GDOT local beneficiary analysis of TIA project expenditures: phase II: impact evaluation

GEORGIA DOT RESEARCH PROJECT 16-20 FINAL REPORT
GDOT LOCAL BENEFICIARY ANALYSIS OF TIA PROJECT EXPENDITURES
Phase II: IMPACT EVALUATION
OFFICE OF PERFORMANCE-BASED MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH
15 KENNEDY DRIVE FOREST PARK, GA 30297-2534

1.ReportNo.: FHWA-GA-18-1620

2. Government Accession No.:

3. Recipient's Catalog No.:

4. Title and Subtitle: GDOT Local Beneficiary Analysis of TIA Project Expenditures, Phase II: Impact Evaluation
7. Author(s): Thomas D. Boston, Catherine L. Ross, Laura Geronimo, Sigal Carmenate

5. Report Date: May 31, 2018
6. Performing Organization Code: 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.: P.I. NO: 0015162

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address:

13. Type of Report and Period Covered:

Georgia Department of Transportation Office of Performance-Based Management and Research; 15 Kennedy Drive; Forest Park, GA

Final; July 14, 2016May 31, 2018 14. Sponsoring Agency Code:

30297-2534

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

Highway Administration.

16. Abstract

In 2012, voters in three regions of Georgia--Central Savannah River Area, Heart of Georgia

Altamaha, and River Valley--approved the Transportation Investment Act (TIA) referendum, which

added 1% to local sales taxes. Seventy-five percent of the additional tax revenues support

transportation projects that voters in the three regions approved; the remaining 25% goes to local

areas for transportation projects or related activities they choose (i.e., local discretionary funds).

The purpose of this multi-phase impact evaluation of TIA is to examine longitudinally how TIA

affects the stakeholders and beneficiaries in the three regions. Phase I examined the impacts that

occurred between 2013 and 2014, while this Phase II effort investigated expenditures and activities

between 2014 and 2016. During Phase II, the survey sample size was increased significantly from

96 stakeholders (Phase I) to 333 stakeholders and households (Phase II). Phase II added three

comparison regions that voted against TIA in 2012: Middle, Northeast, and Southern Georgia. The

survey responses were supplemented with 30 in-depth interviews. The research found that

returning a share of revenue collected to local areas is the most highly valued attribute of the

program, with 85% of survey respondents saying the local discretionary fund is "extremely

important" to them. The in-depth interviews reinforced this finding. Residents of TIA and non-TIA

regions were very supportive of the program; 91% of residents in TIA regions and even 73% of

residents in non-TIA regions said they would vote "yes" if the referendum were held today. Overall,

88% of residents in TIA regions indicated they were "very satisfied" or "satified" with the way GDOT

has implemented the program. This is a 10% increase over Phase I survey responses to the same

question. GDOT's total project expenditures within TIA through 2016 amounted to $222.1 million

and expenditures through the Spring of 2018 are $317.9 million. Currently, 448 of the 871 voter-

approved projects have been completed and 57 are under construction. Using those figures, the

research estimated that the combined economic impact of voter-approved projects is 3686 new

jobs and $419.7 million in total economic activity respectively through 2016. The participation of

Small Businesses and Disadvantaged Business Enterprises between 2014 and 2016 was 4.1% and

5.1%, respectively.

17. Key Words: Georgia Department of

18. Distribution Statement:

Transportation/TIA; Transportation Investment Act

Economic Impact, Beneficiary Analysis of TIA

19. Security Classification (of this report):
Unclassified

20. Security Classification 21. Number of

(of this page):

Pages:

Unclassified

117

22. Price:

ii

GDOT Research Project No. 16-20
Final Report
GDOT LOCAL BENEFICIARY ANALYSIS OF TIA PROJECT EXPENDITURES PHASE II: IMPACT EVALUATION By
Dr. Thomas D. Boston, Co-Principle Investigator Dr. Catherine L. Ross, Co-Principle Investigator
Sarah McCord Smith, Research Associate Laura Geronimo, Research Assistant Sigal Carmenate, Research Assistant Georgia Institute of Technology
Contract with Georgia Department of Transportation
In cooperation with U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
May 31, 2018
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.
iii

Contents
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................... x
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................................... xi Purpose........................................................................................................................................ xi Research Method and Data....................................................................................................... xiii Survey Results............................................................................................................................ xiv Personal Phone Interviews with Stakeholders ........................................................................ xviii Impact of TIA on Jobs, Output, and Small Business and DBE Opportunity ................................ xx Socioeconomic Profile ............................................................................................................... xxi Comparison of River Valley (RV) and Middle Georgia Regions: ............................................ xxi Comparison of Central Savannah River Area (CSRA) and Northeast Georgia Regions: ........ xxi Comparison of Heart of Georgia Altamaha (HOGA) and Southern Georgia Regions:.......... xxii Literature Review .................................................................................................................... xxiii Conclusions and Recommendations ....................................................................................... xxiv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................... xxvi
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................1 Background on TIA and the Beneficiary Assessment ...................................................................1 Purpose of the Beneficiary Analysis .............................................................................................1
LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................................4 Key Findings..................................................................................................................................4 Historical Legislative Context .......................................................................................................5 Results of TIA and Ongoing Trends in Sales Tax Referendums for Transportation Projects........7 Case Study: The Atlanta Region....................................................................................................9 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 11
PROCEDURE ....................................................................................................................................13 Understanding the Use of TIA Funds..........................................................................................13 Methodology and Research Data...............................................................................................13
iv

SURVEY OF STAKEHOLDERS AND HOUSEHOLDS ............................................................................15 Survey Framework......................................................................................................................15 Survey Population Characteristics..............................................................................................16 Survey Methods..........................................................................................................................16 Survey Response Rate ................................................................................................................17 Survey Results.............................................................................................................................19 Questions Directed to Respondents in TIA and Non-TIA Regions......................................... 19 Questions Directed to Respondents in TIA Regions Only ..................................................... 35
PERSONAL TELEPHONE INTERVIEW WITH STAKEHOLDERS ...........................................................45 Key Findings................................................................................................................................45 Profile of Respondents ...............................................................................................................46 Comparison of Findings from TIA and Non-TIA Regions ............................................................49 Evaluation of Overall Sentiment Regarding TIA .................................................................... 49 Awareness of the TIA Program and Level of Engagement .................................................... 57 Evaluation of Transportation Needs and Priorities ............................................................... 67 Quality of Local Transportation Services for Non-TIA Regions ............................................. 74 Additional Information (Follow-up) ...................................................................................... 77 Phone Interview Survey Instruments and Limitations ...............................................................82
SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE .............................................................................................................83 Overview.....................................................................................................................................83 Key Findings................................................................................................................................83 Comparison of River Valley and Middle Georgia Regions ..................................................... 83 Comparison of Central Savannah River Area and Northeast Georgia Regions ..................... 84 Comparison of Heart of Georgia Altamaha and Southern Georgia Regions ......................... 85 Comparison of River Valley and Middle Georgia Regions..........................................................85 2010 Baseline Data for River Valley and Middle Georgia Regions ........................................ 90 2015 Data and Changes since 2010 for River Valley and Middle Georgia Regions............... 91 Comparison of Central Savannah River Area and Northeast Georgia Regions ..........................93 2010 Baseline Data for Central Savannah River Area and Northeast Georgia Regions ........ 98
v

2015 Data and Changes since 2010 for Central Savannah River Area and Northeast Georgia............................................................................................................................... 99
Comparison of Heart of Georgia Altamaha and Southern Georgia Regions ............................101 2010 Baseline Data for Heart of Georgia Altamaha and Southern Georgia Regions .......... 106 2015 Data and Changes Since 2010 for Heart of Georgia Altamaha and Southern Georgia Regions ............................................................................................................... 107
LOCAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS.........................................................................................................110 CONCLUSIONS ..............................................................................................................................113
Important Findings and Conclusions ........................................................................................113 Notable Areas of Concern ........................................................................................................114 RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................................116 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................117
vi

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 SURVEY RESPONSE BY REGIONAL STATUS .......................................................................19 TABLE 2 HOW DID YOU VOTE REGARDING TIA IN 2012, BY CATEGORY ........................................20 TABLE 3 REGIONAL COMPARISON OF VOTING PATTERNS ON TIA IN 2012, BY REGION ..............21 TABLE 4 WERE YOU AWARE OF THE 25% LOCAL DISCRETIONARY PROVISION WHEN YOU
VOTED IN 2012, BY CATEGORY ................................................................................................22 TABLE 5 WERE YOU AWARE OF THE 25% LOCAL DISCRETIONARY PROVISION WHEN YOU
VOTED, BY REGION ..................................................................................................................23 TABLE 6 HOW IMPORTANT IS IT THAT LOCAL AREAS RECEIVE A SHARE OF EACH DOLLAR, BY
CATEGORY ................................................................................................................................ 24 TABLE 7 HOW IMPORTANT IS IT THAT LOCAL AREAS RECEIVE A SHARE OF EACH DOLLAR, BY
TIA REGION ..............................................................................................................................25 TABLE 8 HOW IMPORTANT IS IT THAT LOCAL AREAS RECEIVE A SHARE OF EACH DOLLAR, BY
NON-TIA REGION .....................................................................................................................25 TABLE 9 AWARENESS OF TIA WEBSITE SET UP BY GDOT, BY CATEGORY......................................26 TABLE 10 AWARENESS OF TIA WEBSITE SET UP BY GDOT, BY REGION ........................................27 TABLE 11 HAVE YOU VISITED THE GDOT TIA WEBSITE, BY CATEGORY .........................................27 TABLE 12 OCCUPATIONAL STATUS OR RELATION TO TIA, BY CATEGORY.....................................28 TABLE 13 RANK THE ISSUES THAT ARE MOST IMPORTANT IN YOUR REGION, PERCENT BY
CATEGORY ................................................................................................................................ 29 TABLE 14 RANK THE ISSUES THAT ARE MOST IMPORTANT IN YOUR REGION, PERCENT BY
REGION.....................................................................................................................................30 TABLE 15 IF MONEY WERE AVAILABLE TO SPEND, ON WHICH ITEMS WOULD YOU SPEND;
RESPONSES STATING `VERY IMPORTANT', BY CATEGORY .......................................................31 TABLE 16 IF MONEY WERE AVAILABLE TO SPEND, ON WHICH ITEMS WOULD YOU SPEND;
RESPONSES STATING `VERY IMPORTANT', BY DETAILED REGION ...........................................32 TABLE 17 WOULD YOU VOTE FOR TIA IF GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TODAY, BY CATEGORY........33 TABLE 18 WOULD YOU VOTE FOR TIA IF GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TODAY, BY TIA REGION ......34
vii

TABLE 19 WOULD YOU VOTE FOR TIA IF GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TODAY, BY NON-TIA REGION.....................................................................................................................................34
TABLE 20 PERCENT INDICATING `YES' THEY HAVE OBSERVED TIA ACTIVITIES BY THEIR LOCAL GOVERNMENT, BY TIA REGION ....................................................................................35
TABLE 21 HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE WAY GDOT HAS COMMUNICATED WITH THE PUBLIC ABOUT TIA, BY TIA REGION .........................................................................................37
TABLE 22 HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE WAY GDOT HAS IMPLEMENTED TIA THUS FAR, BY TIA REGION ..............................................................................................................................38
TABLE 23 HOW SATISFIED ARE RESIDENTS IN YOUR AREA WITH TIA SINCE IT WAS IMPLEMENTED IN 2013, BY TIA REGION..................................................................................39
TABLE 24 DO YOU FEEL YOUR REGION'S PARTICIPATION IN TIA WAS A GOOD THING, BY TIA REGION.....................................................................................................................................40
TABLE 25 HOW LIKELY ARE YOU TO RECOMMEND TIA TO ANOTHER REGION THAT DID NOT PASS IT ORIGINALLY, BY TIA REGION .......................................................................................41
TABLE 26 DO YOU WORK FOR AN ORGANIZATION THAT HAS A SPECIAL INTEREST IN TIA, BY TIA REGION ..............................................................................................................................42
TABLE 27 NUMBER AND TYPE OF STAKEHOLDER BY REGION.......................................................47 TABLE 28 COUNTY OF RESIDENCE .................................................................................................48 TABLE 29 POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE COMMENTS FROM TIA REGIONS ..........................................50 TABLE 30 POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE COMMENTS FROM NON-TIA REGIONS ................................53 TABLE 31 NEUTRAL COMMENTS FROM TIA AND NON-TIA RESPONDENTS..................................56 TABLE 32 OVERALL UNDERSTANDING OF TIA ...............................................................................59 TABLE 33 ENGAGEMENT WITH TIA PROGRAM .............................................................................61 TABLE 34 AWARENESS OF TIA PROGRAM .....................................................................................62 TABLE 35 JOB RESPONSIBILITIES RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION................................................66 TABLE 36 STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS ON NEEDS AND PRIORITIES ..............................................68 TABLE 37 NEEDS AND PRIORITIES .................................................................................................72 TABLE 38 COMMENTS ON QUALITY OF LOCAL TRANSPORTATION NON-TIA REGIONS..............75 TABLE 39 FOLLOW-UP COMMENTS FROM TIA REGION RESPONDENTS.......................................78
viii

TABLE 40 FOLLOW-UP COMMENTS FROM NON-TIA REGION RESPONDENTS..............................80 TABLE 41 2010 RIVER VALLEY SOCIOECONOMIC DATA ................................................................86 TABLE 42 2015 RIVER VALLEY SOCIOECONOMIC DATA ................................................................87 TABLE 43 2010 MIDDLE GEORGIA SOCIOECONOMIC DATA...........................................................88 TABLE 44 2015 MIDDLE GEORGIA SOCIOECONOMIC DATA...........................................................89 TABLE 45 2010 CENTRAL SAVANNAH RIVER AREA SOCIOECONOMIC DATA ................................94 TABLE 46 2015 CENTRAL SAVANNAH RIVER AREA SOCIOECONOMIC DATA ................................95 TABLE 47 2010 NORTHEAST GEORGIA SOCIOECONOMIC DATA...................................................96 TABLE 48 2015 NORTHEAST GEORGIA SOCIOECONOMIC DATA...................................................97 TABLE 49 2010 HEART OF GEORGIA ALTAMAHA SOCIOECONOMIC DATA.................................102 TABLE 50 2015 HEART OF GEORGIA ALTAMAHA SOCIOECONOMIC DATA.................................103 TABLE 51 2010 SOUTHERN GEORGIA SOCIOECONOMIC DATA ..................................................104 TABLE 52 2015 SOUTHERN GEORGIA SOCIOECONOMIC DATA ..................................................105 TABLE 53 TIA FUNDS BUDGET AND REVENUE COLLECTED TO DATE........................................111 TABLE 54 TIA VOTER-APPROVED PROJECTS AND PROJECTS COMPLETED TO DATE.................112 TABLE 55 UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESSES AND DBES FOR TIA-FUNDED PROJECTS,
THROUGH 2016......................................................................................................................112
ix

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE ES-1 MAP OF THE ECONOMIC REGIONS OF GEORGIA .................................................... xiii FIGURE 1 MAP OF THE ECONOMIC REGIONS OF GEORGIA ............................................................3
x

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2012, voters in three regions of Georgia approved the Transportation Investment Act (TIA) referendum. TIA added an additional 1 percent to local sales taxes starting in January 2013 and lasting for 10 years. Seventy-five percent of the receipts from the special tax will be devoted to implementing 871 transportation projects that voters in the three regions approved (these are referred to as voter-approved projects). The remaining 25 percent will be disbursed to local areas to spend on transportation and related projects that they select (this percentage is referred to as local discretionary funds). The three regions that passed the referendum are Central Savannah River Area (CSRA), Heart of Georgia Altamaha (HOGA), and River Valley (RV).
When fully funded, River Valley is budgeted to receive $410.8 million (in 2011 dollars) to support 23 projects. Of that amount, $234.3 million was collected by the spring of 2018. Central Savannah River's budgeted amount is $728.3 million for 84 projects; $334.4 million of that amount was collected by the spring of 2018. Finally, the budgeted funds for Heart of Georgia Altamaha total $360.1 million to support 764 projects, $148.9 million of which was collected by the spring of 2018.1
Purpose This report is Phase II of a multi-phase impact evaluation of TIA. The purpose is to examine over time how TIA affected the stakeholders and beneficiaries who resided in
1 See: http://www.ga-tia.com
xi

the three regions. In this report, stakeholders refer to individuals and organizations that are directly involved in the implementation of TIA, have some administrative or job responsibilities related to it, or have a special interest in the implementation of TIA. Beneficiaries are all persons in the regions who are expected to be affected positively by the program.
Phase I examined the impacts that occurred between 2013 and 2014, while Phase II examined expenditures between 2014 and 2016. Both phases included surveys and interviews of stakeholders. During Phase II, the size of the survey sample was increased significantly, from 96 stakeholders (examined in Phase I) to 333 subjects, among which were stakeholders and randomly selected households.
In Phase II, three non-TIA comparison regions were added to the analysis: Middle Georgia, Northeast Georgia, and Southern Georgia. These comparison regions were chosen based upon their geographical proximity to regions that passed TIA, and the similarity of their socioeconomic characteristics. The survey responses were supplemented by 30 in-depth interviews split equally between the three TIA regions and three non-TIA regions. The comparison regions served as a "control group" that allowed the research to better isolate the impacts attributable to TIA. Statistically, they served as the counterfactual scenario of (in lay terms) the "do nothing scenario." They allow estimation of what would have happened had TIA not been implemented. Figure ES-1 is a map of the economic regions of Georgia.
xii

FIGURE ES-1 MAP OF THE ECONOMIC REGIONS OF GEORGIA
Research Method and Data The research investigated the following impacts and outcomes:
The perceptions of the TIA program and opinions about the effectiveness of its implementation
The attitudes of residents in adjoining regions that voted against the original TIA referendum
TIA revenue collections and expenditures on voter-approved transportation projects
Disbursements to local areas and uses of local discretionary funds
xiii

The estimated impact of TIA on job creation, household income, and local economic activity
The TIA-related contracting opportunities for small businesses and Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBEs)
The report compares current findings with Phase I findings regarding expectations of local stakeholders about the impact of TIA, local preferences and priorities related to TIA expenditures, stakeholder satisfaction with local control over transportation resources, and changes in socioeconomic characteristics of local areas. Outcomes for 2013 and 2014 are compared to those for 2015 and 2016.
The research method and data sources used in this report were established in Phase I. Phase II expands the scope and updates the original data, methods, and metrics. The most notable difference is the inclusion of a control group consisting of three similarly situated regions that did not approve TIA.
Survey Results There were 333 responses to the Phase II survey questionnaire: 49.2 percent were from residents of the TIA regions and 50.8 percent from those of non-TIA regions. The percent distribution of responses by region was as follows. In the TIA regions: Central Savannah River Area 47 (14.1 percent); Heart of Georgia Altamaha 75 (22.5 percent); and River Valley 42 (12.6 percent). The percent distribution of survey responses from the non-TIA regions: Northeast Georgia 60 (18.0 percent); Southern
xiv

Georgia 49 (14.7 percent); Middle Georgia 43 (12.9 percent); Other non-TIA region 17 (5.1 percent). The "Other non-TIA region" category includes respondents whose listed address was in one of the three non-TIA regions but who had since moved away to other non-TIA regions that were not examined in the study.
The overall survey response rate for TIA and non-TIA regions was 11.5 percent. The TIA regions recorded a higher response rate than did the non-TIA regions, i.e., 15.5 percent versus 9.2 percent, respectively.
Respondents were asked whether it is important that local areas receive discretionary funds during referendums such as TIA. In the TIA group, 85.1 percent indicated that it is "extremely important," while 12.4 percent indicated it is "very important." The respective figures for the non-TIA regions were 74.0 and 17.8 percent.
Respondents were asked to rank the transportation-related issues that are most important to them and other residents in their region. The ranking suggested that greater local control over how transportation dollars are spent was the item that was most important to individuals in the TIA regions. Other factors that were important included more jobs and faster economic growth, and more funds for local projects.
Respondents were asked what their priorities regarding expenditures would be if their local areas had money to spend on transportation projects. Residents of both regions indicated that the highest priority is repairing and maintaining roads and bridges; 80.6 percent of respondents in TIA regions set this as a top priority, while 72.3 percent of respondents in the non-TIA regions did so.
xv

