smallest employment multiplier: 12.9. Future research should seek to understand more thoroughly why some districts such as District 7 had smaller employment multipliers. This may be caused by a higher percentage of consumers purchasing luxury goods from retailers located outside the metropolitan area. Whatever the cause may be, the policy implication is that a larger dollars investment is required to generate the same employment outcome in District 7 in comparison to other districts. While District 7 had the lowest employment multiplier, the impact on small business revenue in District 7 ($21.40 per $100.00 spent on highway projects) was much larger than in all other districts. The next largest multipliers occurred in District 6: Cartersville ($15.70) and District 3: Thomaston ($13.20). These differences were probably caused by the stronger supply chain characteristics of the districts. District 7 also had the largest household income multiplier ($.855 for each dollar of initial expenditures). The next largest impacts occurred in District 1: Gainesville ($.675) and District 3, Thomaston ($.576). The smallest impact was in District 6 Cartersville ($.473).
47

Detailed Impact on Jobs Created: State, District and County Levels As highway expenditures worked their way through the economy, the related supply chain purchases and household retail spending helped to sustain existing jobs and created new employment. GDOT's highway expenditures created 51,246 new jobs. This means each $1.0 million of direct Highway expenditures generated 16.6 new jobs. Figure 27 gives the employment multiplier for the seven GDOT Districts and the number of new jobs that were created within each District as a result of expenditures between 2009 and 2013. A summary of results is as follows:
District 1 Gainesville: 5,872: Employment multiplier, 15.2 District 2 Tennille: 7,910: Employment multiplier, 15.5 District 3 Thomaston: 9,271: Employment multiplier, 16.4 District 4 Tifton: 5,569: Employment multiplier, 16.1 District 5 Jesup: 6,624: Employment multiplier, 15.0 District 6 Cartersville: 5,323: Employment multiplier, 16.1 District 7 Chamblee: 6,605: Employment multiplier, 12.9
48

Figure 27: Impact of GDOT Expenditures on Jobs (State Level, District Level and for Stimulus Expenditures)
Figures 28 depicts the geographic boundaries of Georgia's Counties and Figure 29 spatially illustrates the number of jobs that were created within each county as a result of GDOT`s highway expenditures.
49

Figure 28: Map of Georgia Counties 50

Figure 29: Map of Georgia Counties Showing Jobs Created by GDOT Expenditures, 2009 2013 51

Detailed Impact on New Household Income: State and District Levels GDOT's direct highway expenditures generated $2.367 billion in wages to employees, which represented new household income. The household income multiplier was .765. This indicates that every additional dollar of direct spending on highway projects generated approximately $.76 of new household income. The wages paid to employees and the associated household income multipliers are provided below and in Figure 30.
District 1 Gainesville: $261.9 million Household income multiplier, .675 District 2 Tennille: $270.6 million: Household income multiplier, .529 District 3 Thomaston: $325.8 million: Household income multiplier, .576 District 4 Tifton: $186.0 million: Household income multiplier, .538 District 5 Jesup: $248.6 million: Household income multiplier, .562 District 6 Cartersville: $156.4 million: Household income multiplier, .473 District 7 Chamblee: $436.9 million: Household income multiplier, .855
52

Figure 30: Impact of GDOT Expenditures on Wages (State Level, District Level and for Stimulus Expenditures)
53