One of the most important questions asked on the survey is the following: "Suppose the vote on TIA did not happen in 2012. Instead, suppose you had the opportunity to vote on it today. Given all that you know about TIA, how would you vote today?" For the TIA regions, those indicating they would vote yes represented 90.9 percent of all respondents. For the non-TIA regions, the respondents voting yes represented 73.4 percent. Broken down by specific areas, the results are as follows: Central Savannah River Area 87.2 percent; Heart of Georgia Altamaha 92.0 percent; River Valley 92.9 percent; Northeast Georgia 78.3 percent; Southern Georgia 65.3 percent; and Middle Georgia 79.1 percent.
Residents in the TIA regions were asked the following question: "Thus far, how would you rate the way that GDOT has implemented TIA?" The results indicated that, overall, 88.1 percent of respondents in the TIA regions were either very satisfied (40.6 percent) or satisfied (47.5 percent) with the way GDOT has implemented TIA. The response by specific areas is as follows: Central Savannah River Area 37.8 percent very satisfied and 46.7 percent satisfied for a total of 84.5 percent, with 6.7 percent dissatisfied or very dissatisfied; Heart of Georgia Altamaha 36.5 percent very satisfied and 55.4 percent satisfied for a total of 91.9 percent, with 2.7 percent dissatisfied or very dissatisfied; River Valley 51.2 percent very satisfied and 34.1 percent satisfied for a total of 85.3 percent, with 7.3 percent dissatisfied or very dissatisfied.
Respondents were asked the following: "In your opinion, how satisfied are the residents of your local area with TIA, since it began in 2013?" The responses were as
xvi

follows: Central Savannah River Area 45.5 percent and 40.9 percent (86.4 percent total) indicated they were very satisfied and satisfied, respectively; Heart of Georgia Altamaha 47.2 percent and 41.7 percent (88.9 percent total) indicated they were very satisfied or satisfied, respectively; River Valley 39.0 percent were very satisfied and 39.0 percent were satisfied (78.0 percent total). Overall, 44.6 percent and 40.8 percent (85.4 percent total) were either very satisfied or satisfied, respectively with the way GDOT implemented TIA since 2013. The differences among the regions were not statistically significant. In the Phase I survey, the response to the same question produced the following outcome: 29.9 percent were very satisfied and 44.8 percent were satisfied, for a total of 74.7 percent. There was a statistically significant increase in the level of satisfaction between the Phase I response to this question and the Phase II response. In fact, the difference likely was even more significant because the Phase II analysis included responses from randomly selected households, in addition to stakeholders as in Phase I. The next question asked, "Given all that you know about TIA, do you feel your region's participation was a good thing?" In Central Savannah River Area, 93.3 percent of respondents indicated yes; Heart of Georgia Altamaha 91.7 percent; and River Valley 92.7 percent. Overall, 92.4 percent selected yes.
xvii

The final question asked, "How likely are you to recommend TIA to another region that did not pass it originally?" The percentages responding "very likely" and "somewhat likely" were 81.0 percent and 13.1 percent, respectively, for a total of 94.1 percent.
At the end of the survey, respondents were asked an open-ended question about what changes they would make to TIA if they could. The first- and second-most frequently cited observations were: (1) provide greater funding to local areas from the TIA program; and (2) provide some flexibility in designating voter-approved projects. The rationale for the latter comment is that priorities change over a 10-year time horizon. The third-most frequently cited observation was to allow funds to be fungible between overbudgeted projects and ones that were under budget.
Personal Phone Interviews with Stakeholders Personal interviews were conducted by phone during the period of December 1, 2017, to February 9, 2018. A total of 30 persons were interviewed, 14 from the TIA regions and 16 from the non-TIA regions. This represents more than double the number of persons interviewed in Phase I. The interviewees included city and county government officials, Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) board members, GDOT district engineers, citizen review panel chairs, representatives from the local chambers of commerce, area residents, businesses and special interest groups, regional directors for TIA, and business leaders.
The primary purpose of the interviews was to gather more in-depth information from regions where TIA was passed, as well as the comparison regions. These two groups
xviii

were asked questions on four main themes: (1) overall sentiment regarding TIA, (2) awareness of the TIA program, (3) transportation needs and priorities of their jurisdictions, and (4) additional information or feedback regarding the program. Interviewees in the regions where the TIA referendum passed were asked two additional questions: (1) satisfaction with the TIA program, and (2) their awareness of the types of TIA-funded projects in their local area. Key findings from the phone interviews include the following:
The overall sentiment regarding the TIA program is overwhelmingly positive. Most respondents expressed familiarity with the TIA program and how it works,
though respondents mention a need for improved education and marketing about TIA to garner public support. Respondents emphasized the importance of local control over dollars. The project category that was most commonly mentioned as a priority across all regions was the need to repair and maintain local roads and bridges, followed by the need to construct or improve local roads and bridges. Additional priorities mentioned include improving safety, regional connectivity, economic development, the facilitation of freight and cargo movement, and alternative transportation infrastructure such as sidewalks, bike paths, and transit. Regions that have received TIA funding discussed how funding has been allocated. Most funds have gone to resurfacing and paving roads. Other projects include building and repairing bridges and overpasses, widening roads, bike
xix

lanes, road safety, transit improvements, drainage, freight movement, and equipment procurement. Improvements in local areas from TIA funding are mostly related to better road conditions. Additional improvements mentioned include reduced congestion, enhanced safety for drivers and pedestrians, economic development, improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and better freight movement. A comparison of comments from Phase I to Phase II indicates there has been an overall increase in satisfaction with the TIA program, though there were some concerns expressed about the procedures by which TIA funds are allocated, the amounts disbursed, lack of construction in some areas, and questions about engaging local contractors.
Impact of TIA on Jobs, Output, and Small Business and DBE Opportunity GDOT's total TIA project expenditures through 2016 amounted to $222.1 million, and expenditures through the spring of 2018 are $317.9 million. Currently 448 of the 871 voter-approved projects have been completed and 57 are under construction. Using the project expenditures to date, the Phase II research estimated the combined economic impact of voter-approved projects on the TIA regions. The result is that 3686 new jobs have been created, along with $419.7 million in total economic activity (based on expenditures through 2016). Those impacts would not exist in the absence of the TIA program. The participation of small businesses and DBEs on TIA-related projects as of 2016 was 4.1 percent and 5.1 percent, respectively.
xx

Socioeconomic Profile In Phase I, socioeconomic data were compiled on the three TIA regions based on the 2010 Census and other data. For Phase II, the socioeconomic profile of these regions was updated with 2015 mid-term census information. Changes between the two periods were examined. Additional socioeconomic data were collected for the three non-TIA regions for both 2010 and 2015. In this way, changes that occurred in the TIA regions could be compared to changes in non-TIA regions between the periods of 2010 and 2015. Key findings include the following:
Comparison of River Valley (RV) and Middle Georgia Regions: River Valley experienced a 41 percent increase in paid employees between 2010 and 2015, while in Middle Georgia paid employees decreased by almost 2 percent. In River Valley, mean travel time to work increased by just over a minute, while in Middle Georgia it fell by an average of 15 minutes, or over 35 percent.
Comparison of Central Savannah River Area (CSRA) and Northeast Georgia Regions: The number of paid employees in CSRA grew by 41 percent between 2010 and 2015. In Northeast Georgia, the number of paid employees grew by almost 50,000, which represented a 25 percent increase over the same period. CSRA's population grew slowly, rising by just over 10,000 or 2 percent between 2010 and 2015. In contrast, Northeast Georgia grew in population by over
xxi

140,000, a 32 percent increase from 2010 to 2015. Population density in that region increased by 28 percent. The number of building permits in CSRA declined slightly, by just over 2 percent. In contrast, over 2400 new building permits were issued in Northeast Georgia, representing an increase of almost 400 percent since 2010. Mean travel time to work in CRSA remained almost constant between 2010 and 2015. In the same time, it fell significantly in Northeast Georgia, from 44 minutes to 28 minutes.
Comparison of Heart of Georgia Altamaha (HOGA) and Southern Georgia Regions: In HOGA, a 53 percent increase (or 35,569 persons) occurred in the number of paid employees between 2010 and 2015. In contrast, the number of paid employees in Southern Georgia declined by almost 8000, or by 5 percent over this period. HOGA issued over 35,500 new building permits, representing a 53 percent increase since 2010. Southern Georgia issued just under 400 new building permits. This was a 42 percent increase, as the region started from a much smaller base than did the Heart of Georgia Altamaha. In HOGA, there was a 4 percent increase in the obese population compared to a 1 percent increase in Southern Georgia. In HOGA, the mean travel time to work remained around 24 minutes between 2010 and 2015, while in Southern Georgia it decreased from 30 to 23 minutes.
xxii

Changes in socioeconomic indicators between TIA and non-TIA regions are mixed. Specifically, on some indicators, non-TIA regions are experiencing larger improvements in socioeconomic indicators than are TIA regions while on other indicators they are faring worse. Further analysis is needed to determine the degree to which TIA projects and activities are contributing to improved socioeconomic conditions.
Literature Review A literature review was conducted to examine the latest publications and research on the TIA program in Georgia. Topics investigated included customer satisfaction with the program and its status, debates about why TIA passed in some regions and failed in others, and lessons learned. Key findings from the literature review include the following:
Stakeholders in regions where TIA passed are largely satisfied with the program, which has raised significant funds and allowed for increased local control over dollars.
Two additional regions of Georgia have passed legislation to hold elections on the TIA referendum in 2018. These regions are Middle Georgia and Southern Georgia.
There are ongoing debates about why TIA passed in some regions and failed in other regions of Georgia in 2012, and what this might mean for future referendums. The failure of the referendum in the Atlanta Region has been used as a case study to explore these debates in the literature.
xxiii

Lessons learned from the case of the Atlanta Region include: (1) develop a more consistent, cohesive, and carefully designed campaign that manages competing discourses about congestion, choice, and equity in transportation planning; (2) carefully consider the design of the referendum itself to ensure it meets stakeholders' motives and expectations; and (3) understand the opposition and the possible formation of unexpected coalitions.
Conclusions and Recommendations With decreasing funding for transportation from traditional sources, local jurisdictions are increasingly looking to ballot-box measures and referendums on sales taxes to fund transportation projects. The TIA referendum is a unique initiative that has been well received by residents who approved it. Important findings and conclusions are as follows:
The overall sentiment regarding the TIA program is overwhelmingly positive. A comparison of comments from Phase I to Phase II indicates there has been an
overall increase in the level of satisfaction with the TIA program, even though the satisfaction during Phase I was very high. Providing local discretionary funds is extremely important to the success of referendums like TIA because greater local control over how transportation dollars are spent is the single-most important factor in TIA and non-TIA regions.
xxiv

Most recipients of local discretionary funds have spent them on repairing and maintaining roads and bridges.
Totals of 90.9 percent of residents in the TIA and 73.4 percent in the non-TIA regions indicated they would vote yes on TIA if they were to do it all over again.
TIA-region residents are pleased with the way GDOT has implemented the program; 88.1 percent were either very satisfied or satisfied, and 92.4 percent indicate their region's participation was a good thing.
An important finding is that the public seems confused about the difference between the TSPLOST (transportation special-purpose local-option sales tax) and the TIA program. While most respondents were familiar with the TIA program, all regions would benefit if more marketing and education were focused on households, as opposed to stakeholders.
Survey results indicate that Southern Georgia and Middle Georgia will vote yes on the upcoming TIA referendum. However, there is a significant percentage of undecided voters in Southern Georgia.
It is important that the Phase III TIA research highlight the specific economic benefits of the program since jobs and economic growth are high priorities.
Until now, most researchers have focused on why TIA failed in Atlanta. However, this research finds that if one wants to know more about TIA, it is important to focus on non-metroAtlanta regions of the state.
xxv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was sponsored by the Georgia Department of Transportation in cooperation with U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. The authors thank the sponsoring organizations sincerely. We are also particularly grateful to Mr. Kenneth Franks, TIA Administrator; Mr. Kelvin Mullins, former TIA Administrator; and Mrs. Supriya Kamatkar, Research Program Manager, for their significant support. The views expressed in the report, as well as the report's factual accuracy, errors, or omissions, are the authors' responsibility exclusively.
xxvi

INTRODUCTION
Background on TIA and the Beneficiary Assessment The Transportation Investment Act (TIA) referendum was passed by Georgia voters in the Central Savannah River Area (CSRA), Heart of Georgia Altamaha (HOGA), and River Valley (RV) regions. These three regions voted to approve a 1 percent regional sales tax over a 10-year period to fund transportation improvements. Seventy-five percent of the receipts from the special tax will be devoted to implementing 871 transportation projects that voters in the three regions approved (i.e., voter-approved projects). The remaining 25 percent will be disbursed to local areas to spend on transportation projects they select (i.e., local discretionary funds). GDOT is responsible for the management of the budget, schedule, execution, and delivery of all projects contained in the Approved Investment Lists.2 GDOT coordinates and collaborates with local and state agencies to ensure TIA projects are delivered on time.
Purpose of the Beneficiary Analysis As a primary stakeholder in TIA, GDOT wants to monitor and evaluate its impact on regions that approved it. As such, GDOT commissioned this research, which is being conducted in multiple phases, each covering a two-year time frame starting with Phase I in 2013 and 2014. During Phase I, baseline conditions and stakeholder expectations were evaluated using a variety of methods, including a stakeholder survey
2 http://www.ga-tia.com/
1

and personal interviews, and analyzing the socioeconomic characteristics of the TIA regions. Phase I also involved estimating TIA's economic impact based on expenditures made through 2014. Finally, Phase I documented how TIA enhanced the ability of local areas to exercise their discretion over how transportation funds are used.
In Phase II, the size of the survey sample was increased from 96 stakeholders (examined in Phase I) to 333 stakeholders and residents (where residents are referred to simply as households). Also, three non-TIA comparison regions were added to the analysis: Northeast Georgia, Southern Georgia, and Middle Georgia. Figure 1 is a map that illustrates the location of the regions. These comparison regions were chosen based upon their geographical proximity to regions where TIA was passed, and the similarity of their socioeconomic characteristics. The survey responses were supplemented by 30 in-depth interviews split equally between the TIA and non-TIA regions. The comparison regions served as a "control group" that allowed the research team to better isolate the impacts attributable to TIA. Specifically, they serve as the "do nothing scenario ." i.e., a look at what would have happened had TIA not been implemented.
Phase II also investigated the following impacts and outcomes: TIA collections and expenditures on voter-approved transportation projects; disbursements to local areas and uses of local discretionary funds; the estimated impact of TIA on new job creation and total economic activity; and, the contracting opportunities created by TIA for small businesses and Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBEs).
2

FIGURE 1 MAP OF THE ECONOMIC REGIONS OF GEORGIA 3

LITERATURE REVIEW
Key Findings In 2010, the Georgia General Assembly passed legislation called the Transportation Investment Act, allowing counties to establish 12 special tax districts throughout the state so that regional transportation SPLOSTs could form. Voters in three regions of Georgia approved TIA in 2012. Nine regions failed to pass the referendum. GDOT expects that a total of $1.5 billion in new revenue will be generated over the 10-year period for transportation projects in the three regions where it was approved. Stakeholders in regions where TIA was passed are largely satisfied with the program, which has raised significant funds and allowed for increased local control over dollars. Two additional regions of Georgia have passed legislation to hold elections on the TIA referendum in 2018. These regions are Middle Georgia and Southern Georgia. There are ongoing debates about why TIA passed in some regions and failed in other regions of Georgia in 2012, and what this might mean for future referendums. The failure of the referendum in the Atlanta Region has been used as a case study to explore these debates in the literature.
4

Lessons learned from the case of the Atlanta Region include: (1) developing a more consistent, cohesive, and carefully designed campaign that manages competing discourses about congestion, choice, and equity in transportation planning; (2) carefully considering the design of the referendum itself to ensure it meets stakeholders' motives and expectations; and (3) understanding the opposition and the possible formation of unexpected coalitions.
The purpose of this literature review is to examine the historical legislative context that gave rise to the TIA in 2010, to provide research insights on investments in local transportation services, to describe the results of the 2012 referendum and ongoing trends in sales tax referendums for transportation projects, and to examine the case study of the Atlanta region. The aim is to offer readers a general background on TIA and to share knowledge and experiences that can serve as lessons learned for state transportation agencies in other locations.
Historical Legislative Context The Transportation Investment Act is a 10-year, 1 percent sales tax that levies funds for regional and local transportation improvements. In 2012, voters in three regions of Georgia--River Valley, Central Savannah River Area, and Heart of Georgia Altamaha-- approved the act at the ballot box (GDOT 2018). The Act has unique characteristics in the history of transportation financing in Georgia, given that it is both voter-approved and that it operates at a regional level. To better understand these unique
5

characteristics of TIA, it is necessary to review the legislative history of transportation finance that gave rise to the Act.
Transportation projects in Georgia and throughout the United States have traditionally been funded through motor-fuel taxes. However, revenue from these taxes has declined over the past decades for several reasons, such as increased fuel efficiency (Pew Charitable Trusts 2015). With the declining reliability of the motor-fuel tax as a source of revenue to support transportation projects, local governments have increasingly turned to alternative funding mechanisms, such as sales taxes, property taxes, bonds, and other financing vehicles (Crabbe et al. 2005). These funding schemes usually require voter approval and are passed via ballot measures. At the same time, these funding mechanisms face their own challenges due to increasing national sentiment that opposes marginal tax increases.
In Georgia, the history of voter-approved transportation financing extends back to the passage of the Local Options Sales Tax (LOST), which was enacted in 1975 and allows counties to issue a 1 percent general purpose sales tax to support operations. This legislation was followed by the Special-Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) in 1985, which is a 1 percent sales tax that can be levied by any county to fund capital outlay projects. These funds may be used by counties or qualified municipal governments to fund capital outlays for roads, streets, bridges, drainage, jails, courthouses, or other public facilities. The SPLOST is different from the LOST, which can be used for operations expenditures in addition to capital projects, as well as the
6

Educational Special Purpose Local Options Sales Tax (ESPLOST), which is used specifically for educational capital projects (Ross et al. 2011).
Given that the SPLOST is levied at the county level, difficulties emerged with addressing transportation needs at the regional level. To address these limitations, in 2010 the Georgia General Assembly passed legislation allowing counties to establish 12 special tax districts throughout the state so that regional transportation SPLOSTs could form. The tax district boundaries were based on existing regional commission boundaries and include all the 159 counties in the state (Ross et al. 2011). With the establishment of the regional tax districts, SPLOSTs could now be considered at the regional level. This led to the 2012 TIA referendum.
With the passage of TIA in three regions of Georgia in 2012, GDOT expects that a total of $1.5 billion in new revenue will be generated over the 10-year period. Seventy-five percent of the revenue generated will go toward funding the construction of 871 projects on approved lists, while 25 percent of the funding will be disbursed to local governments to be used at their discretion to fund transportation projects of their choosing (GDOT 2018).
Results of TIA and Ongoing Trends in Sales Tax Referendums for Transportation Projects In 2012, three regions in Georgia passed the TIA referendum by a narrow margin. The remaining nine regions rejected the referendum. There are ongoing debates about how and why the referendum passed in some regions while it was defeated in others. Given
7

the largely conservative, anti-tax, and anti-government sentiment across Georgia, the fact that the referendum managed to pass in even three regions reflects the need for increased financing for transportation projects. Evidently, the public in these three regions perceived transportation issues to be urgent and significant enough to warrant regional cooperation and additional taxation. Results from the TIA Phase I Final Report, as well from this Phase II report confirm that stakeholders in regions where TIA was passed are largely satisfied with the program, which has raised significant funds and allowed for increased local control over dollars. Interviews with local stakeholders by the Atlanta Journal Constitution support this finding: when asked about TIA, Randy Howard, County Commission Chairman of Sumter County, responded, "We're crazy about it. Everyone's a winner" (Bowling 2016).
As the benefits of the TIA program become evident in the rural regions of Georgia where it was passed, two other regions have decided to reconsider the referendum. One of those regions is Southern Georgia, which will be holding the referendum on May 22, 2018.3 The other region is Middle Georgia, whose Regional Transportation Roundtable met December 13, 2017, to approve the projects on the recommended Investment List as well as a resolution to call for the election.4
Overall, referendums of this nature appear to be gaining in popularity and seem to be supporting transit initiatives: a review of these ballot measures by the Center for Transportation Excellence (CFTE) indicates that in 2016, voters nationwide considered
3 http://www.sgrc.us/regional-roundtable.html 4 https://www.middlegeorgiarc.org/regional-transportation-sales-tax/
8

nearly $200 billion in local investment for public transportation initiatives. The average success rate for transit measures between 2000 and 2016 has been 71 percent (CFTE 2016). In 2017, the success rate for transit measures was 88 percent (CFTE 2018). As transportation dollars become increasingly scarce, local governments continue to turn to ballot-box initiatives to fund projects. While emerging trends show that transit initiatives appear to be gaining popularity nationally at the ballot box, further study is required to determine the proportion of ballot-box funding that goes to transit as compared to automobile-oriented strategies.
Case Study: The Atlanta Region A small but growing body of literature is exploring the specific case of the Atlanta region to understand how and why the referendum was rejected by voters despite consensus about the severe transportation issues in the region. The referendum was rejected by 63 percent of voters, despite a combined $8.5 million campaign to generate support for the measure (Paget-Seekins 2013).
Opposition to the referendum in Atlanta came from groups across the political spectrum. Strong opposition came from members of the Tea Party and property rights activists who oppose increased taxes and politics of regionalism. Opposition also emerged from environmentalists such as the Sierra Club who rejected the referendum, claiming it did not provide enough funding for transit and warned that the allocations to road projects would have negative environmental consequences. In addition, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) also rejected the
9

referendum because of equity, arguing that the proposed projects did not adequately serve the needs of low-income and minority populations (Paget- Seekins 2013).
These differing groups came together to form a strong oppositional force. The Sierra Club developed a critique of the sales tax and submitted an alternative plan called Plan B. It later worked with the Tea Party to issue a joint statement opposing the tax and supporting Plan B. The NAACP loosely joined the opposition group, resulting in an "unanticipated tactical coalition of strange bedfellows" (Frick 2013). With scant funding in comparison to the $8 million campaign, this high-profile and controversial coalition was one factor that resulted in the demise of the referendum.
Paget-Seekins argues that this coalition building, and the failure of the referendum, can be explained by competing discourses framing transportation issues in Atlanta. While everyone generally agrees that a transportation problem exists, there are competing definitions of and solutions to the problem. Paget-Seekins identified three competing discourses--congestion, choice, and equity--that were touted by different interest groups. Seekins argues that "no single discourse was dominant enough to control the process, and the result was a referendum that did not satisfy any single group entirely" (Paget-Seekins 2013). She argues that for a future campaign to be successful, the design and messaging of the campaign must be carefully considered. She proposes discourse analysis as a tool for understanding competing narratives on transportation problems and solutions and creating narratives with broader appeal (Paget-Seekins 2013).
10

In addition to a more consistent, cohesive, and carefully designed campaign, proponents must also consider the design of the referendum itself. One question is whether broad, all-encompassing referendums will be more successful than referendums that specify types of transportation projects (e.g., transit versus roadwork). How the referendums themselves are structured will need to be carefully considered to ensure majority support. It is possible that the structure of the referendum did not adequately reflect stakeholder interest in the Atlanta market, while it was more appealing to stakeholders in more rural regions. The need to develop political support for referendums must be balanced with ensuring that they meet a diverse set of transportation needs. Balancing these sometimes-competing agendas will continue to be a challenge for planners and decision-makers as they increasingly depend on transportation funding through ballot-box measures.
Conclusions
Different theories have emerged as to why ballot-box referendums pass or fail, and some of these theories are rooted in the case study of the Atlanta Region. The dynamics of ballot-box planning raise questions about how to manage competing discourses and the emergence of unexpected coalitions. In preparing for future referendums of a similar nature, planners and decision-makers can attempt to better understand these dynamics through discourse analysis and by recognizing the nature of the opposition. In designing successful referendums, it is also important to identify the fundamental needs and demands in the local area and fashion initiatives that have sufficient flexibility to address them. A larger aim of this report is to better understand the
11

motives and expectations for passing the referendum, the extent to which these expectations have been met in regions where TIA passed, and how these compare to regions where TIA did not pass. The report also examines how TIA dollars are spent locally in regions where TIA was approved.
12

PROCEDURE
Understanding the Use of TIA Funds
Methodology and Research Data Multiple research steps and analyses were used to highlight the impact of TIA in 2015 and 2016 as compared to 2013 and 2014. In Phase II, the research team compared the changes in the Central Savannah River Area, Heart of Georgia Altamaha, and River Valley regions to those of a comparison group made up of three non-TIA regions: Northeast Georgia, Southern Georgia, and Middle Georgia. This expanded the scope of the original data and the metrics analyzed. The findings in each phase include the following: expenditures on voter-approved projects, disbursements of discretionary funds to local areas, expectations of local stakeholders regarding the impact of TIA, local preferences and priorities related to TIA expenditures, stakeholder satisfaction with local control over transportation resources, opportunities for small businesses and DBEs, and changes in socioeconomic characteristics of local areas. In this regard, the Phase II report compares outcomes for 2013 and 2014 to those for 2015 and 2016.
Data used in the analyses were taken from the following sources:
Stakeholder and homeowner surveys Phone and in-person interviews TIA program administrative documents Program data and information available at the TIA website
13

Information provided by TIA program administrators U.S. Census data on county socioeconomic characteristics Procurement and vendor data gathered from GDOT
14

SURVEY OF STAKEHOLDERS AND HOUSEHOLDS
The most important element of the TIA beneficiary analysis is the survey of stakeholders and households who live in the regions that approved the referendum. This is the second TIA survey that has been conducted, with the first conducted as part of the Phase I assessment. This section represents the results of the Phase II assessment. It starts by discussing the survey framework, survey population, survey sample, and survey response rate. Afterward, the section examines the survey results.
Survey Framework The Phase II survey differs from the Phase I survey in several ways. First, the Phase II survey sample size is three times as large. Second, the survey includes stakeholders and households, where Phase I included only stakeholders. Third, the Phase I survey was restricted to residents who lived in the three TIA regions: Central Savannah River Area, Heart of Georgia Altamaha, and River Valley. In Phase II, three additional regions were surveyed that did not pass TIA during the original referendum. The three comparison regions were selected such that their attributes are like the attributes of the regions that approved TIA. Therefore, these non-TIA regions serve as a control group that allows the research team to better understand what would have happened had TIA not been approved. The control group regions are Northeast, Southern, and Middle Georgia, See Figure 1.
15

Survey Population Characteristics The survey population included 2900 stakeholders and households. All the households were randomly selected, while the stakeholders included all who could be identified that lived in the regions. The survey population consisted of 1058 persons who resided in the TIA regions. They made up 36.5 percent of the survey population. Similarly, there were 1842 households and stakeholders in the non-TIA regions. They made up 61.5 percent of the total survey population.
The distribution of the survey population within the TIA regions was as follows: Central Savannah River Area, 14.8 percent; Heart of Georgia Altamaha, 10.7 percent; and River Valley, 11.1 percent. The non-TIAregion survey population was as follows: Northeast Georgia, 27.4 percent; Southern Georgia, 19.4 percent; and Middle Georgia, 16.7 percent.
The Phase I survey did not include households, whereas a specific objective of Phase II was to survey households in addition to stakeholders. All households included in the survey population were randomly selected. The number was 1161 or 40.0 percent of the survey population. The remaining 1289 subjects in the survey population consisted of stakeholders, which comprised 44.4 percent.
Survey Methods Previous research determined that residents prefer to be surveyed by direct mail or email, not by phone calls. That finding was confirmed even more strongly in the Phase II survey results where a specific question was asked regarding the preferred service
16

channel. The results indicated that zero respondents wish to be surveyed by telephone. Those facts were taken into consideration and, as a result, 55.6 percent of households were surveyed electronically (via email); 21.9 percent of households were surveyed both ways, electronically and by direct mail; and 22.5 percent of the population was surveyed by direct mail only.
Survey Response Rate Table 1 provides information on the responses and response rate for both the TIA and non-TIA regions. The Phase I evaluation was based on a sample size of 96 subjects. All the subjects resided exclusively in TIA regions. As a result, one major target for the Phase II evaluation was to double the sample size, from close to 100 to at least 200 responses. A second objective was to include subjects from both the TIA and non-TIA regions. The results indicate the objectives were not only achieved, but they were exceeded.
There were 333 responses to the Phase II survey: 49.2 percent were from the TIA regions and 50.8 percent from non-TIA regions. The breakdown of responses by region was as follows: Central Savannah River Area 47 (14.1 percent); Heart of Georgia Altamaha 75 (22.5 percent); River Valley 42 (12.6 percent). The distribution of survey responses from the non-TIA regions was as follows: Northeast Georgia 60 (18.0 percent); Southern Georgia 49 (14.7 percent); Middle Georgia 43 (12.9 percent); Other non-TIA region 17 (5.1 percent). The "Other non-TIA region" category includes respondents who lived outside of the three non-TIA regions; during
17

the creation of the survey population, those respondents were listed at an address within the non-TIA regions and had since moved to other locations. The overall survey response rate across the TIA and non-TIA regions was 11.5 percent. This represents the percent of persons who responded out of the total surveyed. The three TIA regions recorded a higher average response rate than the non-TIA regions, i.e., 15.5 percent versus 9.2 percent respectively. Within the two categories, the response rates were as follows: Central Savannah River Area 11.0 percent; Heart of Georgia Altamaha 24.3 percent; River Valley 13.1 percent; Northeast Georgia 7.5 percent; Southern Georgia 8.7 percent; and Middle Georgia 8.9 percent. Finally, 30.6 percent of persons responding did so by e-survey while the U.S. Postal Service respondents made up the remaining 69.4 percent.
18

TABLE 1 SURVEY RESPONSE BY REGIONAL STATUS

Geographic Region

Number of survey
respondents

Percent distribution of respondents

Survey respondents as a
percent of all persons surveyed
(%)

CENTRAL SAVANNAH RIVER AREA

47

14.1

11.0

HEART OF GEORGIA ALTAMAHA

75

22.5

24.3

RIVER VALLEY

42

12.6

13.1

TIA Region Subtotal

164

49.2

15.5

NORTHEAST GEORGIA

60

18.0

7.5

SOUTHERN GEORGIA

49

14.7

8.7

MIDDLE GEORGIA

43

12.9

8.9

OTHERS IN NON-TIA REGION

17

5.1

N/A

Non-TIA Region Subtotal

169

50.8

9.2

Total

333

100.0

11.5

Survey Results
Questions Directed to Respondents in TIA and Non-TIA Regions At the outset, the survey sought to determine how respondents voted during the initial TIA referendum. Tables 2 and 3 summarize the findings. The results differed for the TIA and non-TIA regions. Specifically, 83.5 percent of respondents in the TIA regions indicated they voted affirmatively for the referendum in 2012. When the same question was asked of Phase I respondents, the results indicated that 94.3 percent asserted they voted for the referendum. However, there is a difference in the

19

composition of the TIA respondents in Phase II. Specifically, the respondents include stakeholders and households, whereas Phase I included only stakeholders. Generally, stakeholders could be expected to be much more affirmative regarding the TIA program than households. In the non-TIA regions, a vote of yes for a TIA referendum was true for only 46.7 percent of respondents.

There were some notable variations among the regions regarding how they voted for the TIA referendum. All the results are provided in Table 3 and are as follows: Central Savannah River Area 83.0 percent voted in favor of the referendum; Heart of Georgia Altamaha 81.3 percent; River Valley 88.1 percent; Northeast Georgia 50.0 percent; Southern Georgia 40.8 percent; Middle Georgia 48.8 percent; Other non-TIA regions (not shown in table) 47.1 percent.

TABLE 2 HOW DID YOU VOTE REGARDING TIA IN 2012, BY CATEGORY

In 2012, how did you vote regarding TIA?
Yes

CATEGORY

TIA REGIONS
(%)

NON-TIA REGIONS
(%)

83.5

46.7

ALL RESPONSES
(%)
64.9

No

6.1

19.5

12.9

Not a Georgia resident in 2012

1.2

2.4

1.8

I do not remember how I voted

6.7

26.0

16.5

I did not vote

1.2

3.6

2.4

Refuse to answer

1.2

1.8

1.5

Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

20

TABLE 3 REGIONAL COMPARISON OF VOTING PATTERNS ON TIA IN 2012, BY REGION

In 2012, how did you vote regarding
TIA?

CSRA (%)

Yes

83.0

No

4.3

Not a GA

resident in

0.0

2012

I do not remember how 10.6 I voted

I did not vote

0.0

Refuse to 2.1
answer

HOGA (%) 81.3 8.0
2.7
5.3
1.3 1.3

REGIONS

RV

NE

(%)

(%)

88.1

50.0

4.8

15.0

0.0

3.3

4.8

25.0

2.4

6.7

0.0

0.0

SO

MD

(%)

(%)

40.8

48.8

22.4

25.6

0.0

0.0

30.6

25.6

2.0

0.0

4.1

0.0

The next question asked respondents if they were aware of the 25 percent local discretionary provision when they voted on the TIA referendum in 2012. Among the respondents residing in the TIA regions, 88.2 percent indicated they were aware, as compared to only 63.3 percent of the respondents in the non-TIA regions. During the Phase I survey, the response to this question was 96.5 percent for individuals who resided in the TIA regions. However, again, there are differences between the composition of the survey population between the two phases. Since stakeholders are more likely to be aware of the local provision, and Phase I consisted of stakeholders exclusively, it would be expected that they would have a higher awareness of this

21

provision. While most of the residents in both regions were aware of the provision, the percentage in the TIA regions who were aware was significantly greater than the percentage in the non-TIA regions. The results indicate that other factors must have been greater contributors to the non-TIA regions voting affirmatively on the original 2012 referendum. The difference in awareness was statistically significant based on a chi-squared test. Chi-square value was 27.8 and the level of significance was 0.001. (See Tables 4 and 5.)

TABLE 4 WERE YOU AWARE OF THE 25% LOCAL DISCRETIONARY PROVISION WHEN YOU VOTED IN 2012, BY CATEGORY

Were you aware of the discretionary provision in
2012?
Yes

CATEGORY

TIA REGIONS

NON-TIA REGIONS

(%)

(%)

88.2

63.3

No

6.8

19.5

Don't Know

3.7

14.2

No Answer

1.2

3.0

22

TABLE 5 WERE YOU AWARE OF THE 25% LOCAL DISCRETIONARY PROVISION WHEN YOU VOTED, BY REGION

Were you aware of the discretionary provision in
2012? Yes

CSRA (%) 84.8

No

6.5

Don't Know

6.5

No Answer

2.2

HOGA (%) 89.2 6.8 2.7 1.4

REGION

RV

NE

(%)

(%)

90.2

68.3

7.3

13.3

2.4

13.3

0.0

5.0

SO

MD

(%)

(%)

55.1

67.4

26.5

20.9

16.3

11.6

2.0

0.0

Respondents were asked whether it is important that local areas receive discretionary funds during referendums such as TIA, as follows: "How important is it to you that local areas receive a share of every new dollar collected to spend on transportation projects of their choice?" In the TIA group, 85.1 percent indicated that it is "extremely important," while 12.4 percent indicated it is "very important." The respective percentages for the non-TIA regions were 74.0 percent and 17.8 percent. For both regions, over 90 percent of respondents indicated receiving local discretionary funds is either extremely important or very important, and the differences in responses between the two regions were not statistically significant. (See Tables 68.)

23

TABLE 6 HOW IMPORTANT IS IT THAT LOCAL AREAS RECEIVE A SHARE OF EACH DOLLAR, BY CATEGORY

How important are the local discretionary funds?
Extremely Important Very Important Moderately Important Slightly Important Not at All Important No Answer

CATEGORY

TIA REGIONS

NON-TIA REGIONS

(%)

(%)

85.1

74.0

12.4

17.8

1.9

4.1

0.6

1.8

0.0

0.6

0.0

1.8

24

TABLE 7 HOW IMPORTANT IS IT THAT LOCAL AREAS RECEIVE A SHARE OF EACH DOLLAR, BY TIA REGION

How important are the local discretionary funds?
Extremely Important

TIA REGIONS

CSRA

HOGA

RV

(%)

(%)

(%)

89.1

81.1

87.8

Very Important

10.9

14.9

9.8

Moderately Important

0.0

2.7

2.4

Slightly Important

0.0

1.4

0.0

Not at All Important

0.0

0.0

0.0

No Answer

0.0

0.0

0.0

TABLE 8 HOW IMPORTANT IS IT THAT LOCAL AREAS RECEIVE A SHARE OF EACH DOLLAR, BY NON-TIA REGION

How important are the local discretionary funds?
Extremely Important Very Important

NON-TIA REGIONS

NE

SO

MD

(%)

(%)

(%)

68.3

73.5

79.1

18.3

22.4

14.0

Moderately Important

6.7

2.0

4.7

Slightly Important

1.7

2.0

2.3

Not at All Important

1.7

0.0

0.0

No Answer

3.3

0.0

0.0

25

Respondents were asked to indicate whether they were aware that GDOT has established a website that tracks the progress and provides information on TIA. The TIA regions indicated that 75.8 percent of individuals were aware of the website, while within the non-TIA regions only 32.3 percent were aware. The difference in awareness was statistically significant. During the Phase I assessment, 74.7 percent of respondents indicated they were aware of the TIA website, and all those respondents were stakeholders. Hence, it appears that within the TIA regions, awareness is relatively strong even among ordinary households. Residents of River Valley have the greatest awareness of the TIA website (82.9 percent responded yes). Awareness in the non-TIA regions is least among residents in Northeast Georgia at 28.3 percent. Tables 9 and 10 summarize these findings.

TABLE 9 AWARENESS OF TIA WEBSITE SET UP BY GDOT, BY CATEGORY

Are you aware of GDOT's TIA website?
Yes No No Answer

CATEGORY

TIA REGIONS

NON-TIA REGIONS

(%)

(%)

75.8

32.3

23.0

67.1

1.2

0.6

26

TABLE 10 AWARENESS OF TIA WEBSITE SET UP BY GDOT, BY REGION

Are you aware of GDOT's TIA website? Yes
No
No Answer

CSRA (%) 73.9 26.1 0.0

HOGA (%) 73.0 24.3 2.7

REGION

RV

NE

(%)

(%)

82.9

28.3

17.1

70.0

0.0

1.7

SO

MD

(%)

(%)

36.2

41.9

63.8

58.1

0.0

0.0

Persons who were aware of the GDOT TIA website were asked whether they had ever visited the site. The responses indicated that 63.9 percent of TIA respondents had visited the site, while 41.5 percent of residents in non-TIA regions had done so. The Phase I response to this question for residents of the TIA regions was 66.7 percent. (See Table 11.)

TABLE 11 HAVE YOU VISITED THE GDOT TIA WEBSITE, BY CATEGORY

Have you visited GDOT's TIA website?
Yes No Don't Know

CATEGORY

TIA REGIONS

Count

(%)

NON-TIA REGIONS

Count

(%)

76

63.9

22

41.5

42

35.3

30

56.6

1

0.8

1

1.9

Respondents were also asked to provide their occupational status and indicate whether they had any special interest in or relationship to TIA. The results indicated

27

that 32.7 percent of the survey respondents in the TIA regions were elected officials, while 60.4 percent were non-elected government employees. Government-elected official and employee percentages for respondents in the non-TIA regions were 71.0 percent and 10.7 percent, respectively. More specific details are provided in Table 12.

TABLE 12 OCCUPATIONAL STATUS OR RELATION TO TIA, BY CATEGORY

Occupation: Select all that apply
I am an elected official (at the local, state or national level) I am a non-elected government employee I am the owner or manager of a business I work for a private-sector (i.e., nongovernmental) business or organization I am an ordinary citizen Other Total

CATEGORY

TIA REGIONS
(%)

NON-TIA REGIONS
(%)

32.7

71.0

60.4

10.7

0.6

2.4

0.0
5.7 0.6 100.0

3.0
11.8 1.2 100.0

ALL REGIONS
(%) 52.4
34.8
1.5
1.5
8.8 0.9 100.0

Respondents were asked to rank the transportation-related issues that were most important to them and others in their region. The ranking suggested that greater local control over how transportation dollars are spent was the item that was most

28

important to individuals in the TIA regions. Specifically, 72.2 percent of residents indicated this was the most important item to them. Within the non-TIA regions, residents were most concerned about reducing traffic accidents. This was expressed by 66.5 percent of the residents. The second-most important issue for the non-TIA residence was greater local control over transportation dollars. Other factors that were important included more jobs and faster economic growth, and more funds for local projects. (See Tables 13 and 14.)