Detailed Impact on Total Economic Output and Value Added: State and District Levels
GDOT's $3.094 billion in direct highway expenditures (between January 2009 and April 2013) resulted in a combined State economic output of $5.859 billion. That is, the total impact per dollar spent was $1.89. This total impact and the associated output multipliers for each highway district were as follows: (See Figure 31. Impact of GDOT Expenditures on Total Output):
District 1 Gainesville: $634.1 million: Output multiplier, 1.64 District 2 Tennille: $759.9 million: Output multiplier, 1.49 District 3 Thomaston: $910.3 million: Output multiplier, 1.61 District 4 Tifton: $530.5 million: Output multiplier, 1.54 District 5 Jesup: $664.0 million: Output multiplier, 1.50 District 6 Cartersville: $481.6 million: Output multiplier, 1.46 District 7 Chamblee: $880.0 million: Output multiplier, 1.72
The difference between an industry's total output and the cost of producing the output is defined as total value added. In other words, value added is total production less the cost of intermediate goods at each stage of production. For example, if a factory is producing a computer, it will need component parts such as microchips, motherboards, casings, etc. These components are typically supplied by different segments of the supply chain. Suppose the company assembling the computer receives the motherboard, microchips and casing from other companies and then completes the assembly. The value added is equivalent to the services required to assemble the computer, but not the cost of the components that went into the assembly. To include the cost of production at each stage would be equivalent to double counting. Figure 32 records the total value added resulting from GDOT's expenditures. The results are broken down for each of the three timeframes examined in the study.
54

Figure 31: Impact of GDOT Expenditures on Total Economic Output (State Level, District Level and for Stimulus Expenditures)
55

Figure 32: Impact of GDOT Expenditures on Value Added (State Level, District Level and for Stimulus Expenditures)
56

Detailed Impact on New Small Business Revenue: State and District Levels The rounds of spending initiated by GDOT's expenditures generated revenue to small business owners and self-employed proprietors. Overall, each $100 of direct spending by GDOT created $16.72 of revenue to small businesses. The revenue came from retail expenditures of households, supply chain purchases, procurement of large corporations, subcontracting opportunities on highway projects provided by prime contractors, and business-to-business purchases among small and large businesses. Total new small business revenue created by GDOT's highway expenditures amounted to $517.6 million. Figure 33 indicates the amount of small business revenue by district, which is summarized below.
District 1 Gainesville: $42.5 million: Small Business Income Multiplier: .109 District 2 Tennille: $53.7 million: Small Business Income Multiplier: .105 District 3 Thomaston: $74.4 million: Small Business Income Multiplier: .132 District 4 Tifton: $37.9 million: Small Business Income Multiplier: .109 District 5 Jesup: $54.2 million: Small Business Income Multiplier: .122 District 6 Cartersville: $52.0 million: Small Business Income Multiplier: .157 District 7 Chamblee: $109.1 million: Small Business Income Multiplier: .214
57

Figure 33: Impact of GDOT Expenditures on Small Business Revenue (State Level, District Level and for Stimulus Expenditures)
58

Detailed Impact on New Tax Revenue: State and District Levels As businesses and households engaged in commercial and retail purchases, county and state taxes were paid. The total tax receipts generated from new economic activity associated with highway expenditures was $158.9 million. The tax revenue generated within each highway district is summarized below and in Figure 34:
District 1 Gainesville: $16.3 million District 2 Tennille: $21.4 million District 3 Thomaston: $23.7 million District 4 Tifton: $13.9 million District 5 Jesup: $16.3 million District 6 Cartersville: $11.7 million District 7 Chamblee: $20.4 million
59

Figure 34: Impact of GDOT Expenditures on Tax Receipts (State Level, District Level and for Stimulus Expenditures)
60

Top Three Districts Ranked by Size of Impacts The following charts summarize the total impact of GDOT's expenditures within the 7 Districts of Georgia for the period January 2009 to April 2013. The impacts include the number of new jobs created (employment), the total dollar amount of new wages (wages), the total dollar amount of small business income (small business income), the total dollar amount of new tax revenue (taxes), the total dollar amount of total output (output), and the total new value added in production (value).