TABLE 13 RANK THE ISSUES THAT ARE MOST IMPORTANT IN YOUR REGION, PERCENT BY CATEGORY

Rank the transportation-related issues in importance
Less traffic congestion to work More local control over how transportation dollars are spent Fewer traffic accidents Easier movement of freight and cargo Easier connection to other regions of the State More sidewalks, bike paths, and green space More funds to spend on local transportation projects More jobs and faster economic growth

CATEGORY

TIA REGIONS

NON-TIA REGIONS

(% INDICATING THE ISSUE IS VERY IMPORTANT)

40.4

32.5

72.2

61.1

62.4

66.5

40.8

44.9

45.9

43.4

34.4

40.5

62.0

58.1

65.0

56.6

29

TABLE 14 RANK THE ISSUES THAT ARE MOST IMPORTANT IN YOUR REGION, PERCENT BY REGION

REGION

Rank the transportation-related issues

in importance

CSRA HOGA RV

NE

SO

MD

%

%

%

%

%

%

Less traffic congestion to work 35.6

40.5

45.9

40.0

34.7

19.5

More local control over how

71.7

70.3

76.3

55.9

75.5

51.2

transportation dollars are spent

Fewer traffic accidents

56.5

64.9

64.9

68.3

71.4

59.5

Easier movement of freight and

34.8

37.8

54.1

16.7

14.3

21.4

cargo

Easier connection to other

45.7

44.6

48.6

38.3

58.3

38.1

regions of the State

More sidewalks, bike paths,

28.3

37.8

35.1

48.3

36.7

34.9

and green space

More funds to spend on local

56.5

60.8

71.1

54.2

65.3

51.2

transportation projects

More jobs and faster economic

63.0

63.5

70.3

51.7

73.5

51.2

growth

Next, respondents were asked what their priorities would be regarding expenditures if their local areas had money to spend on transportation projects. Residents of both regions indicated that the highest priority is repairing and maintaining roads and bridges; 80.6 percent of respondents in TIA regions set this as a top priority, while 72.3 percent of respondents in the non-TIA regions did so. The second-most important category across both regions was "easier connections to other regions." The third-most important factor differed between the TIA and non-TIA regions (see Tables 15 and 16).
30

TABLE 15 IF MONEY WERE AVAILABLE TO SPEND, ON WHICH ITEMS WOULD YOU SPEND; RESPONSES STATING `VERY IMPORTANT', BY CATEGORY

Rank the transportation-related expenditures in priority
Repairing and maintaining local roads and bridges Constructing new local roads and bridges Buying and maintaining transportation equipment Improving transit service (e.g., bus service) Easier connection to other regions of the state Constructing more sidewalks, trails, and bike paths

CATEGORY

TIA REGIONS

NON-TIA REGIONS

(% INDICATING THE ISSUE IS VERY IMPORTANT)

80.6

72.3

35.3

36.4

42.0

29.1

14.3

14.5

45.9

43.4

30.8

35.8

31

TABLE 16 IF MONEY WERE AVAILABLE TO SPEND, ON WHICH ITEMS WOULD YOU SPEND; RESPONSES STATING `VERY IMPORTANT', BY DETAILED REGION

Rank the transportation-related expenditures in priority

REGION

CSRA HOGA RV

NE

%

%

%

%

SO

MID

%

%

Repairing and maintaining local roads

73.3

85.1

80.5

74.6

81.6

58.1

and bridges

Constructing new local roads and bridges

34.9

31.1

43.6

33.9

44.9

35.7

Buying and maintaining transportation equipment

40.9

38.7

50.0

20.3

46.9

21.4

Improving transit service (e.g., bus service)

16.3

12.2

16.2

11.9

20.4

11.9

Easier connection to other regions of

45.7

44.6

48.6

38.3

58.3

38.1

the state

Constructing more sidewalks, trails, and bike paths

34.9 34.7 18.4 37.9

40.8 27.9

One of the most important and perhaps defining questions that was asked on the survey is as follows: "Suppose the vote on TIA did not happen in 2012. Instead, suppose you had the opportunity to vote on it today. Given all that you know about TIA, how would you vote today?" For the TIA regions overall, those indicating they would vote yes represented 90.9 percent of respondents. For the non-TIA regions, the overall response rate was 73.4 percent. Broken down by specific areas, the results are as follows: Central Savannah River Area 87.2 percent; Heart of Georgia Altamaha 92.0 percent; River Valley 92.9 percent; Northeast Georgia 78.3 percent; Southern

32

Georgia 65.3 percent; and Middle Georgia 79.1 percent. Note that in all cases, a very small percentage indicated that they would vote no; however, most of the respondents who did not select yes selected undecided. This is particularly true for the Southern Georgia region, as 28.6 percent indicated they were undecided. (See Tables 1719.)

TABLE 17 WOULD YOU VOTE FOR TIA IF GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TODAY, BY CATEGORY

Would you vote for TIA today?
Yes No Undecided Refuse to Answer

REGION

TIA REGIONS

NON-TIA REGIONS

(%)

(%)

90.9

73.4

ALL REGIONS
(%)
82.0

4.3

8.3

6.3

3.0

17.8

10.5

1.8

0.6

1.2

33

TABLE 18 WOULD YOU VOTE FOR TIA IF GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TODAY, BY TIA REGION

Would you vote for TIA today?
Yes

TIA REGION

CSRA

HOGA

RV

(%)

(%)

(%)

87.2

92.0

92.9

No

2.1

5.3

4.8

Undecided

8.5

1.3

0.0

Refuse to Answer

2.1

1.3

2.4

TABLE 19 WOULD YOU VOTE FOR TIA IF GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TODAY, BY NON-TIA REGION

Would you vote for TIA today?
Yes No Undecided Refuse to Answer

NON-TIA REGION

NE

SO

MID

(%)

(%)

(%)

78.3

65.3

79.1

11.7

6.1

7.0

10.0

28.6

14.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

The researchers also analyzed the likelihood of individuals voting yes broken down by age. The results indicated that 76.1 percent of respondents between 25 and 44 years of age would vote yes, while the same was true for 84.7 percent of respondents who were 45 to 64 years of age. Among individuals older than 64 years of age, 85.1 percent indicated they would vote yes.

34

Questions Directed to Respondents in TIA Regions Only
TIA-Specific Questions Respondents were asked whether they were aware of TIA-funded projects or activity in the area. Most respondents indicated a high degree of awareness of TIA spending or TIA-related activities in the local areas. Table 20 presents the percentage of individuals who responded positively that they have observed a specific type of TIA-funded activity in their local area.

TABLE 20 PERCENT INDICATING `YES' THEY HAVE OBSERVED TIA ACTIVITIES BY THEIR LOCAL GOVERNMENT, BY TIA REGION

Are you aware of TIA-funded projects in the area?
GDOT has given TIA funds to my local government

TIA REGION

CSRA HOGA RV TOTAL

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

90.7 93.2 92.3 92.3

My local government has decided how it will 83.7 91.4 94.9 90.1
spend TIA dollars

My local government has spent TIA funds on 84.1 90.3 90.0 88.5
roads and bridges

My local government has spent TIA funds on

9.1

7.1 10.5

8.6

transit services

My local government has spent TIA funds on 36.4 42.3 42.1 40.5
traffic signs and signals

My local government has spent TIA funds on 13.6 22.5 21.6 19.7
sidewalks, trails, and bike paths

35

Respondents were asked to rate their perception of the way in which GDOT has communicated with the public about the TIA program. The response categories are very satisfied, satisfied, neutral, dissatisfied, and very dissatisfied (see Table 21). The results indicated that, overall, 76.7 percent of respondents in the TIA regions were either very satisfied or satisfied (i.e., 31.4 percent very satisfied and 45.3 percent satisfied). The responses broke down by specific areas as follows. Central Savannah River Area reflected 29.5 percent very satisfied and 40.9 percent satisfied for a total of 70.4 percent. At the same time, 11.4 percent were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. Heart of Georgia Altamaha resulted in 27.0 percent very satisfied and 51.4 percent satisfied for a total of 78.4 percent. Correspondingly, 2.7 percent were dissatisfied, and 2.7 percent were very dissatisfied for a total of 5.4 percent. Finally, River Valley resulted in 41.5 percent very satisfied and 39.0 percent satisfied for a total of 80.5 percent, while very dissatisfied was 7.3 percent. The differences in the level of satisfaction across the three regions were not statistically significant. Also, note that in Phase I, 30.3 percent were very satisfied, and 40.3 percent were satisfied, for a total of 70.6 percent. As such, there was little change between the percent of residents satisfied and very satisfied between the Phase I assessment and the Phase II assessment.
36

TABLE 21 HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE WAY GDOT HAS COMMUNICATED WITH THE PUBLIC ABOUT TIA, BY TIA REGION

Rate how you feel about GDOT's communication
about TIA
Very Satisfied

TIA REGION

CSRA

HOGA

RV

(%)

(%)

(%)

29.5

27.0

41.5

Satisfied

40.9

51.4

39.0

Neutral

18.2

16.2

12.2

Dissatisfied

0.0

2.7

0.0

Very Dissatisfied

11.4

2.7

7.3

TOTAL (%) 31.4 45.3 15.7 1.3 6.3

Residents were also asked the following question: "Thus far, how would you rate the way that GDOT has implemented TIA?" Again, the response categories are: very satisfied, satisfied, neutral, dissatisfied, and very dissatisfied. The results indicated that overall 88.1 percent of respondents in the TIA regions were either very satisfied or satisfied with the way GDOT has implemented TIA (40.6 percent very satisfied and 47.5 percent satisfied). The responses by specific areas are as follows. Central Savannah River Area found 37.8 percent very satisfied and 46.7 percent satisfied for a total of 84.5 percent. At the same time, 6.7 percent were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. Heart of Georgia Altamaha had 36.5 percent very satisfied and 55.4 percent satisfied for a total of 91.9 percent. Correspondingly, 2.7 percent were very dissatisfied or dissatisfied. Finally, River Valley showed 51.2 percent very satisfied and 34.1 percent satisfied for a total of 85.3 percent. Those dissatisfied or very dissatisfied totaled 7.3 percent (see Table 22).
37

Note that in Phase I, 29.9 percent were very satisfied, and 44.8 percent were satisfied, for a total of 74.7 percent. As such, the level of satisfaction among TIA residents has increased significantly between the first phase and the second phase. During Phase I, satisfaction was very high and in Phase II it is even higher.

TABLE 22 HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE WAY GDOT HAS IMPLEMENTED TIA THUS FAR, BY TIA REGION

Rate how you feel about GDOT's implementation of TIA
Very Satisfied

TIA REGION

CSRA

HOGA

RV

(%)

(%)

(%)

37.8

36.5

51.2

Satisfied

46.7

55.4

34.1

Neutral

8.9

5.4

7.3

Dissatisfied

0.0

0.0

2.4

Very Dissatisfied

6.7

2.7

4.9

TOTAL (%) 40.6 47.5 6.9 0.6 4.4

Respondents were asked the following question: "In your opinion, how satisfied are the residents of your local area with TIA, since it began in 2013?" The responses were as follows. Central Savannah River Area 45.5 percent and 40.9 percent (86.4 percent) indicated they were very satisfied and satisfied, respectively; Heart of Georgia Altamaha 47.2 percent and 41.7 percent (88.9 percent) indicated they were very satisfied and satisfied, respectively; and River Valley 39.0 percent were very satisfied, and 39.0 percent were satisfied (78.0 percent). Overall, 44.6 percent and 40.8 percent or 85.4 percent were either very satisfied or satisfied with the way GDOT implemented

38

TIA since 2013. The differences among the regions were not statistically significant. In Phase I, the response to the similar questions produced the following outcome: 29.9 percent very satisfied and 44.8 percent satisfied for a total of 74.7 percent. There was a statistically significant increase in the level of satisfaction between the Phase I analysis and the Phase II analysis, and the difference potentially was even more significant because the second-phase analysis included household respondents. (See Table 23.)

TABLE 23 HOW SATISFIED ARE RESIDENTS IN YOUR AREA WITH TIA SINCE IT WAS IMPLEMENTED IN 2013, BY TIA REGION

How satisfied are residents in your area
with TIA?
Very Satisfied

TIA REGION

CSRA

HOGA

RV

(%)

(%)

(%)

45.5

47.2

39.0

Satisfied

40.9

41.7

39.0

Neutral

13.6

9.7

17.1

Dissatisfied

0.0

1.4

4.9

Very Dissatisfied

0.0

0.0

0.0

TOTAL (%) 44.6 40.8 12.7 1.9 0.0

The next question was as follows: "Given all that you know about TIA, do you feel your region's participation in TIA was a good thing?" In the Central Savannah River Area, 93.3 percent of respondents indicated yes; in the Heart of Georgia Altamaha, 91.7 percent; and in the River Valley, 92.7 percent. Overall, 92.4 percent indicated yes as compared to 95.5 percent in the Phase I analysis. (See Table 24.)

39

TABLE 24 DO YOU FEEL YOUR REGION'S PARTICIPATION IN TIA WAS A GOOD THING, BY TIA REGION

Do you feel your region's

TIA REGION

participation in TIA a good

CSRA

HOGA

RV

thing?

(%)

(%)

(%)

Yes

93.3

91.7

92.7

No

0.0

1.4

4.9

Undecided

4.4

4.2

2.4

Don't Know/No Answer

2.2

2.8

0.0

TOTAL (%) 92.4 1.9 3.8 1.9

The next question asked, "How likely are you to recommend TIA to another region that did not pass it originally?" The percentages indicating very likely and somewhat likely, respectively, are as follows: Central Savannah River Area 82.2 percent and 13.3 percent (95.5 percent); Heart of Georgia Altamaha 79.4 percent and 14.7 percent (94.1 percent); and River Valley 82.5 percent and 10.0 percent (92.5 percent). Overall the percentages were 81.0 percent and 13.1 percent or 94.1 percent total. The Phase I percentages were 77.1 percent and 18.1 percent, respectively, or 95.2 percent total. (See Table 25.)

40

TABLE 25 HOW LIKELY ARE YOU TO RECOMMEND TIA TO ANOTHER REGION THAT DID NOT PASS IT ORIGINALLY, BY TIA REGION

How likely are you to

TIA REGION

recommend TIA to another

CSRA

HOGA

RV

region?

(%)

(%)

(%)

Very Likely

82.2

79.4

82.5

Somewhat Likely

13.3

14.7

10.0

Somewhat Unlikely

0.0

1.5

0.0

Very Unlikely

0.0

1.5

5.0

Don't Know/No Answer

4.4

2.9

2.5

TOTAL (%) 81.0 13.1 0.7 2.0 3.3

Respondents' Profile One question was designed to provide a profile of the respondents. They were asked the following: "Do you work for an organization that has responsibilities related to TIA? Or, do you belong to a civic organization that has a special interest in TIA?" The question was specific to respondents in the TIA regions; 65.9 percent of respondents in Central Savannah River Area indicated yes; 73.2 percent of respondents in Heart of Georgia Altamaha indicated yes; and 65.9 percent of respondents in River Valley stated the same thing. (See Table 26.)

41

TABLE 26 DO YOU WORK FOR AN ORGANIZATION THAT HAS A SPECIAL INTEREST IN TIA, BY TIA REGION

Do you work for an

TIA REGION

organization with a special

CSRA

HOGA

RV

interest in TIA?

(%)

(%)

(%)

Yes

65.9

73.2

65.9

No

25.0

21.1

29.3

Don't Know/No Answer

9.1

5.6

4.9

TOTAL (%) 69.2 24.4 6.4

Open-ended Question Finally, respondents were asked an open-ended question: "What would you change about TIA if you could?" The first- and second-most frequently cited observations were to provide greater funding to local areas and to provide some flexibility in designating voter-approved projects because priorities change over a 10-year time horizon. The third-most frequently cited observation was to allow project funds to be fungible from those that were overbudget to ones that were under budget. Specific comments were as follows:
Add an additional 1 cent for strictly local projects. Return all money to local projects. Allow approved projects to be dropped and others added if needed. Approve projects on a yearly basis like the LMIG [Local Maintenance and
Improvement Grant] program. It is difficult to predict future needs years ahead of time.

42

Be able to apply cost underruns on one project to overruns on another if the total amount does not exceed those approved for a community or county.
Be able to make changes in priority lists by adding or deleting. A lot of things can change in a road's integrity in 10 years.
Better coordination of regional projects in current local planning and local projects.
Change the formula for computing local government share so that small rural areas could receive more funding.
Have the State legislature and State officials pass laws and implement procedures that promote expansion of the TIA concept versus take actions to deter its future passage.
I would highly recommend that TIA remains regional to assist rural and small areas.
If there are excessive funds on a project because it came in underestimated cost, the excess could be used on another TIA project.
I would love to see the regional TSPLOST continue. It has already been a blessing to Hancock County.
Increase local share of funds. [This was the most frequently made observation.] It should last 20 years instead of 10. Larger percentage to municipal governments. Lessen the requirement of `sending in projects' three years in advance for a
10-year period. Allow the local government to spend as needed on approved
43

items (more general) with GDOT's oversight. Only submit `projects' for regional projects. Make a percentage mandatory for traffic signals (lights) in each county. More flexibility in the project band (i.e. scheduling timeframe of projects). Because with the current TIA, governments were having to prioritize roads 10 years in advance. Conditions change due to use, growth, and even possibly bad construction, etc. Make effort to convince people that all the money is not going to Metro Atlanta, even though the legislation was very plain. More funding and projects completed more quickly.
44

PERSONAL TELEPHONE INTERVIEW WITH STAKEHOLDERS
Thirty stakeholders were interviewed by telephone between December 1, 2017, and February 9, 2018. Key findings from the personal phone interviews are described below, followed by a description of the respondents' profiles, and more in-depth analysis of the phone interview responses by region and theme.
Key Findings The overall sentiment regarding the TIA program is overwhelmingly positive. Most respondents expressed familiarity with the TIA program and how it works, though respondents mention a need for improved education and marketing about TIA to foment public support. Respondents emphasized the importance of local control over dollars. The project category that was most commonly mentioned as a priority across all regions was the need to repair and maintain local roads and bridges, followed by the need to construct or improve local roads and bridges. Additional priorities mentioned include improving safety, regional connectivity, economic development, the facilitation of freight and cargo movement, and alternative transportation infrastructure such as sidewalks, bike paths, and transit. Regions that have received TIA funding discussed how funding has been allocated. Most funds have gone to resurfacing and paving roads. Other projects
45

include building and repairing bridges and overpasses, widening roads, bike lanes, road safety, transit improvements, drainage, freight movement, and equipment procurement. Improvements in local areas from TIA funding are mainly related to better road conditions. Additional improvements mentioned include reduced congestion, enhanced safety for drivers and pedestrians, economic development, improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and better freight movement. A comparison of comments from Phase I to Phase II indicates improved overall satisfaction with the TIA program, though there were some concerns expressed about the procedures by which TIA funds are allocated, the amounts disbursed, lack of construction in some areas, and questions about engaging local contractors.
Profile of Respondents Table 27 summarizes the characteristics for the stakeholders interviewed in Phase II. Of the 30 persons interviewed, 14 stakeholders were from TIA-approved regions and 16 were from non-TIA regions. The most frequent type of respondent overall was City/County Government Officials with 13 counts.
Table 28 summarizes results regarding jurisdiction and duration of residence of the respondents, which supplements the profile information. Many of the interviewees mentioned that they had resided in their county for a long period of time.
46

TABLE 27 NUMBER AND TYPE OF STAKEHOLDER BY REGION

TIA REGION

NON- TIA REGION

Targeted Stakeholder

RV

CSRA

HOGA

NE

MID

SO

Total

47

1

City/County Government Officials

2

1

3

3

4

13

2 DOT Board Members

1

1

2

3

Other Elected Officials/Staff

1

1

4 Citizen Review Panels

1

1

2

5

Area Residents and Public

1

1

6

Business and Special Interest Groups (SIGs)

1

1

7

Regional Executive Director for TIA District

1

1

1

3

8

Local Chamber of Commerce

2

1

1

4

9 Business Leaders

0

10 GDOT District Engineers

1

1

1

3

Total

5

6

3

5

6

5

30

TABLE 28 COUNTY OF RESIDENCE

Q1. Before we get started, tell us your Geographic location or County you are a resident of and how long
have you lived there: TIA Regions

Jurisdiction Crisp County Burke County Columbia County Candler County Warren County District 2 Engineer District 4 Engineer Sumter County Columbus County Dooley County Heart of Georgia Region Warren County District 3 Engineer Upson County Clarke County Walton County Non-TIA Regions

Duration 19 years 18 years 18 years 75 years 22 years 7 years 1 year 18 years 37 years 70 years 43 years 13 years 30+ years 51 years 40 years

Jurisdiction Lowndes County Monroe County Pierce County Twiggs County Jackson County Wilkinson County Irwin County Baldwin County Baldwin County Walton County Coffee County Walton County Pierce County Jasper County Coffee County Elbert County

Duration 53 years 50 years 14 years 30 years 25 years 48 years 13 years 51 years 25 years 25 years 10 years "My entire life" year 65 years 50 years 32 years

48

As shown, the results indicate that most respondents had resided for over a decade in the regions or counties that they were representing. As such, most respondents to these phone interviews have a historical perspective on transportation issues in their respective jurisdictions.
During the interviews, researchers took extensive notes. These notes were later analyzed and coded for common salient themes. The following sections summarize the results of this analysis and compare findings from TIA and non-TIA regions.
Comparison of Findings from TIA and Non-TIA Regions This section compares findings from the TIA and non-TIA regions based on four themes: (1) evaluation of overall sentiment regarding TIA, (2) awareness of the TIA program and level of engagement, (3) the transportation needs and priorities of jurisdictions, and (4) additional information, such as recommended contacts. Due to differences in the survey instruments between TIA and non-TIA regions, data may be displayed in different formats.
Evaluation of Overall Sentiment Regarding TIA To evaluate the overall sentiment about the TIA program, relevant comments were sorted into two categories: positive and negative. During this process, a third category emerged, which includes neutral comments or comments about how the TIA program might be improved. The positive and negative comments are divided according to whether they are derived from TIA regions or non-TIA regions in Tables 29 and 30, respectively, followed by a discussion of the overall sentiment regarding TIA.
49

TABLE 29 POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE COMMENTS FROM TIA REGIONS

TIA Regions

Positive Comments

Region River Valley
River Valley
Heart of Georgia Altamaha Middle GA
River Valley
Central Savannah River Area
Central Savannah River Area Central Savannah River Area River Valley
Heart of Georgia Altamaha Heart of Georgia Altamaha

County/City Sumter County Dooley County
N/A

Comment
The program is run very well. They keep us updated about funding.
They are doing a great job. Everyone is timely. Information comes rapidly. It is the best run DOT program I have been involved with in 32 years.
Yes--they do a wonderful job. I work very closely with them.

Category General General
General

District Engineer Sumter County
Burke
District Engineer

Nineteen counties in my District have TIA. It is a Godsend for these counties. They have been able to do stuff that they haven't done in 20 years.
At first, I was very skeptical. But once you get into it, it makes sense. Some counties did not have the money, but now they do and they can do paving or plan for the future, and also work on connectivity.
I'm glad I [voted in favor of TIA]. I was suspicious of giving Georgia more money. I knew we needed money for county projects. The projects are done well and on time.
Yes--there are major projects. There has been a reduction in congestion.

General General General General

District Engineer Columbus
N/A
N/A

The management of the TIA program has been very well received and implemented. I have been involved in some of this.
It has been a great thing for our region to have it. Our region worked well to get a project list together. The region as a whole has seen the benefits.
The TIA administrator and his staff are doing a great job. I would like to commend them on their work.
It has been positive for our part of the state. It has been beneficial for tax payers--they have seen results.

General General General General

50

Region N/A
Heart of Georgia Altamaha Heart of Georgia Altamaha Heart of Georgia Altamaha
River Valley
Central Savannah River Area River Valley
River Valley
Central Savannah River Area
Heart of Georgia Altamaha

County/City N/A Candler N/A N/A
Sumter County
Burke Dooley County Dooley County Warren County
N/A

Comment
The people administrating TIA projects have done an outstanding job considering the economic forecast of the area.
There are two other regions planning to pull votes on this. People see the wisdom in doing this.
It has helped the economy. A lot of the contracts are local. The locals are competitive because they are right in the area.
There has been a positive economic wave. Businesses have invested. They see that we are doing a lot to improve transportation, and this helps with logistics. The dollars are also used to enhance economic development.
Safety has improved--we have dealt with cracked roads and drainage issues. Before the roads had not been repaved in 40 to 50 years. We have also paved almost 70 miles of dirt roads for the first time, to allow for the construction of subdivisions.
Safer road conditions, resurfacing, and repainting lines. Elimination of road "ponding." Time will tell, maybe road congestion later.
The contracts have been awarded right on time, on schedule. Projects are coming in under budget, which is great.
This is rural GEORGIA. People are complaining less now that we got a pothole patching machine. People are thanking us for getting the potholes and lines fixed.
They redid our intersection. This made it safer for pedestrians in the cross-walk area. This was a TIA project. It had an impact at that corner, where there was a lot of congestion. They made it look better and it is safer. This may have improved business at that intersection.
The road system is in better shape, e.g., widening the roads from two lanes to four lanes has reduced congestion.

Category General General Economy
Economy
Safety
Safety
Project Specific Project Specific Project Specific
Project Specific

51

Region Central Savannah River Area River Valley
River Valley
River Valley
Heart of Georgia Altamaha
Central Savannah River Area

County/City N/A N/A N/A Dooley County
N/A
Burke

Comment
Congestion on Washington Road has been reduced. It has changed peoples' commute in and out of Augusta.
In some of the more rural areas, in River Valley, the small counties have been thrilled to get this additional money; they may not get a lot of money, but what they do get, they can do a lot with.
The program has been an overwhelming success. The program has been as well received as it possibly could have been. The regions that passed it have certainly reaped the benefits of it, and that has not gone unnoticed in the areas where it did not pass.
We have used TIA funds to purchase equipment...also use it for a 10% match to get state funding. We have striped 25 miles of roads a month until we had restriped all the paved roads in the county...We bought a pothole patching machine that carries rock and emulsion asphalt... We purchased a new gravel truck using TIA/SPLOST. We have passing lanes.
We had 700+ projects in our region. We had a lot of local projects: roads being repaved, dirt roads being paved. Businesses have taken off and are investing in the area. Because of TIA, local dollars can now be used for healthcare, education, emergency services, and utilities. It has freed up local funding.
Every penny goes to resurfacing (30 miles a year), also as matched funds for the 5311rural transit program.

Category Project Specific General
General
Project Specific
Project Specific
Project Specific

Negative Comments

Region Central Savannah River Area River Valley
Central Savannah River Area

County/City N/A

Comment
I'm aware of how contracts work. There are no local contractors.

Sumter County N/A

It takes a long time to do roads--we must deal with utilities.
There isn't much new construction happening.

Category General
General General

52

TABLE 30 POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE COMMENTS FROM NON-TIA REGIONS

Non-TIA Regions

Positive Comments

Region

County/City

Middle GA

ForsytheMonroe

Northeast GA

Jackson

Southern GA Irwin Southern GA Coffee

Comment
This is one of the most brilliant pieces of legislation that allows taxpayers to have a say. It is very clear.
We just launched state transportation funding of $1 billion. This will not solve everything. TIA would be useless in a recession, but now with an improving economy it is a better time to start thinking about getting ahead of the curve before the next downturn. It is good timing to have these types of conversations.
The local maintenance and improvement grant is the same formula for cities as the House Bill 170. If we did just this, there would be an increase of 35%, but we must do more than the minimum: the other 25% from TIA would be impactful.
The quality of the roads is average. The TIA money is a big help.

Category General General
General
General

53

Negative Comments

Region

County/City

Middle GA Twiggs

Middle GA Milledgeville

Northeast GA

Jasper

Comment
It [the quality of local transportation services] is not very good if the state is involved--we do a lot better on our own. The state spends a lot of money and gets very few things done. Some of the experiences with the State of GA have been horrible...We are a rural county. Most of the money goes to the bigger counties. If we get into a large group, the money doesn't come back. Anything we get from the state is half funded and then they want to come in and tell you what to do. The sales tax might not look like much to other groups, but it is a lot for us. People come in from other places and tell you how to run everything. We do our own pavement projects. What comes with 25% is a bunch of regulations.
The TIA program was ill-conceived. The time horizon is too long. Over a 10-year period, things could change and evolve. A better idea for funding is through a motor fuel tax and user fee. It's the most equitable way to raise revenue and have it distributed more equitably.
There's too much emphasis on state routes. The state is not fulfilling local government's requests.

Category General
General General

As evidenced by the summary tables above, the overall sentiment regarding the TIA program is overwhelmingly positive. While it is difficult to compare sentiment between TIA and non-TIA regions due to differences in the survey design, some important observations can be made. First, in the survey directed toward TIA regions, participants were directly asked several questions about their satisfaction with the TIA program. Twenty-seven positive comments resulted, compared to only three negative comments. The three negative comments describe a lack of construction, challenges

54

associated with construction, or contracts not being awarded locally. Positive comments cover a range of themes, describing overall satisfaction with the efficiency and administration of the program, positive impacts on the local economy, good roadsafety improvements, reduced congestion, and descriptions of projects that were able to be carried out because of TIA funds. The survey instrument for non-TIA regions did not specifically ask about satisfaction with the TIA program, as it has not been passed in those regions. Even so, participants voluntarily expressed sentiment about the program during some interviews, resulting in four positive comments and three negative comments. Sentiment toward the program seemed particularly negative in Middle Georgia, where two participants expressed strong opposition to the program and feelings that TIA would not adequately serve that region. The exercise of sorting positive and negative comments yielded a third category of neutral comments that still provide interesting feedback or comments oriented toward how the TIA program might be improved. Neutral sentiments from both TIA and nonTIA respondents are summarized in Table 31.
55

TABLE 31 NEUTRAL COMMENTS FROM TIA AND NON-TIA RESPONDENTS

Neutral Comments That May Inform How to Improve the Program

TIA Regions

Region
Central Savannah River Area

County/City Warren

Heart of Georgia Altamaha
Central Savannah River Area
Central Savannah River Area
Central Savannah River Area

Candler Burke N/A N/A

Non-TIA Regions

Region County/City

Southern GA
Middle GA

Pierce County
Milledgeville -Baldwin

Southern Coffee GA

Middle GA ForsytheMonroe

Comment I think I voted against it [TIA] because I am not in favor of higher taxes. But now I am glad it passed because we need the funds. From a personal and business perspective, I am against it, but I am torn on how to vote. I had real reservations at first. The criteria in our region made me change my mind. It didn't pass in my county but in my region. I think it will pass next time. One issue: DOT calls the funds TIA, but the public calls it TSPLOST.
If talking to the local community, ask what impact there might be if TSPLOST is NOT extended into 2022.
No one's keeping a list of what has been done. The local community may know. Local areas have a priority list.
Comment The TSPLOST has been the most helpful program in the region. We need more help like that. We're working hard locally. There is a lack of education about TIA so people vote against it thinking that money will just go to Atlanta. Funding doesn't match projections. Are we gathering adequate funds? ... Still concerned about initial values (initial projections) versus what we've received in funds. Most people don't investigate the details and just see it as another tax. People outside of Atlanta in rural GA don't want to be taxed to see their money spent in Atlanta. The regions that did not pass TIA had to be taxed anyways. There needs to be an education campaign.

56

Region County/City Comment

Northeast GA
Southern GA

Jasper Irwin

The state needs to give local areas more funds, regardless of the TIA vote.
The perception in rural areas is that TSPLOT funds are all being directed to Atlanta.
There needs to be improved marketing of local control to citizens to GA.

The comments from the non-TIA regions are particularly insightful, as they mention the need for improved education and marketing about TIA to garner public support. Specifically, efforts should be made to emphasize that the funds generated by the tax (whether the 25 percent discretionary or the 75 percent that go to the state) are not all being invested in the Atlanta metropolitan area. Another important finding is that the public seems confused about the difference between the TSPLOST and the TIA program.

Awareness of the TIA Program and Level of Engagement Awareness about the TIA program and level of engagement were evaluated in the phone interview survey, albeit through slightly different formats. Participants from the TIA regions were evaluated using open-ended questions. These resulted in a series of comment tables that are displayed in the subsection below. In contrast, participants from non-TIA regions were asked a few multiple-choice questions to evaluate their awareness and involvement. Responses to these questions are displayed in graphics in the subsequent subsection.

57

Results from the TIA Region Phone Interview Respondents to the survey in the TIA regions were first questioned about their knowledge of the program and whether they have any related job responsibilities. The following comments were obtained in response to this question and reveal a range of knowledge and involvement with TIA (see Table 32).
58

TABLE 32 OVERALL UNDERSTANDING OF TIA

Tell me a little about your overall understanding or involvement with TIA; do you have any job responsibilities directed related to TIA and do you have an interest in following TIA's progress?

Expert / Highly Involved
Limited Knowledge and
Involvement

We staffed a roundtable. I'm on expert on it. I manage the construction of TIA-funded projects. I oversee 27 counties and 300 employees. We deal directly with GDOT. Regional councils sit on the advisory committee which we help run.
Twelve regional commissions had to put together priority roads while I was mayor. I was one of five people chosen for the executive committee to vote for the final roads to fund. Currently, I'm on the Citizens Review Panel as a voice for citizens. The program evolved through the regional commission. We helped set up the council that oversaw it. The cities got together and decided and the executive committee was chosen. The committee divided the region up into 5 sections, helped to create the project list, and whittle the list down to 23 projects. I've been involved with TIA from the beginning until it went on the ballot. I'm the District 3 Pre-Construction Engineer, so my office handles all the ROW acquisition, some of the design, all the surveying tasks, location, and planning in District 3.
I am helping to sit down and identify key projects. Projects are focused on providing connectivity.
Very familiar. I was on the round table when we put the project list together. We did not have funds to stripe roads prior to TIA--the cycle is 30 years. I oversee 31 counties in the Southwest GA. I give locals advice on different projects. They set up their own list. I am not directly involved with TIA, but I act indirectly as a consultant. As County Administrator, I administer local portions (funds) and work with counties for other larger projects.
I am familiar with Act and do not have job responsibilities related to TIA.
I have limited knowledge. My job is not related to transportation, but I have asked DOT to do a feasibility study to install bicycle lanes on main street (HW 278 a state highway). They were installed last week. I am not sure if TIA funded it, but it is very possible. I cycle and drive. I am not very knowledgeable about TIA. I'm the Chairman of the Citizens Review Panel formed by the Speaker of the House.

59

Most respondents in the TIA regions expressed familiarity with the TIA program. Some participants are experts on the subject and are fully engaged through their jobs, while others are indirectly engaged or not engaged and have more limited knowledge. Respondents were then asked about the amount of time they typically devote to TIArelated matters during a week of work. Comments were sorted from most involved to least involved, as depicted in Table 33.
60

TABLE 33 ENGAGEMENT WITH TIA PROGRAM

During a typical week, about how much of your time is devoted to TIA-related matters and if so, please describe the related activities?

More Time Less Time

I get calls every day about widening lanes or dealing with bridges. Five hours. Very little once we get projects selected/submitted because it's then handled by the city manager. However, the last citizen review panel meeting involved us putting together a letter to the lieutenant governor and senator of the house which took about three to four hours. I spend a couple of hours reviewing information the TIA Committee provides.
One hour. I answer the City and County's questions about whether projects are eligible. I talk to the media and the DOT. One hour a week. Some weeks require more time. This depends--some weeks we work several hours on TIA-related matters, other weeks we do not work on TIA at all. Related tasks include scheduling meetings with the citizens review panel. We do not do much apart from that. Maybe two hours per week, maybe one day per month. Two to three percent, so not much. I help with the local share for resurfacing. I also help to find materials (procurement). We use the local share for the 5311-program for rural bus/van system for counties. I help find matching funds. One to two percent of my time is devoted to TIA. It varies--I might get very involved in a project, but they are few and far between. We have our own TIA program.
A lot is done at the field level. The time commitment varies, but a couple of questions may come in once in a while. It is a byproduct of my job.

The results indicate that few of the respondents work more than five hours a week on TIA projects, though the numbers of hours per week may be highly variable due to the timing of projects. Some respondents have job responsibilities that are more directly related to TIA and require more time, while others are less directly related to TIA.

61

Next, respondents were questioned about the level of awareness about TIA among
residents in their area. Table 34 lists the comments, arranged in order of highest to
lowest level of perceived public awareness.
TABLE 34 AWARENESS OF TIA PROGRAM
How would you describe the level of awareness about TIA among residents in your local area?
High level of High. There is construction happening all over. public awareness Now it is very widely known. Our local governments make sure that
a TIA-funded project has signs. This information is also made available in the newsletter and newspaper. Residents of River Valley are very aware of the program now. Well informed. We try to raise awareness. We have a public hearing, put signs out with the construction saying, "This is a TIA/SPLOST project." We also put advertisements in the paper. Most people are aware of TIA, but perhaps 25% are not aware. People in local government are aware. Twenty-five percent know what it is, 50 percent have an idea, and 25 percent don't know and don't care. When people see roadwork being done, it might help raise awareness. Parts of I-20 have been resurfaced (not sure if it is TIA but I assume it is). We have seen a lot more roadwork in the area and assume this is why. It is hard to say. There is good awareness from certain members of the public. On a scale of 110, I would say it is about level 4. Somewhat aware. They don't know much, but once a particular road was fixed they were thankful. It seems like after that project, some were aware of TIA. Low level of It was very well known at the time of vote. Now, several years public awareness later--people would not know or would not remember. Not much.
As the table above indicates, there is variation in the level of public awareness about
the TIA program. In some areas where there is a lot of construction going on and good
62

signage indicating that these are TIA projects, there are elevated levels of awareness. In other areas, respondents displayed less confidence in the level of public awareness.
Results from the Non-TIA Region Phone Interview In contrast to the TIA phone interview survey, which consisted of open-ended questions to assess awareness and engagement with the TIA program, non-TIA region interviewees were asked a series of multiple-choice questions. The following charts summarize the responses to relevant questions.

How familiar are you with TIA and the way it is funded?

Very familiar Somewhat familiar
Not familiar No Answer
0

2

4

Number of respondents

Most respondents (10) indicated that they are somewhat or very familiar with the TIA program and how 6 it is funded. However, four respondents indicated that they are not familiar.

63

In 2012, how did you vote regarding TIA?

Yes No I did not vote I do not remember how I voted I was not a GA resident in 2012 No Answer
0

2

4

6

8

Number of respondents

Most respondents (9) replied that they voted in favor of TIA in 2012. Only two replied that they voted against the
10
legislation.

When TIA was voted on in 2012, were you aware that a share of the new funds collected would go to local governments who approved it, and the funds could be
spent on whatever transportation projects they choose?

Yes No Don't Know No Answer
0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Number of respondents

Most

of

the

respondents

(11)

replied that they were

aware that a share of

the TIA funds goes to

local governments at

the time that they

were voting on the

legislation.

64

How important is it to you that local areas receive a share of every new dollar collected to spend on
transportation projects of their choice?

Extremely important Very important
Moderately important Slightly important
Not at all important
0

2

4

6

8

10

Number or respondents

All

respondents

replied that it was

moderately

to

extremely important

that local areas

receive a share of the

funds generated, with

most respondents (9),

indicating that this is

extremely important.

Are you aware that GDOT set up a TIA website which gives information and updates on TIA funded projects?

Most respondents (10) are aware that

Yes

GDOT has a TIA

website, but five were
No

unaware.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Number of respondents

Interviewees were

asked how much their

job relates to transportation services in their area and how much time they devote to

these types of projects. This was an open-ended question, and the resulting comments

were sorted in descending order of the time the respondent devotes to these types of

job responsibilities. (See Table 35.)

65

TABLE 35 JOB RESPONSIBILITIES RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION

Do you have any job responsibilities directly related to local transportation services in

your region? During a typical week, about how much of your time is devoted to this

type of work, and what are your responsibilities?

More Time Yes, every day. As a commissioner, I'm responsible for taxation of the

county.

Roads and Revenues--This is my job.

Yes--transportation is a major issue to most citizens. There are lots of

potholes. There are many pedestrians--not many cyclists.

Yes, I put together investment lists for the City of Milledgeville. About

50% of my time (20 hours per week) is devoted to these things.

About 20% of my work week. I analyze the local maintenance

improvement grant and evaluate transportation needs.