1. Top 3 Districts (Number of New Jobs Created)

1. 9,271

District 3

2. 7,910

District 2

3. 6,624

District 5

2. Top 3 Districts (New Wages) 1. $436,901,161 2. $325,834,628 3. $270,598,116

District 7 District 3 District 2

3. Top 3 Districts (Total Output) 1. $910,314,159 2. $880,009,970 3. $759,937,829

District 3 District 7 District 2

4. Top 3 Districts (Small Business Income)

1. $109,102,710

District 7

2. $74,430,017

District 3

3. $54,174,061

District 5

5. Top 3 Districts (New Tax Revenue)

1. $23,702,137

District 3

2. $21,408,852

District 2

3. $20,436,616

District 7

6. Top 3 Districts (New Value Added)

1. $535,179,559

District 7

2. $437,316,105

District 3

3. $395,003,875

District 2

61

CONCLUSIONS
This research measured the impact of the Georgia Department of Transportation's highway expenditures (made between 2009 and 2013) on job creation and economic activity at the county, highway district and statewide levels. Six (6) categories of economic impacts were estimated. The study is unique in that it not only estimated total economic impacts at the statewide level, but also for each of Georgia's 159 counties and seven Districts. Economic impacts were estimated for three different time intervals: (1) January 2009 through April 2013, (2) calendar year 2012 (the most recent full year for which data were available); and (3) 2009 through 2010 (the time during which GDOT's expenditures were supplemented by the Federal Fiscal Stimulus Program, ARRA).
GDOT's Highway Expenditures: Between January 2009 and April 2013, GDOT awarded $3.094 billion in connection with 1,271 highway projects. Multiple awards occurred in each of the State's 159 counties. The average award was $2.435 million and the median (midpoint) award value was $.845 million. During 2012, the most recent full year for which data were available, GDOT spent $.911 billion on highway projects. Finally, between 2009 and 2010, GDOT spent $1.263 billion on highway projects, this included $.604 billion it received from the federal government under the Fiscal Stimulus Program.
GDOT's Impact on Total Output of Goods and Services: GDOT's Highway expenditures had a significant economic impact on the State's economy. At a time when the State and nation were struggling to recover from the "Great Recession", GDOT's $3.094 billion in direct highway expenditures resulted in a combined statewide economic impact of $5.859 billion. This means that every dollar of highway investment expenditures generated a statewide total economic impact of $1.89. The total economic impact was spread across GDOT's seven Districts as follows: District 1 Gainesville: $634.1 million; District 2 Tennille: $759.9 million; District 3 Thomaston: $910.3 million; District 4 Tifton: $530.5
62

million; District 5 Jesup: $664.0 million; District 6 Cartersville: $481.6 million; and District 7 Chamblee: $880.0 million. GDOT's Impact on Jobs Created: GDOT's highway expenditures created 51,246 new jobs. Each $1.0 million of direct highway expenditures generated 16.6 new jobs. Job gains occurred across Highway Districts as follows: District 1 Gainesville: 5,872; District 2 Tennille: 7,910; District 3 Thomaston: 9,271; District 4 Tifton: 5,569; District 5 Jesup: 6,624; District 6 Cartersville: 5,323; District 7 Chamblee: 6,605.
63

RECOMMENDATIONS
This study revealed that significant policy insights can be gained by analyzing impacts at the district and county levels, and not just at the statewide level, as most studies do. County differences in industry composition, supply chain characteristics and patterns of consumer expenditures cause notable differences in the number of jobs created (and other measures of economic impact) per dollar of highway expenditures. GDOT must continue to measure county level impacts because leveraging these impacts is an effective way of improving overall statewide economic development.
Understanding how highway project expenditures impact local areas allows policy makers to improve the efficiency of resource allocation, be more responsive to stakeholders and target investments so as to optimize local economic development. Along with this, future research should document the characteristics of local market areas, including industry characteristics, supply chain characteristics and consumer expenditure patterns.
GDOT may attempt to maximize awards to contractors who are headquartered in counties where projects are located and to Georgia resident contractors. Greater economic development occurs when the share of purchases made in the state are maximized (i.e. leakages in spending are reduced).
Research should be undertaken to identify the extent of leakages caused by awards to out-of-state contractors. For example, this study found that 14% of the $3.094 billion in construction expenditures was awarded to prime contractors whose businesses were headquartered outside of the State of Georgia. Additionally, it was found that 11% of the $.322 billion in subcontracting awards went to nonGeorgia firms. It is important to know the extent to which non-Georgia recipients use subcontractors who are located in the State.
64