I oversee the road department. Oversight is indirect: the supervisor of

the road programs reports to me. We meet daily to discuss local road

maintenance and projects. I talk daily with DOT and engineers. About

10% of my time is devoted to transportation. I am working on regional

plans with the regional commission.

Yes, about 10% of my time. I manage the county SPLOST program,

roads, and administration. I work with GDOT on budgeting

transportation projects and do administrative tasks.

Yes, I'm the City Manager. I oversee road improvements. I spend

about 4 to 6 hours a week working on these types of things.

On average, 23 hours a week because my work is with non-

motorized trails and green space.

Only to the extent that issues interact with the chamber and

economic development--not in any other capacity. I am not in

government.

The school district is in the business of schools and education. We

collaborate with the County regarding our transportation-related

needs like routing school buses.

Not really. I work with the County on repainting roads. The DOT takes

care of Highway 186 and 83.

No--not jobwise. As a volunteer I am involved.

Less Time

I am a city clerk--my duties are not transportation related. No.

The results indicate that several of the respondents have job responsibilities that are related to local transportation and spend a significant amount of time on these duties.

66

Just over half of the respondents indicated that they spend about 10 percent or more of their time on transportation-related projects during their work hours. For those respondents that devote more than 10 percent of their time to local transportation services, most deal directly with roadway maintenance and improvements. Summary of Findings Regarding Awareness and Engagement As can be expected, respondents from the TIA survey expressed greater familiarity with the program, many of them engaged directly with the program through their job responsibilities. Only two respondents expressed limited knowledge of TIA. In contrast, in the non-TIA survey, four respondents stated that they did not know about the program at all. Nevertheless, the majority have job responsibilities requiring them to engage with local transportation issues, and many expressed being in favor of TIA. The overwhelming positive sentiments gathered from these surveys can be interpreted to mean that TIA and non-TIA regions alike understand the benefits associated with TIA and would like to see their communities partake in this funding opportunity. Evaluation of Transportation Needs and Priorities Both the TIA and non-TIA survey instrument had questions to gauge what stakeholders considered to be the needs and priorities of the jurisdictions they oversee. The comments related to needs and priorities are displayed in Table 36.
67

TABLE 36 STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS ON NEEDS AND PRIORITIES

Needs and Priorities

TIA Regions Region Central Savannah River Area Heart of Georgia Altamaha Central Savannah River Area
Central Savannah River Area
River Valley Heart of Georgia Altamaha
Central Savannah River Area
Heart of Georgia Altamaha
River Valley

County/City Warren
Candler

Comment
Economic development. Roads are part of that, maybe not the most important part but they are needed to increase the industrial base.
Metro Atlanta is different than Candler. We need roads resurfaced here. Three to four streets need resurfacing here. We need sidewalks put in.

N/A

Probably road safety.

Burke N/A N/A
Warren County
N/A
Dooley County

We still need connections on Highway 56 to relieve truck traffic. Several projects are needed to move freight from twolane roads to four-lane roads (road widening projects). Also, project for direct connection between Waynesboro and Plant Vogel. There is congestion in an 8-year-long construction area.
Regional connectivity.
Maintenance is a priority (e.g., resurfacing roads). Others include capital projects and building connectivity. Priorities are different depending on the county.
- We have several roads that need a lot of work.
- Block Grants have been received or water and sewer improvements. However, a lot of our surface roads in town need resurfacing.
- Need to get trucks to slow down in downtown business districts (an area of about 34 blocks). It gets dangerous when 18-wheelers are coming down the street at speeds that are too fast, especially at lunch time.
-As far as the county goes, the roads are ok.
We have been able to replace a lot of bridges. Right now, we are working on bridges and repaving roads that need it. We are expanding lanes on major highways for the region.
Safety and connectivity:
- Safety: lights, signs, striping, lines on roads, potholes. We get more complaints about striping than we do about potholes.
-Connectivity: we have lots of roads in Dooley County--half are dirt. We are trying to tie paved roads together. Now all residents are within a 1/2 mile of a paved road. We are doing a road parallel to I-75 to use as an alternative to congestion.

68

Region

County/City

River Valley Columbus

River Valley

Sumter County

Heart of

Georgia

N/A

Altamaha

Central

Savannah

N/A

River Area

River Valley N/A

Non-TIA Regions

Region

County/City

Northeast GA

Elbert County

Southern GA Coffee

Northeast GA Jasper

Southern GA Pierce Northeast GA Walton Southern GA Coffee Northeast GA Walton Middle GA N/A

Comment Here in Columbus, priorities include connectivity with other counties in the region. Bike and pedestrian projects are also important. 1) Safety 2) Moving cargo in and out quickly 3) Upgrading Maintenance and construction and funding sources (e.g., repairing and maintaining local roads and bridges or constructing new ones). It depends on the county that you are in. Some counties like Glascock do not have enough funds. Bigger counties have more funds and therefore routine maintenance. I would rate all of the counties across the board at a 5 out of 10.
Local area projects that cities want. They can use federal funds for projects where right-of-way is not hard.
Our bridges need repair. We have a lot of infrastructure that needs repair.
Comment Connecting to larger areas. Bike paths would be great to have. We need to connect downtown square to public park-- there is no sidewalk. The biggest issue in the rural county is the quality of roads. Roads are economic development. Congestion on the interstate. Truck bypass in Monticello hasn't been completed after 40 years. The right-of-way has been bought, but it had to be sold back to the landowners. "We're being left out." Dirt roads make it hard to get students to school. We need our drainage system to be improved. The biggest issue is drainage (lack of it) for Highway 83; curbs and gutters need to support drainage. There is a push for safety, signalization at intersections. Bike path, connections throughout the region, resurfacing roads. Sidewalks and bike paths. We need more funding sources for the maintenance of existing roadways. Locally, all the transportation system infrastructure and paved surfaces.

69

Region Middle GA Southern GA Middle GA Northeast GA Middle GA Southern GA
Middle GA Middle GA

County/City MilledgevilleBaldwin
Irwin
Ivey
Jackson
Twiggs County
Pierce County
ForsytheMonroe
N/A

Comment Public transportation. Additional non-motorized areas for pedestrians. - Local control over dollars - The perception in rural areas of GA is that TSPLOT funds are all being directed to Atlanta. - There needs to be improved marketing of local control to citizens to GA - Pedestrian and green space is not receiving enough attention. We need parks and more walkable downtown, as well as amenities to make areas livable. Funding--we do not have enough money to keep everything up and running. All the issues are important. Congestion is an issue in a couple of areas--it is related to the movement of freight and cargo. - We are in transition between being rural and urban. - Sidewalks are an issue. - Highway I-85 is coming - Local control of funding - Accidents - The state wants to do the same thing in Twiggs as they would in Bibb or Jones. Their method doesn't work here. -It took 1.5 years to deal with a site causing serious accidents. In order: - Funding sources are a top priority - Logistics for moving freight--to support the economy - Connecting to other areas - Sidewalks and bicycles. Congestion. We are already connected to a wider region. We are a hub. But everything else you mentioned is an issue. We have already prioritized our projects: 1) Congestion--especially near schools--roundabout 2) Repairing sidewalks and bridges. Trucks bypass--movement of freight. More investment desperately needed.

Some unique county-specific transportation-related needs are worth highlighting, such as Walton County's (Northeast Georgia region) lack of drainage on Highway 83, making roadways impassable. Also, Milledgeville-Baldwin in Middle Georgia has a strong need

70

for funds to support public transportation and pedestrian improvements, and Irwin County in Southern Georgia has similar needs. A recurring theme is that local areas do not have enough funds for routine maintenance, as a respondent from Ivey County in Middle Georgia states, "We don't have enough money to keep everything up and running." In Dooley County within the River Valley Region, safety improvements like "lights, signs, striping, lines on roads, potholes" are needed. In Warren County within the Central Savannah River Area, there is a "need to get trucks to slow down in downtown business districts" because the speeds at which they are traveling is dangerous to themselves and others on the roadway. To better process and analyze overall trends in responses from both TIA and non-TIA regions, relevant responses were categorized and tallied by project type and region. The results are displayed in Table 37 below, followed by a discussion of the overall findings and a review of priorities.
71

72

Project Type

TABLE 37 NEEDS AND PRIORITIES TIA

Non-TIA

RV

CSRA

HOGA

MID

NE

SO

Repairing and maintaining local roads and bridges

2

1

6

4

4

Constructing/improving local roads and bridges

2

1

4

1

4

Bike/ped improvements

1

1

5

2

Buying and maintaining transportation equipment

3

1

2

Road safety (speed, dangerous intersections)

2

2

1

1

Regional connectivity

2

1

Transit

1

1

Water and sewer/drainage/curbs & gutters

1

1

Congestion relief

1

1

Movement of truck freight and cargo

1

1

Economic development

1

Local control

1

Performing routine maintenance activities

1

Road widening

1

Passing lanes

1

Regional Need Total

11

10

4

15

13

13

Total
17
12 9 6
6 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 66

Overall, 15 distinct project types were identified. A total of 66 responses were classified as needs and priorities. The project category that was most commonly mentioned as a priority across all regions was the need to repair and maintain local roads and bridges (17 responses). This was followed by the need to construct or improve local roads and bridges (12 responses), and thirdly, the need to improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities (9 responses).
Non-TIA regions had more comments related to needs and priorities than TIA regions (41 comments versus 25), but this may have been a result of differences in survey design. Nevertheless, each group can be analyzed independently. Non-TIA regions especially emphasize the need to construct, improve, repair, and maintain local roads and bridges (23 responses). Improvements to bicycle and pedestrian facilities was also important in non-TIA regions (7 responses), followed by buying and maintaining transportation equipment (6 responses). Another theme among non-TIA regions is the need for improved road safety and transit options.
For TIA regions, there was a wider variation of needs and priorities compared to non-TIA regions. Road conditions and road safety appear to be among the top needs and priorities in TIA regions. Respondents also mentioned the need to improve regional connectivity, reduce congestion, and improve the movement of freight and cargo, all of which relate to enhancing economic activity (8 comments related to economic activity). Finally, respondents commented on more specific needs for road improvements, such as dealing with water, sewerage, and drainage issues, widening roads, and adding passing lanes.
73

While the small sample size from each region and the differing survey instrument between TIA and non-TIA regions make it difficult to draw overarching conclusions about regional needs and priorities, the data do reveal important insights. Data gathered from the phone interviews and reported in this table can supplement findings from the stakeholder survey and help identify regions with high-priority needs and the types of projects that they emphasize. Quality of Local Transportation Services for Non-TIA Regions On the non-TIA survey instrument, a specific question was asked regarding the quality of local transportation services. Stakeholders had the opportunity to share their opinions about the current state of local transportation services available to residents of these regions. The answers to this question might be especially useful in the future if these regions pass a TIA referendum. Table 38 summarizes opinions about the quality of local transportation services on a continuum from positive to negative opinions. The positive comments are presented first, with comments expressing more negative sentiments toward the bottom of the table.
74

TABLE 38 COMMENTS ON QUALITY OF LOCAL TRANSPORTATION NON-TIA REGIONS

How would you describe the quality of local transportation services in your region?

Region

County

Comment

Middle GA

Forsythe Monroe

The quality of the roads is great. I have no opinion on the buses. County roads vary by county--ours is pretty good.

Northeast GA

Jackson

The systems are operating well.

Northeast GA

Walton

Pretty good, we're taking care of the roads.

Southern GA Coffee

Good.

Middle GA N/A

Good in Baldwin County.

Northeast GA

Walton

Good, but limited. The roads are pretty good. We need sidewalks, trails, and more public transit.

Middle GA

MilledgevilleBaldwin

Between fair and good.

Southern GA Pierce

Fair, there are dirt roads that are impossible to use when it rains.

Southern GA Coffee

The quality of the roads is average. The TIA money is a big help.

Middle GA Ivey

Not great but not bad.

- The more rural areas are falling behind.

- The less densely populated areas are less apt for pedestrian

Southern GA Irwin

friendly and cycling infrastructure - Overall the infrastructure is acceptable quality but not

great.

- The elderly and special needs groups have some.

Northeast GA

Bowman City in Elbert County

No transit. Not even a Greyhound stop. No public transportation. The quality of the roads is O.K. to pretty good.

It is not very good if the state is involved--we do a lot better

Middle GA

Twiggs County

on our own. The state spends a lot of money and gets very few things done. Some of the experiences with the State of

Georgia have been horrible.

Northeast GA

Jasper

It's adequate and leaves room for improvement. There's too much emphasis on state routes. The state is not fulfilling local government's requests.

75

Region Southern GA

County Pierce County

Comment - Very poor. - We are in rural GA. We have a lot of needs to expand opportunities for various roads. - There is a lot of poverty. - We need to improve transportation to work. - There is a lack of ability to transfer between communities. -We need right of way.

As the comments show, there is a range of sentiment regarding the current quality of local transportation services in non-TIA regions, and there are mixed feelings within regions. For example, comments in Northeast Georgia range from "the systems are operating well" to comments that point out the lack of transit and emphasize that the system needs improvement. The negative comments provide more detail and focus on the need for public transportation, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, mobility and access for vulnerable populations, regional connectivity, and funding for capital projects. A respondent from Pierce County in Southern Georgia states that there is "a lot of poverty" and a "lack of ability to transfer between communities." This suggests that underlying economic problems may also be core issues for certain counties that must be considered in tandem with transportation needs.

There are also several comments that are critical of state involvement. For example, a respondent from Twiggs County in Middle Georgia states that "experiences with the State of Georgia have been horrible" and that very few projects get completed. A comment from Jasper County in Northeast Georgia is that the state does not "fulfill local government's requests" and that too much emphasis is placed on "state routes" instead of other transportation-

76

related projects. If TIA programs are to be expanded in these regions, these specific concerns may need to be addressed. Additional Information (Follow-up) Respondents from the TIA and non-TIA regions were asked a series of follow-up questions regarding additional information they wanted to disclose, and about other community members and professionals they recommend speaking to who might be willing to share their opinions about TIA and local transportation services. The sub-sections below describe findings from the TIA and non-TIA regions. TIA Follow-up Comments Eleven respondents from TIA regions commented on TIA-related matters they were not specifically asked about. The comments are listed in Table 39, with the more positive comments at the top and more negative comments at the bottom, followed by a brief analysis.
77

TABLE 39 FOLLOW-UP COMMENTS FROM TIA REGION RESPONDENTS

Is there any topic I didn't ask questions about that you wish to comment on, or anything else you would like to share related to the TIA program?

Target Regional Commission Heart of Georgia Altamaha Heart of Georgia Altamaha Heart of Georgia Altamaha Heart of Georgia Altamaha
River Valley
River Valley (GDOT District Three)
River Valley
Central Savannah River Area Central Savannah River Area
Central Savannah River Area
River Valley

Target County Candler N/A N/A N/A Columbus
N/A
N/A N/A Burke
Warren
Sumter

Comment
There are two other regions planning to pull votes on this. People see the wisdom in doing this. The management of the TIA program has been very well received and implemented. I have been involved in some of this. The TIA administrator and his staff are doing a great job. I would like to commend them on their work. It has been positive for our part of the state. It has been beneficial for tax payers--they have seen results. It has been a great thing for our region to have it. Our region worked well to get a project list together. The region as a whole has seen the benefits. The program has been an overwhelming success. The program has been as well received as it possibly could have been. The regions that passed it, have certainly reaped the benefits of it, and that has not gone unnoticed in the areas where it did not pass. The people administrating TIA projects have done an outstanding job considering the economic forecast of the area.
If talking to the local community, ask what impact there might be if TSPLOST is NOT extended into 2022.
One issue: DOT calls the funds TIA, but the public calls it TSPLOST.
There is a need for sidewalks on Highway 80. We have community housing there. I believe the downtown could see more business if there was connectivity to the housing. Currently it is very dangerous: there is a ditch. People need sidewalks on both sides of Highway 80. This is a major project that would make a big difference. It takes a long time to do roads--we have to deal with utilities.

78

Of the 11 responses, the majority are overwhelmingly positive reviews of the TIA program. The Heart of Georgia Altamaha and River Valley regions were especially supportive of the program. There were a few comments (the last three in the table) that provide constructive feedback about project-specific cases, difficulties, or confusions with the TIA program. These may be considered when moving forward with TIA programming in these regions. Non-TIA Follow-up Comments This part of the survey yielded a greater amount of comments about the TIA program from non-TIA respondents than from TIA-region respondents. A total of 13 comments were shared about the TIA program and they provided more detailed information than those of the TIA respondents. Table 40 summarizes the comments garnered from non-TIA respondents.
79

TABLE 40 FOLLOW-UP COMMENTS FROM NON-TIA REGION RESPONDENTS

Is there any topic I didn't ask questions about that you wish to comment on, or

anything else you would like to share related to the TIA program?

Target

Regional

Target

Commission County

Comments

Southern GA Pierce

The TSPLOST has been the most helpful program in the region. We need more help like that.

- This is one of the most brilliant pieces of legislation

that allows taxpayers to have a say. It is very clear.

- Most people don't investigate the details and just see

it as another tax.

Middle GA

Forsythe- - People outside of Atlanta in rural GA don't want to be Monroe taxed to see their money spent in Atlanta.

- The regions that did not pass TIA had to be taxed

anyways.

- There needs to be an education campaign.

- The Savannah River Harbor could have influence.

Northeast GA Elbert

Semi-trucks on two-lane roads are a bit of a safety issue: roads are set at 10 feet

Northeast GA Jasper

The state needs to give local areas more funds, regardless of the TIA vote.

Safety is also an important issue and should be added

Southern GA Pierce

to the list. Especially student safety. We need to implement a traffic signal on a major highway that

students need to use to access campus.

Northeast GA Walton

There's congestion at the intersections of Highways 138, 78, and Monroe.

Southern GA Coffee

Funding doesn't match projections. Are we gathering adequate funds?

Middle GA

Milledgevil le- Baldwin

We're working hard locally. There is a lack of education about TIA so people vote against it thinking that money will just go to Atlanta.

Middle GA N/A

They have project needs without TIA.

- We need to get roads paved.

- The local maintenance and improvement grant is the

Southern GA Irwin

same formula for cities as the House Bill 170. If we did just this there would be an increase of 35%, but we

must do more than the minimum: the other 25% from

TIA would be impactful.

80

Target Regional Commission

Target County

Northeast GA Jackson

Middle GA Twiggs Middle GA N/A

Comments We just launched state transportation funding of $1 billion. This will not solve everything. TIA would be useless in a recession, but now with an improving economy it is a better time to start thinking about getting ahead of the curve before the next downturn. It is good timing to have these types of conversations. We are a rural county. Most of the money goes to the bigger counties. If we get into a large group, the money doesn't come back. Anything we get from the state is half funded and then they want to come in and tell you what to do. The sales tax might not look like much to other groups, but it is a lot for us. People come in from other places and tell you how to run everything. We do our own pavement projects. What comes with 25% is a bunch of regulations. The TIA program was ill-conceived. The time horizon is too long. Over a 10-year period, things could change and evolve. A better idea for funding is through a motor fuel tax and user fee. It's the most equitable way to raise revenue and have it distributed more equitably.

Many of the comments were project-specific and offered recommendations on how to change public perception so that a vote on TIA can pass in the future. A comment from Forsythe Monroe County in Middle Georgia emphasized the point that public outreach and educational campaigns are necessary to demystify some of the concerns residents have about TIA's effects on their communities. A similar comment from Milledgeville-Baldwin County in Middle Georgia expressed the need for public education so that residents will not vote against TIA because they think the "money will just go to Atlanta."

81

Other comments were project-specific, such as congestion at highway intersections, road paving, and connectivity. Two comments, both from Middle Georgia, question the amount of funds received allocated to their local areas. One respondent inquires whether their region is getting "adequate funds." Another respondent acknowledges the positive benefits associated with receiving TIA funds but also voices disagreement in having to follow state-imposed regulations to use TIA funds. These comments are useful for determining how to focus efforts to advance the TIA program in regions that are reconsidering the referendum.
Phone Interview Survey Instruments and Limitations A limitation of this study is the differences in the phone-interview survey instruments that were directed toward the participants from TIA and non-TIA regions. This is partly because the questions directed at the participants from the TIA regions are meant to evaluate the administration of the program, something that is not possible in non-TIA regions. Differences in the structure of the surveys make direct comparison difficult, and some data analytics possible for one region are not possible on others. Despite these differences, the results and comments were categorized into common themes, yielding insightful data that should be helpful in evaluating the TIA program and determining best strategies for moving forward. In conjunction with data from the stakeholder survey, findings from the socioeconomic study, and the literature review, these data provide a basis for the recommendations in this report.
82

SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE
Overview In the following analysis, three regions that passed the Transportation Investment Act in 2012 are compared to three control regions where TIA was not passed, based on socioeconomic characteristics between 2010 and 2015. While no two regions are exactly alike, treatment and control region pairs were selected based on certain common socioeconomic and geographic characteristics. The three regions that passed the Act were Central Savannah River Area, Heart of Georgia Altamaha, and River Valley; their comparative counterparts are, respectively, Northeast Georgia, Southern Georgia and Middle Georgia.
Key Findings Comparing the TIA and non-TIA regions highlights key trends among these areas over time. Some distinct variations in demographic and economic variables between the regions are worth noting, as they can be used to extrapolate future socioeconomic patterns and dictate future transportation investment. The results of the analysis are mixed and provide a foundation for continued analysis. Specifically, an area of opportunity is to examine variations at the county level and to compare these with where TIA projects are taking place.
The key findings from the socioeconomic analysis are summarized below.
Comparison of River Valley and Middle Georgia Regions The number of paid employees in River Valley increased by 41 percent overall from 2010 to 2015, while in Middle Georgia it decreased by almost 2 percent. Harris and
83

Chattahoochee Counties experienced the most job growth between 2010 and 2015 with about 11,500 and 6000 new jobs added in each county, respectively. The mean travel time to work in River Valley increased by an average of 1.2 minutes, while in Middle Georgia, it fell by an average of 15 minutes, cutting commute times down by over 35 percent.
Comparison of Central Savannah River Area and Northeast Georgia Regions The number of paid employees in CSRA grew by almost 55,000 to 187,874, which represents a 41 percent increase between 2010 and 2015. In Northeast Georgia, the number of paid employees grew by almost 50,000, which represents a 25 percent increase between 2010 and 2015. Northeast Georgia grew in population by over 140,000, representing a 32 percent population growth from 2010 to 2015. Population density in this region increased by 28 percent. In contrast, CSRA's population grew much slower, rising by just over 10,000 or 2 percent since 2010. Over 2400 new building permits have been issued in Northeast Georgia, representing an increase of almost 400 percent since 2010. In contrast, the number of building permits in CSRA has declined slightly, by just over 2 percent. In Northeast Georgia, the percentage of the population over 25 years of age and with a bachelor's degree or higher has gone from 7 percent in 2010 to about 13 percent in 2015. In CSRA this percentage remained almost constant.
84

Mean travel time to work fell significantly in Northeast Georgia between 2010 and 2015, from 44 minutes to 28 minutes. In CRSA it remained almost constant.
Comparison of Heart of Georgia Altamaha and Southern Georgia Regions In Heart of Georgia Altamaha, there was a 53 percent increase in the number of paid employees, totaling an increase of 35,569 paid employees in the region between 2010 and 2015. By contrast, the number of paid employees in Southern Georgia declined by almost 8000, or 5 percent over this period. Heart of Georgia Altamaha issued over 35,500 new building permits, representing a 53 percent increase since 2010. Southern Georgia issued just under 400 new building permits, which represents a 42 percent increase, though starting from a much smaller base than Heart of Georgia Altamaha. In Heart of Georgia Altamaha, there was a 4 percent increase in the obese population compared to a 1 percent increase in Southern Georgia. In Southern Georgia, the mean travel time to work decreased from 30 to 23 minutes from 2010 to 2015, while in Heart of Georgia Altamaha it remained around 24 minutes.
Comparison of River Valley and Middle Georgia Regions River Valley is a region that passed the TIA. Its socioeconomic characteristics will be compared to the Middle Georgia region, which did not pass the TIA, to compare changes in these regions since 2010. Tables 4144 provide 2010 and 2015 data for each region and are followed by a descriptive analysis.
85

TABLE 41 2010 RIVER VALLEY SOCIOECONOMIC DATA

2010 DATA

Panel 1: River Valley

Population, 2010

Area (sq. miles) Median Age, 2010

White Alone, Percent, 2010

Foreign Born Persons, Percent,
2010

Population Density Median (population per Household square mile) Income, 2010

Number of Paid Employees, 2010

Building Permit Estimates, Units, 2010

Percentage of Housing Units Vacant, 2010

Percentage of Population 25 and Older with Bachelor's Degree, 2010

Percentage of Population Obese, 2010

Mean Travel Time to Work (Minutes), 20082012

Chattahoochee Clay Crisp Dooly Harris Macon
Marion Muscogee Quitman Randolph
Schley Stewart Sumter Talbot Taylor Webster

11,267 3,183 23,439 14,918 32,024 14,740 8,742 189,885 2,513 7,719 5,010 6,058 32,819 6,865 8,906 2,799

248.7 195.4 272.6 391.9 463.9 400.6 366 216.4 151.2 428.2 166.9 458.7 482.7 391.4 376.7 209.1

24

68.8%

5.5%

45.3

$48,684

627

6

24.1%

21.4%

27.5%

14.5

45.8

37.6%

1.2%

16.3

$22,582

375

10

38.2%

6.5%

30.1%

24.3

38.1

53.3%

1.5%

86

$32,320

6,455

75

17.2%

8.9%

28.2%

18.9

40

45.6%

3.9%

38.1

$30,789

2,299

0

19.7%

6.4%

29.5%

18.4

42

79.3%

2.3%

69

$68,816

3,360

88

15.5%

15.9%

25.5%

28.1

38.2

35.1%

4.4%

36.8

$30,906

2,035

1

21.7%

6.2%

31.7%

22.5

40.8

60.1%

4.9%

23.9

$33,875

1,182

17

26.3%

6.0%

28.0%

28.6

33.5

46.3%

5.0%

877.5

$41,443

78,399

339

12.8%

13.8%

28.8%

19.1

46.4

51.3%

0.2%

16.6

$32,750

243

5

48.3%

4.7%

28.2%

21.1

42.8

36.6%

1.3%

18

$32,688

1,251

1

28.0%

6.0%

31.0%

18.5

37.1

73.0%

2.4%

30

$40,612

788

0

19.6%

8.4%

26.9%

30.4

37.3

28.0%

9.6%

13.2

$28,222

761

1

18.4%

5.1%

30.6%

30.3

33.8

42.2%

3.7%

68

$33,528

8,406

19

17.0%

10.8%

29.2%

18.7

45.6

39.0%

0.8%

17.5

$26,750

570

6

20.6%

6.4%

30.1%

28.9

39.7

58.5%

1.5%

23.6

$28,402

1,034

10

22.4%

5.8%

28.1%

26.1

40.6

54.0%

0.5%

13.4

$29,926

230

0

19.3%

5.1%

29.4%

25

Average

23,180

326.3

39.1

Median

8,824

-

-

Total

370,887

5,220.4

NA

50.5% NA

3.00% NA

87.1

$35,143

6,750.90

36

23.10%

8.60%

28.90%

23.3

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

71.0

NA

108,014.50

578

NA

NA

NA

NA

86

Note: Observation periods vary by data source; 2010 and 2015 observations are derived from decennial census and mid-term census reports while other time periods reflect the latest government data available.

TABLE 42 2015 RIVER VALLEY SOCIOECONOMIC DATA

2015 DATA

Panel 2: River Valley

Population, 2015 Area (sq. miles)

Median Age, 2015

Chattahoochee

11,914

249

23

Clay

3,104

195

40

Crisp

23,314

273

38

Dooly

14,293

392

41

Harris

32,776

464

43

Macon

14,045

401

41

Marion

8,739

366

42

Muscogee

200,285

216

34

Quitman

2,326

151

49

Randolph

7,315

428

39

Schley

5,074

167

38

Stewart

5,868

459

38

Sumter

31,429

483

35

Talbot

6,490

391

48

Taylor

8,401

377

43

Webster

2,720

209

41

Average

23,631

326

40

Median

8,570

-

-

Total

378,093

5,221

NA

White Alone, Percent, 2015

Foreign Born Persons, Percent,
2015

Population Density
(population per square mile)

Median Household Income, 2015

69.9% 31.8% 53.9% 44.1% 78.5% 36.8% 58.8% 45.8% 49.6% 34.8% 73.6% 29.8% 42.6% 41.4% 58.7% 43.2%

6.8% 1.7% 2.1% 4.4% 2.2% 3.1% 4.7% 5.4% 0.7% 2.7% 1.7% 25.8% 2.9% 0.9% 1.1% 0.2%

48

43,378

16

20,438

86

31,615

36

28,696

71

63,824

35

28,684

24

36,242

926

42,306

15

31,487

17

28,377

30

39,375

13

21,118

65

32,758

17

34,078

22

28,143

13

37,063

Number of Paid Employees, 2015
6,555 840 8,340 4,760 14,813 4,203 3,133 86,104 734 2,474 1,916 1,488 11,035 2,449 2,799 1,115

Building Permit Estimates, Units, 2016

Percentage of Housing Units Vacant, 2015

2

22.5%

6

37.2%

20

19.2%

0

19.8%

180

15.0%

4

22.9%

13

25.8%

295

12.9%

1

51.4%

3

23.8%

6

13.6%

0

26.1%

16

17.7%

5

21.1%

12

24.6%

6

23.7%

Percentage of Population 25 and Older with Bachelor's Degree, 2015

Percentage of Population Obese, 2013

Mean Travel Time to Work (Minutes), 20082012

19.3%

27.3%

15

2.7%

29.8%

30

8.9%

31.1%

19

6.7%

34.7%

21

15.7%

28.4%

26

5.3%

36.4%

25

7.0%

32.9%

31

15.0%

28.8%

20

6.3%

34.0%

21

7.1%

33.7%

19

9.4%

30.4%

27

8.7%

34.2%

28

9.3%

32.7%

21

9.2%

33.3%

33

6.6%

28.8%

29

4.3%

32.1%

27

49.6%

4.2%

-

-

NA

NA

90

34,224

9,547

36

23.6%

8.8%

31.8%

25

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

72

NA

152,758

569

NA

NA

NA

NA

87

Note: Observation periods vary by data source; 2010 and 2015 observations are derived from decennial census and mid-term census reports while other time periods reflect the latest government data available.

TABLE 43 2010 MIDDLE GEORGIA SOCIOECONOMIC DATA

2010 DATA

Panel 1: Population,

Middle GA

2010

Area (sq. miles)

Median Age, 2010

White Alone, Percent, 2010

Foreign Born Persons, Percent, 2010

Population Density
(population per square mile)

Median Household Income, 2010

Baldwin

46,905

258

34

56%

3%

182

37,237

Bibb

154,810

250

36

44%

4%

620

38,798

Crawford

12,821

325

39

73%

2%

39

37,062

Houston

134,880

376

34

65%

5%

359

55,098

Jones

28,292

394

39

74%

2%

72

50,717

Monroe

25,864

396

40

73%

2%

65

48,297

Peach

26,883

150

34

49%

5%

179

41,014

Pulaski

11,632

249

41

66%

1%

47

36,262

Putnam

20,925

345

44

69%

4%

61

41,529

Twiggs

9,385

358

41

56%

1%

26

26,521

Wilkinson

9,685

447

40

59%

1%

22

37,902

Average

43,826

322

38

62%

3%

152

40,949

Median

25,864

-

-

-

-

-

-

Total

482,082

3,547

NA

N/A

N/A

136

NA

Number of Paid Employees, 2010

Building Permit Percentage of

Estimates, Units, Housing Units

2010

Vacant, 2010

17,945

61

19%

62,484

192

18%

5,589

15

12%

60,057

646

12%

12,712

25

11%

11,816

110

11%

10,551

78

16%

4,514

14

17%

8,814

35

33%

2,875

7

28%

3,362

2

22%

Percentage of

Population and Older with Bachelor's

25

Percentage of Population Obese, 2010

Mean Travel Time to Work (Minutes), 2010

Degree, 2010

6%

32%

18

10%

30%

15

7%

31%

84

10%

30%

20

8%

31%

70

8%

33%

44

7%

34%

25

3%

31%

34

8%

32%

33

4%

32%

60

6%

32%

27

18,247

108

-

-

200,719

1,185

18%

7%

32%

39

-

-

-

-

N/A

N/A

N/A

NA

88

Note: Observation periods vary by data source; 2010 and 2015 observations are derived from decennial census and mid-term census reports while other time periods reflect the latest government data available.

TABLE 44 2015 MIDDLE GEORGIA SOCIOECONOMIC DATA

2015 DATA

Panel 2: Population,

Middle GA

2015

Area (sq. miles)

Median Age, 2015

White Alone, Percent, 2015

Foreign Born Persons, Percent, 2015

Population Density
(population per square mile)

Median Household Income, 2015

Baldwin

45,795

258

34

54.6%

2.6%

Bibb

154,816

250

36

42.9%

3.7%

Crawford

12,539

325

44

73.8%

1.4%

Houston

147,570

376

35

61.5%

5.8%

Jones

28,738

394

39

72.6%

0.9%

Monroe

26,915

396

42

73.4%

1.7%

Peach

27,086

150

35

47.5%

5.9%

Pulaski

11,590

249

41

62.9%

2.3%

Putnam

21,247

345

46

68.9%

6.9%

Twiggs

8,509

358

46

55.9%

0.2%

Wilkinson

9,386

447

42

59.6%

1.4%

Average

44,926

322

40

61.2%

3.0%

Median

26,915

-

-

-

-

Total

494,191

3,547

NA

NA

NA

178

32,460

620

36,519

39

41,825

393

53,270

73

51,857

68

48,744

180

41,588

47

38,750

62

44,299

24

30,468

21

38,485

155

41,660

-

-

139

NA

Number of Paid Employees, 2015

Building Permit Percentage of

Estimates, Units, Housing Units

2016

Vacant, 2015

15,780

51

20.9%

58,764

89

18.5%

4,819

17

13.7%

64,693

775

10.4%

12,010

23

11.0%

10,499

106

12.1%

11,384

56

11.4%

3,929

8

18.5%

9,205

62

33.6%

2,526

1

28.0%

3,209

9

25.5%

Percentage of

Population and Older with Bachelor's

25

Percentage of Population Obese, 2013

Mean Travel Time to Work (Minutes), 20082012

Degree, 2015

9.2%

36.8%

21

14.5%

31.3%

21

8.4%

27.3%

28

14.3%

31.0%

21

12.2%

33.5%

27

12.2%

31.9%

26

13.2%

34.4%

22

6.2%

31.7%

21

12.4%

30.0%

26

6.0%

32.8%

32

3.9%

34.5%

24

17,893

109

18.5%

10.2%

32.3%

24

-

-

-

-

-

-

196,818

1,197

NA

NA

NA

NA

89

Note: Observation periods vary by data source; 2010 and 2015 observations are derived from decennial census and mid-term census reports while other time periods reflect the latest government data available.

2010 Baseline Data for River Valley and Middle Georgia Regions An indicator of each jurisdictions' relative similarities and differences can be broadly understood by comparing population, land area, number of counties, and population density. The River Valley region is composed of 16 counties, while Middle Georgia has 11 counties. In terms of land area, River Valley is larger, encompassing a total of 5221 square miles, which is about 1.5 times the size of Middle Georgia (3547 square miles).
While larger in land area, River Valley had a total population of 370,887 in 2010, which was about 100,000 less than the population of Middle Georgia at 482,082. As such, the population density in Middle Georgia (136 people per square mile) is higher than in River Valley (71 people per square mile). While the average area of the individual counties within these regions is similar (326 square miles and 322 square miles, respectively), the median population in Middle Georgia (25,864) was triple that of River Valley (8824).
More detailed demographic and socioeconomic information provides greater insight into each region's makeup and can highlight trends within and between the study areas. The demographic makeup of the regions in 2010 was similar overall. The median age of residents in the two regions was very similar in 2010 at 39 years for River Valley and 38 years for Middle Georgia. For both regions, 3 percent of the population was foreign-born in in 2010. Half of the population was White in River Valley, while White individuals represented over 60 percent of the population in Middle Georgia. Seven percent of the population in Middle Georgia over 25 years of age had a bachelor's degree, which is comparable to River Valley's 9 percent.
90

The economic characteristics of these two regions' population in 2010 were similar overall, but with some variation. The median household income in Middle Georgia was $40,949, which was about 16 percent higher than in River Valley ($35,143). The number of paid employees was over 200,000 in Middle Georgia, almost double that of River Valley where the number was 108,014. This difference is likely related to Middle Georgia's larger overall population.
With respect to the housing stock, the percent of vacant houses in River Valley (23 percent) was greater than in Middle Georgia (18 percent). There were 1185 building permits issued in Middle Georgia in 2010, compared to 578 building permits issued in River Valley for that year.
Regarding obesity, Middle Georgia had slightly higher obesity rates (32 percent of the population) compared to River Valley's 29 percent. The mean travel time to work in Middle Georgia was 39 minutes, compared to a 23-minute average commute time experienced in River Valley.
2015 Data and Changes since 2010 for River Valley and Middle Georgia Regions Since 2010, the number of counties has remained constant in both regions, as has the land area. Regarding population, both grew between 2010 and 2015, though Middle Georgia experienced slightly more population growth (2.5 percent) than River Valley (1.9 percent). Population density remained almost constant for these two regions over those five years.
The sociodemographic characteristics in both regions remained constant, with some small variations. The median age for both regions in 2015 was 40, which is comparable to the median age in 2010. The percent of foreign-born persons in River Valley increased by 1 percent, while it remained almost constant in Middle Georgia. The White-only population decreased slightly
91

by about 1 percent in both River Valley and Middle Georgia. The population over 25 years of age with a bachelor's degree remained almost constant in River Valley, while in Middle Georgia it rose by just over 3 percent.
Median household income remained mostly constant in both regions, with slight fluctuations. The median household income in River Valley fell by 3 percent, from about $35,000 in 2010 to about $34,000 in 2015. Of note, when data are observed on the county level, Webster and Talbot Counties in River Valley experienced over 20 percent increases in median household income, while in Stewart County median household income decreased by the same proportion. In Middle Georgia, median household income rose by 2 percent. The number of paid employees in River Valley increased by 41 percent overall, while in Middle Georgia it decreased by almost 2 percent. In River Valley, Harris and Chattahoochee Counties experienced the most job growth between 2010 and 2015 with about 11,500 and 6000 new jobs added in each county, respectively.
Regarding housing stock, the percent of vacant housing units remained constant in both River Valley and Middle Georgia over the years, at around 23 percent and 18 percent, respectively. The number of building permits declined by 1.6% in River Valley and increased slightly (by 1 percent) in Middle Georgia.
The percent of the obese population increased by almost 3 percent in River Valley and remained about the same in Middle Georgia as the 2010 rates. Finally, the mean travel time to work in River Valley increased by an average of 1.7 minutes. In Middle Georgia, it fell by an average of 15 minutes, cutting commute times down by over 35 percent.
92

Comparison of Central Savannah River Area and Northeast Georgia Regions Central Savannah River Area is a region that passed the TIA. As with the two regions described above, Central Savannah River Area's socioeconomic characteristics will be compared to the Northeast Georgia region, which did not pass the TIA Act, to compare changes since 2010. Tables 4548 provide 2010 and 2015 data for each region, followed by a descriptive analysis.
93

TABLE 45 2010 CENTRAL SAVANNAH RIVER AREA SOCIOECONOMIC DATA

Panel 1: Central Savannah River
Area

Population, 2010 Area (sq. miles)

Median Age, 2010

Burke

23,316

827

35.9

Columbia

124,053

290.1

36.8

Glascock

3,082

143.7

39.3

Hancock

9,429

471.8

43

Jefferson

16,930

526.5

38.8

Jenkins

8,340

347.3

38.2

Lincoln

7,996

210.4

45

McDuffie

21,875

257.5

38.4

Richmond

200,549

324.3

33.2

Taliaferro

1,717

194.6

45.9

Warren

5,834

284.3

42.9

Washington

21,187

678.5

38.9

Wilkes

10,593

469.5

43.4

White Alone, Percent, 2010

Foreign Born Persons, Percent,

2010

47.50% 76.50% 89.80% 24.40% 42.60% 54.90% 65.70% 57.20% 39.70% 37.30% 36.90% 45.00% 53.00%

1.50% 7.00% 1.10% 2.60% 0.60% 3.90% 1.50% 1.20% 3.40% 2.80% 0.70% 1.20% 0.90%

Population Density
(population per square mile)

Median Household Income, 2010

Number of Building

Paid

Permit

Employees, Estimates,

2010

Units, 2010

28.2

$31,597

4,838

41

Percentage of

Percentage of Housing Units Vacant, 2010

Population and Older with Bachelor's

25

Percentage of Population Obese, 2010

Degree, 2010

21.20%

6.00% 31.30%

Mean Travel Time to Work (Minutes), 200287-2.6012

427.6

$67,295 26,284

1,285 10.40% 21.20% 23.40% 24.4

21.4

$32,346

175

NA 20.90%

5.10% 25.90% 28.3

20

$22,716

727

12 46.10%

7.40% 31.60% 24.9

32.2

$27,612

3,806

19 15.30%

6.30% 30.30% 21.9

24

$27,039

834

8 29.60%

9.40% 29.40% 25.8

38

$34,347

940

16 28.60%

6.80% 28.00% 32.7

85

$38,855

6,172

33 11.90%

8.30% 28.30% 25.3

618.3

$38,952 80,515

378 15.20% 12.50% 28.40% 20.1

8.8

$24,390

55

2 35.10%

5.90% 30.30% 26.5

20.5

$32,155

603

0 23.20%

4.20% 30.70% 23.6

31.2

$31,441

5,368

4 21.20%

7.70% 30.70% 23.4

22.6

$28,224

2,648

17 20.70%

8.10% 28.10% 24.8

Average

34,992

386.6

40

51.60%

2.20%

106

$33,613

10,228

NA 23.00%

8.40% 29.00% 25.3

Median

10,593

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Total

454,901

5,025.40

NA

NA

NA

90.5

NA

132,964 1,815.00

NA

NA

NA

NA

94

Note: Observation periods vary by data source; 2010 and 2015 observations are derived from decennial census and mid-term census reports while other time periods reflect the latest government data available.