Finally, this report did not include GDOT expenditures for consulting services such as civil and environmental engineering awards, as well awards for architectural, planning and design services. To understand the full economic impact of GDOT's highway expenditures, future research must include consulting services.
65

REFERENCES
Babcock, M. and Leatherman, J. (2011). Methodology for Measuring Output, Value Added, and Employment Impacts of State Highway and Bridge Construction Projects. Journal of the Transportation Research Forum, vol. 50, no. 1, spring. Pp37 53.
Chatterjee, S. (2003). Agglomeration Economies: The Spark that Ignites a City? . Philadelphia: Business Review. deBettencourt, J. (2012). Economic Effects of Public Investment in Transportation and Directions for the Future.
The Federal Highway Administration and The Rockefeller Foundation. Drennen, E. (2003). Economic Effects of Traffic Calming on Urban Small Businesses. San Francisco: Department of
Public Administration . Economic Development Research Group, I. (2009). Job Impacts of Spending on Public Transportation: An Update.
Boston: American Public Transportation Association. Forkenbrock, D. J., & Weisbrod, G. (2001). Guidebook for Assessing the Social and Ecoomic Effects of
Transportation Projects. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board and National Research Council Litman, T. (2009). Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis:Techniques, Estimates and Implications. Victoria
Transport Institute. National Transportation Policy Project. (2009). Performance Driven: A New Viision for U.S. Transportation Policy .
Bipartisan Policy Center. Owen, W. (1959). Transporationa and Economic Development. American Economic Association, 179-187. Treasury, D. (2010). An economic analysis of infrastructure Investment. President of the United States. Vickerman, R. (2008). Transit Investment and Economic Development. Research in Transportation Economics,
107-115. Weisbrod, G. (2000). Procedures for Assessing Economic Development Impacts from Transportation Investments.
Boston : National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Weisbrod, G., & Reno, A. (2009). Economic Impact of Public Transportation Investment. American Public
Transportation Association.
66

Figure 35: Appendix - GDOT Highway Expenditures by County, 2009 - 2013
GDOT HIGHWAY EXPENDITURES BY COUNTY JANUARY 2009 - APRIL 2013

COUNTY

TOTAL

% OF ALL

EXPENDITURE AWARDS

NUMBER OF PROJECTS IN
COUNTY

APPLING

$ 5,471,750

0.2%

9

ATKINSON

$ 2,947,658

0.1%

7

BACON

$ 4,888,284

0.2%

11

BAKER

$ 4,314,857

0.1%

7

BALDWIN

$ 33,483,783

1.1%

11

BANKS

$ 2,076,103

0.1%

6

BARROW

$ 20,562,906

0.7%

14

BARTOW

$ 55,368,844

1.8%

15

BEN HILL

$ 2,635,505

0.1%

7

BERRIEN

$ 4,868,820

0.2%

7

BIBB

$ 57,428,370

1.9%

17

BLECKLEY

$ 9,846,241

0.3%

6

BRANTLEY

$ 13,982,124

0.5%

17

BROOKS

$ 12,074,953

0.4%

10

BRYAN

$ 11,487,266

0.4%

12

BULLOCH

$ 21,446,316

0.7%

19

BURKE

$ 4,415,152

0.1%

5

BUTTS

$ 12,148,335

0.4%

10

CALHOUN

$ 4,350,563

0.1%

6

CAMDEN

$ 16,266,943

0.5%

11

CANDLER

$ 10,818,662

0.3%

15

CARROLL

$ 15,932,884

0.5%

14

CATOOSA

$ 6,029,280

0.2%

9

CHARLTON

$ 10,391,925

0.3%

12

CHATHAM

$ 212,097,628

6.9%

29

CHATTAHOOCHEE $

288,727

0.0%

3

CHATTOOGA

$ 1,179,660

0.0%

4

67

FIGURE 35 CONTINUED: GDOT HIGHWAY EXPENDITURES BY COUNTY JANUARY 2009 - APRIL 2013

COUNTY

TOTAL

% OF ALL NUMBER OF PROJECTS

EXPENDITURE AWARDS

IN COUNTY

CHEROKEE $ 59,180,921 1.9%

19

CLARKE

$ 26,259,554 0.8%

14

CLAY

$ 28,726,447 0.9%

9

CLAYTON

$ 22,297,560 0.7%

17

CLINCH

$

2,228,901 0.1%

6

COBB

$ 116,860,880 3.8%

36

COFFEE

$ 19,534,692 0.6%

13

COLQUITT $ 21,970,891 0.7%

12

COLUMBIA $

9,721,661 0.3%

9

COOK

$

2,852,099 0.1%

5

COWETA

$ 46,022,395 1.5%

20

CRAWFORD $

4,486,468 0.1%

8

CRISP

$

3,575,726 0.1%

6

DADE

$

1,516,067 0.0%

4

DAWSON

$

7,443,037 0.2%

9

DECATUR $ 26,184,782 0.8%

12

DEKALB

$ 134,363,239 4.3%

53

DODGE

$

6,313,838 0.2%

9

DOOLY

$ 92,486,465 3.0%

13

DOUGHERTY $ 33,407,336 1.1%

12

DOUGLAS $ 34,166,827 1.1%

20

EARLY

$ 15,466,783 0.5%

9

ECHOLS

$

1,671,780 0.1%

4

EFFINGHAM $

4,957,193 0.2%

10

ELBERT

$

3,785,741 0.1%

7

EMANUEL

$ 39,371,339 1.3%

8

EVANS

$

2,976,007 0.1%

9

68

FIGURE 35 CONTINUED: GDOT HIGHWAY EXPENDITURES BY COUNTY JANUARY 2009 - APRIL 2013

COUNTY

TOTAL EXPENDITURE

% OF ALL AWARDS

NUMBER OF PROJECTS IN COUNTY

FANNIN

$ 2,448,637 0.1%

6

FAYETTE

$ 28,128,421 0.9%

13

FLOYD

$ 62,369,901 2.0%

10

FORSYTH

$ 22,671,499 0.7%

13

FRANKLIN

$ 8,431,138 0.3%

11

FULTON

$ 187,887,067 6.1%

90

GILMER

$

728,910 0.0%

4

GLASCOCK

$ 1,465,841 0.0%

5

GLYNN

$ 22,185,223 0.7%

10

GORDON

$ 53,192,023 1.7%

13

GRADY

$ 10,306,366 0.3%

13

GREENE

$ 12,336,531 0.4%

11

GWINNETT

$ 93,704,343 3.0%

35

HABERSHAM

$ 17,019,236 0.6%

14

HALL

$ 83,899,932 2.7%

25

HANCOCK

$ 4,116,731 0.1%

6

HARALSON

$ 6,790,533 0.2%

9

HARRIS

$ 7,322,984 0.2%

8

HART

$ 7,037,709 0.2%

9

HEARD

$ 7,018,028 0.2%

6

HENRY

$ 47,332,059 1.5%

26

HOUSTON

$ 23,103,687 0.7%

13

IRWIN

$ 1,711,860 0.1%

6

JACKSON

$ 10,760,022 0.3%

16

JASPER

$ 7,141,674 0.2%

9

JEFF DAVIS

$ 5,983,259 0.2%

7

JEFFERSON

$ 14,942,435 0.5%

13

JENKINS

$ 2,655,523 0.1%

6

JOHNSON

$ 5,944,588 0.2%

8

JONES

$ 2,134,348 0.1%

7

LAMAR

$ 14,234,145 0.5%

12

LANIER

$ 2,480,282 0.1%

6

LAURENS

$ 42,054,737 1.4%

15

LEE

$ 2,432,497 0.1%

7

69

FIGURE 35 CONTINUED: GDOT HIGHWAY EXPENDITURES BY COUNTY JANUARY 2009 - APRIL 2013

COUNTY

TOTAL

% OF ALL

EXPENDITURE AWARDS

NUMBER OF PROJECTS IN
COUNTY

LIBERTY

$ 5,706,708 0.2%

8

LINCOLN

$ 22,626,498 0.7%

7

LONG

$ 4,667,821 0.2%

7

LOWNDES

$ 28,008,600 0.9%

13

LUMPKIN

$ 3,307,278 0.1%

7

MACON

$ 4,590,307 0.1%

9

MADISON

$ 5,407,368 0.2%

8

MARION

$ 5,163,148 0.2%

8

MCDUFFIE

$ 12,053,601 0.4%

9

MCINTOSH

$ 1,391,475 0.0%

6

MERIWETHER

$ 8,756,890 0.3%

10

MILLER

$ 6,661,060 0.2%

10

MITCHELL

$ 13,228,862 0.4%

9

MONROE

$ 9,103,107 0.3%

11

MONTGOMERY $ 13,584,665 0.4%

14

MORGAN

$ 19,475,692 0.6%

12

MURRAY

$ 8,324,474 0.3%

10

MUSCOGEE

$ 35,374,497 1.1%

11

NEWTON

$ 15,118,954 0.5%

13

OCONEE

$ 18,639,427 0.6%

10

OGLETHORPE

$ 2,619,862 0.1%

5

PAULDING

$ 10,110,957 0.3%

11

PEACH

$ 17,285,591 0.6%

12

PICKENS

$ 1,244,032 0.0%

5

PIERCE

$ 9,202,822 0.3%

12

PIKE

$ 11,119,161 0.4%

9

POLK

$

648,948 0.0%

4

PULASKI

$ 2,778,228 0.1%

6

PUTNAM

$ 38,881,056 1.3%

6

QUITMAN

$ 6,101,287 0.2%

4

RABUN

$ 3,108,453 0.1%

9

RANDOLPH

$ 17,175,978 0.6%

10

RICHMOND

$ 69,943,119 2.3%

20

70

GDOT HIGHWAY EXPENDITURES BY DISTRICTS AND COUNTIES JANUARY 2009 - APRIL 2013 PROJECT_AMOUNT

ROCKDALE
SCHLEY SCREVEN SEMINOLE
SPALDING STEPHENS STEWART SUMTER TALBOT TALIAFERRO TATTNALL TAYLOR TELFAIR TERRELL THOMAS TIFT
TOOMBS TOWNS
Project TREUTLEN County TROUP Location TURNER
TWIGGS UNION UPSON WALKER WALTON WARE WARREN WASHINGTON
WAYNE WEBSTER WHEELER WHITE WHITFIELD
WILCOX WILKES WILKINSON WORTH Total

TOTAL

Column

EXPENDITURE Sum %

$ 15,173,821 0.50%

$

1,863,785 0.10%

$

3,465,672 0.10%

$

6,782,461 0.20%

$ 36,764,891 1.20%

$

5,627,418 0.20%

$

418,512 0.00%

$

8,710,152 0.30%

$

5,223,934 0.20%

$

2,855,122 0.10%

$ 10,305,271 0.30%

$

2,234,895 0.10%

$

4,434,232 0.10%

$

5,285,953 0.20%

$ 10,701,909 0.30%

$ 30,042,507 1.00%

$ 18,568,863 0.60%

$

1,512,585 0.00%

$ 29,497,299 1.00%

$ 27,195,295 0.90%

$

5,879,284 0.20%

$ 28,831,375 0.90%

$

2,846,866 0.10%

$ 15,835,552 0.50%

$

7,743,894 0.30%

$ 22,254,613 0.70%

$ 10,832,383 0.40%

$

5,347,758 0.20%

$ 41,175,219 1.30%

$

7,128,190 0.20%

$

2,529,306 0.10%

$ 13,758,447 0.40%

$ 21,186,620 0.70% $ 38,026,171 1.20%

$

4,173,519 0.10%

$

4,564,144 0.10%

$ 49,724,444 1.60%

$

7,738,184 0.30%

$ 3,094,254,806 100.00%

NO. OF PROJECTS
14 5 7 8 15 10 3 8 5 5 14 5 11 9 8 17 10 6 5 8 9 10 7 9 11 8 8 8
9
15 5 11 8 5
8 6 9 8 1271

71