TABLE 46 2015 CENTRAL SAVANNAH RIVER AREA SOCIOECONOMIC DATA

2015 DATA

Panel 2: Central Savannah

Population, 2015

Area (sq. miles)

Median Age, 2015

Burke

23,007

827

36

Columbia

136,204

290

37

Glascock

3,087

144

40

Hancock

8,881

472

44

Jefferson

16,374

526

38

Jenkins

8,922

347

41

Lincoln

7,720

210

47

McDuffie

21,582

257

38

Richmond

201,291

324

33

Taliaferro

1,721

195

48

Warren

5,561

284

44

Washington

20,785

678

40

Wilkes

9,991

469

44

White Alone, Percent, 2015

Foreign Born Persons, Percent,
2015

Population Density
(population per square mile)

Median Household Income, 2015

47.8%

2.1%

75.5%

6.5%

88.4%

0.8%

24.5%

2.6%

43.4%

2.1%

62.6%

4.1%

66.2%

1.5%

56.3%

1.8%

39.1%

3.6%

40.0%

1.5%

37.6%

2.0%

45.6%

1.6%

53.2%

3.2%

28

33,641

470

71,021

21

40,759

19

24,925

31

26,557

26

24,604

37

34,243

84

36,656

621

37,424

9

26,306

20

29,176

31

37,932

21

32,727

Number of Paid Employees, 2015

Building Permit Estimates, Units, 2016

Percentage of

Percentage of Housing Units Vacant, 2015

Population 25 and Older with Bachelor's

Percentage of Population Obese, 2013

Degree, 2015

Mean Travel Time to Work (Minutes), 2008-2012

8,593

50

17.6%

5.6%

32.0%

26

62,435

1,235

13.0%

21.6%

30.3%

25

1,327

N/A

25.6%

5.1%

28.6%

29

2,120

19

46.8%

5.9%

31.2%

28

5,041

1

16.5%

7.3%

35.3%

25

2,985

13

26.1%

7.5%

29.9%

22

3,051

24

28.5%

7.4%

29.0%

31

8,153

23

12.3%

9.2%

33.4%

26

80,653

335

17.5%

12.7%

34.1%

20

569

N/A

34.1%

6.3%

31.4%

28

1,943

0

28.1%

8.1%

32.0%

26

7,249

71

20.0%

9.4%

32.2%

21

3,755

5

22.4%

8.7%

32.9%

25

Average

35,779

387

41

52.3%

2.6%

109

35,075

14,452

161

23.7%

8.8%

31.7%

26

Median

9,991

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Total

465,126

5,025

NA

N/A

N/A

93

NA

187,874

1,776

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

95

Note: Observation periods vary by data source; 2010 and 2015 observations are derived from decennial census and mid-term census reports while other time periods reflect the latest government data available.

TABLE 47 2010 NORTHEAST GEORGIA SOCIOECONOMIC DATA

2010 DATA

Panel 1: Population,

Northeast GA

2010

Clarke Barrow Elbert Greene Jackson Jasper Madison Morgan Newton Oconee Oglethorpe Walton
Average Median
Total

115,070 66,359 20,421 15,844 58,347 13,695 27,798 17,741 96,833 31,508 14,556 81,491
40,418 29,653 444,593

Area (sq. miles)

Median Age, 2010

White Alone, Percent, 2010

Foreign Born Persons,
Percent, 2010

Population Density
(population per square
mile)

Median Household Income, 2010

Number of Paid Employees, 2010

Building Permit Estimates, Units, 2010

119

26

65%

11%

965

34,253

52,950

94

160

33

81%

7%

414

48,958

30,125

62

351

40

67%

3%

58

30,543

8,379

18

387

45

56%

3%

41

38,513

5,823

124

340

36

88%

5%

172

51,506

26,421

82

368

38

74%

3%

37

42,081

6,036

36

282

39

90%

3%

98

41,343

12,312

58

347

41

74%

2%

51

45,817

7,972

33

272

34

56%

6%

356

52,361

43,033

58

184

39

89%

6%

171

74,352

15,279

74

439

41

78%

2%

33

39,319

5,990

0

326

37

80%

4%

250

51,721

38,661

69

Percentage

Percentage of Housing Units Vacant, 2010

of Population 25 and Older with Bachelor's

Percentage of Population Obese, 2010

Mean Travel Time to Work (Minutes), 2010

Degree, 2010

17%

11%

27%

13

11%

6%

32%

54

19%

4%

36%

22

28%

9%

32%

22

10%

7%

26%

35

18%

5%

30%

77

19%

5%

32%

52

12%

10%

32%

23

11%

8%

32%

50

8%

14%

27%

30

26%

4%

29%

96

9%

8%

28%

57

314

37

76%

3.8%

221

45,897

18,185

56

15.4%

7%

30%

44

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3,457

NA

NA

NA

129

NA

200,031

614

NA

NA

NA

NA

96

Note: Observation periods vary by data source; 2010 and 2015 observations are derived from decennial census and mid-term census reports while other time periods reflect the latest government data available.

TABLE 48 2015 NORTHEAST GEORGIA SOCIOECONOMIC DATA

2015 DATA

Panel 2: Population,

Northeast GA

2015

Clarke Barrow Elbert Greene Jackson Jasper Madison Morgan Newton Oconee Oglethorpe Walton
Average Median
Total

120,905 72,012 19,537 16,331 61,420 13,593 28,232 17,900 102,645 34,400 14,688 86,201
48,989 31,316 587,864

Area (sq. miles)

Median Age, 2015

White Alone, Percent, 2015

Foreign Born Persons,
Percent, 2015

Population Density
(population per square
mile)

Median Household Income, 2015

Number of Paid Employees, 2015

Building Permit Estimates, Units, 2016

119

27

64.7%

10.0%

1,014

32,162

52,953

116

160

35

80.5%

7.1%

449

52,012

31,553

388

351

41

66.8%

2.6%

56

35,388

7,068

21

387

48

59.2%

4.9%

42

42,408

5,921

188

340

38

88.4%

4.3%

181

53,379

26,381

873

368

40

73.9%

3.3%

37

42,368

5,382

62

282

40

85.1%

3.7%

100

41,912

11,338

8

347

43

73.9%

2.1%

52

51,820

7,443

105

272

36

53.9%

5.8%

377

49,179

42,612

328

184

40

88.9%

5.4%

187

72,182

15,970

377

439

42

77.9%

1.7%

33

44,226

6,290

39

326

39

79.6%

4.1%

265

54,453

36,692

513

Percentage

Percentage of Housing Units Vacant, 2015

of Population 25 and Older with Bachelor's

Percentage of Population Obese, 2013

Mean Travel Time to Work (Minutes), 2008-2012

Degree, 2015

15.9%

20.2%

25.3%

19

11.8%

11.5%

34.6%

33

18.7%

5.7%

31.1%

22

25.0%

12.7%

29.7%

26

11.4%

13.1%

27.4%

31

16.9%

7.3%

29.3%

35

13.2%

8.8%

31.9%

27

14.4%

13.9%

26.5%

27

9.7%

13.7%

32.9%

32

7.5%

22.2%

28.8%

24

14.6%

10.0%

30.1%

29

8.7%

12.5%

34.4%

31

298

39

74.4%

4.6%

233

47,624

20,800

252

14.0%

12.6%

30.2%

28

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3,577

NA

NA

N/A

164

NA

249,603

3,018

NA

NA

NA

NA

97

Note: Observation periods vary by data source; 2010 and 2015 observations are derived from decennial census and mid-term census reports while other time periods reflect the latest government data available.

2010 Baseline Data for Central Savannah River Area and Northeast Georgia Regions The Central Savannah River Area region has 13 counties, while Northeast Georgia has 12. In terms of land area, Central Savannah River Area is larger with a total land area of 5025 square miles, compared to Northeast Georgia's land area of 3457 square miles. Note that the square mileage listed for 2015 is 3577 and no explanation was given in government data for the variation.
In 2010, both regions had comparable population sizes. Central Savannah River Area had a total population of 454,901 compared to Northeast Georgia's population of 444,593. Given its smaller overall land size, Northeast Georgia was more densely populated (129 people per square mile) than Central Savannah River Area (91 people per square mile).
The sociodemographic characteristics of the two regions were similar in 2010, with slight variations. The median age in Central Savannah River Area was 40 years, compared to 37 years in Northeast Georgia. Northeast Georgia had a larger proportion of White residents (76 percent) compared to Central Savannah River Area (52 percent). Both regions had low proportions of foreign-born persons, though Northeast Georgia had a slightly higher proportion (4 percent) than Central Savannah River Area (2 percent). The proportion of the population 25 years and older with a bachelor's degree was 8 percent in Central Savannah River Area compared to 7 percent in Northeast Georgia.
Northeast Georgia's 2010 socioeconomic characteristics show a pattern of higher values than Central Savannah River Area regarding median household income and number of paid employees. Median household income in Northeast Georgia was almost $46,000, which is
98

about 37 percent higher than in Central Savannah River Area in 2010 ($33,613). Similarly, the number of paid employees in Northeast Georgia was just over 200,000 and about 133,000 in Central Savannah River Area.
Regarding 2010 housing stock data, Central Savannah River Area had a higher proportion of vacant homes (23 percent) than Northeast Georgia (15 percent). Regarding construction, however, there appeared to be more activity in Central Savannah River Area where 1815 building permits were estimated to have been issued, compared to 614 permits in Northeast Georgia.
Obesity rates in both regions were comparable in 2010, representing about 30 percent of the population. The mean commute time in Northeast Georgia was almost 45 minutes, which is nearly double the mean commute time in Central Savannah River Area of just over 25 minutes.
2015 Data and Changes since 2010 for Central Savannah River Area and Northeast Georgia Between 2010 and 2015, the number of counties remained the same in each region. Northeast Georgia grew in population by over 140,000, representing a 32 percent population growth. Population density grew by about 28 percent. In contrast, the population in Central Savannah River Area has lagged in population growth, adding just over 10,000 or 2 percent since 2010. Population density has also remained about the same.
Median age has remained almost constant for the two regions between 2010 and 2015, increasing by one and two years of age in Central Savannah River Area and Northeast Georgia, respectively. The proportion of the population that is White-only remains the same at 52 percent in Central Savannah River Area. The proportion of White people dropped slightly in
99

Northeast Georgia but continues to represent three-quarters of the population (74 percent). The foreign-born population rose slightly in both regions but was still less than 5 percent of the total population. In Northeast Georgia, the percentage of the population over 25 years of age and with a bachelor's degree or higher almost doubled from 7 percent in 2010 to about 13 percent in 2015. In contrast, the percentage of the population over 25 years of age and with a bachelor's degree has remained constant in Central Savannah River Area, at about 9 percent.
Economic characteristics have changed more in Northeast Georgia than Central Savannah River Area since 2010, though jobs appear to be growing at a faster rate in the latter. Median household income rose slightly in both regions by similar proportions over the years and remains higher in Northeast Georgia ($47,624) compared to Central Savannah River Area ($35,075). Over the past five years, job growth has increased at a faster rate in Central Savannah River Area than Northeast Georgia, though the latter retains more paid employees. The number of paid employees in Central Savannah River Area grew by almost 55,000 to 187,874, which represents a 41 percent increase between 2010 and 2015. During the same timeframe, Northeast Georgia added almost 50,000 jobs for a total of 249,603, representing an increase of almost 25 percent.
With respect to the housing stock, the number of vacant housing units has remained almost constant over five years in both regions with slight variations: the value increased to almost 24 percent in Central Savannah River Area, compared to a decrease of 14 percent in Northeast Georgia. The estimated number of building permits decreased by about 2 percent in Central
100

Savannah River Area. In contrast, over 2400 new building permits have been issued in Northeast Georgia, representing an increase of almost 400 percent since 2010. In Jackson County alone, there were almost 873 new building permits issued. Rates of obesity remained almost constant in Northeast Georgia at 30 percent of the population. In Central Savannah River Area, the rate of obesity increased by about 9 percent from 2010, to 32 percent in 2015. Mean travel time to work remained almost constant in Central Savannah River Area, increasing by just under a minute to 26 minutes. In contrast, mean travel time to work dropped significantly in Northeast Georgia between 2010 and 2015, from 44 minutes to 28 minutes. Comparison of Heart of Georgia Altamaha and Southern Georgia Regions Heart of Georgia Altamaha is a region that passed the TIA. Its socioeconomic characteristics will be compared to the Southern Georgia region, which did not pass the TIA, to compare changes in these regions since 2010. Tables 4952 show 2010 and 2015 data for each region, followed by a descriptive analysis.
101

TABLE 49 2010 HEART OF GEORGIA ALTAMAHA SOCIOECONOMIC DATA

2010 DATA

Panel 1: Heart of Georgia

Population, 2010

Area (sq. miles)

Median Age, 2010

Appling

18,236

507.1

38.1

Bleckley

13,063

215.9

35.9

Candler

10,998

243

37.6

Dodge

21,796

495.9

38.5

Emanuel

22,598

680.6

36.8

Evans

11,000

182.9

35.9

Jeff Davis

15,068

330.7

36

Johnson

9,980

303

40.4

Laurens

48,434

807.3

38

Montgomery

9,123

239.5

37

Tattnall

25,520

479.4

36.6

Telfair

16,500

437.3

39.2

Toombs

27,223

364

36

Treutlen

6,885

199.4

36.8

Wayne

30,099

641.8

37.6

Wheeler

7,421

295.5

37.9

Wilcox

9,255

377.7

39.7

White Alone, Percent, 2010

Foreign Born Persons, Percent,
2010

Population Density
(population per square mile)

Median Household Income, 2010

73.40% 70.10% 65.90% 66.80% 61.60% 58.80% 76.10% 63.10% 60.60% 69.00% 62.70% 57.00% 65.10% 65.20% 75.90% 61.30% 61.70%

5.70% 1.90% 6.20% 2.60% 1.40% 7.60% 4.70% 1.30% 2.00% 4.20% 5.90% 10.30% 5.30% 1.00% 3.20% 0.70% 1.90%

36

$35,875

60.5

$37,853

45.3

$35,833

44

$36,042

33.2

$31,675

60.2

$36,602

45.6

$35,203

32.9

$34,521

60

$35,912

38.1

$33,569

53.2

$36,520

37.7

$24,469

74.8

$31,757

34.5

$35,960

46.9

$36,496

25.1

$27,601

24.5

$31,509

Percentage

Number of Paid Building Permit Employees, 2010 Estimates, Units, 2010

of

Percentage of Housing Units Vacant, 2010

Population 25 and Older with Bachelor's

Degree,

Percentage of Population Obese, 2010

Mean Travel Time to Work (Minutes), 2008-2012

2010

5,392

2

16.90%

6.70%

28.70%

23.6

2,171

9

22.00%

6.40%

27.30%

24

2,122

0

19.60%

10.40%

25.90%

22

3,522

12

16.10%

9.10%

29.80%

24.9

5,261

5

18.60%

5.80%

29.40%

24.2

3,746

14

11.40%

9.10%

27.80%

20.5

3,419

0

11.30%

7.30%

30.70%

23.1

1,053

0

18.40%

7.50%

28.50%

28

15,514

60

17.70%

8.90%

27.80%

22.4

1,121

9

16.20%

9.10%

26.40%

21.4

2,909

21

18.90%

6.50%

30.70%

23.8

3,812

0

19.20%

6.00%

30.70%

20.7

9,324

21

14.50%

9.00%

28.10%

21.3

728

6

14.70%

6.00%

29.90%

24.2

5,684

3

16.60%

7.50%

27.30%

24.1

1,032

0

22.40%

4.50%

27.90%

20.3

535

0

24.50%

6.70%

27.20%

26.2

Average

17,835

400.1

37.5

65.50%

3.90%

44.3

$33,964.53

3,961.50

NA

17.60%

7.40%

28.50%

23.2

Median

15,068

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Total

303,199

6,801.0

NA

NA

NA

44.6

NA

67,345.00

162

NA

NA

NA

NA

102

Note: Observation periods vary by data source; 2010 and 2015 observations are derived from decennial census and mid-term census reports while other time periods reflect the latest government data available.

TABLE 50 2015 HEART OF GEORGIA ALTAMAHA SOCIOECONOMIC DATA

2015 DATA

Panel 2: Heart of Population, 2015 Area (sq. miles) GA

Median Age, 2015

Appling

18,417

507

39

Bleckley

12,746

216

37

Candler

11,031

243

37

Dodge

21,180

496

40

Emanuel

22,731

681

37

Evans

10,814

183

35

Jeff Davis

14,990

331

36

Johnson

9,794

303

40

Laurens

47,886

807

39

Montgomery

8,968

240

38

Tattnall

25,302

479

36

Telfair

16,416

437

40

Toombs

27,210

364

35

Treutlen

6,762

199

43

Wayne

30,046

642

37

Wheeler

7,956

295

38

Wilcox

8,972

378

39

White Alone, Percent, 2015
76.7% 70.0% 66.8% 66.5% 61.1% 58.4% 76.1% 62.6% 61.3% 70.9% 61.0% 57.9% 66.4% 70.1% 74.4% 58.1% 59.5%

Foreign Born Persons, Percent,
2015

Population Density
(population per square mile)

Median Household Income, 2015

3.7% 1.9% 5.4% 2.3%
1.0% 5.3% 5.8%
0.9% 2.4% 4.4% 4.3%
12.3% 5.5%
1.2% 3.1% 1.6%
2.2%

36

37,135

59

38,991

45

30,185

43

34,271

33

32,229

59

37,865

45

36,385

32

34,438

59

32,356

37

34,672

53

33,980

38

26,449

75

33,679

34

38,596

47

38,955

27

27,620

24

32,043

Number of Paid Building Permit Employees, 2015 Estimates, Units, 2016

6,986

3

4,254

12

4,085

0

7,771

11

7,960

6

3,841

14

5,556

2

3,840

0

16,668

16

3,300

14

6,980

24

4,433

3

10,594

12

2,631

0

10,287

31

1,327

0

2,401

N/A

Percentag

e of

Percentage of
Housing Units
Vacant, 2015

Population
25 and Older with

Percentage of Population Obese, 2013

Bachelor's

19.2% Deg8r.2e%e,

22.0%

9.7%

34.8% 30.4%

17.1% 17.4%

10.2%2015 30.3%

8.9%

28.5%

17.6%

6.1%

36.3%

14.1% 10.3%

33.5%

15.8%

5.7%

30.0%

19.3%

5.1%

34.0%

17.3%

7.7%

36.2%

19.3%

8.2%

36.2%

20.3%

6.9%

33.1%

26.8%

5.4%

30.9%

11.7% 10.5%

31.5%

18.7% 10.5%

32.9%

17.0%

7.8%

31.8%

22.3%

4.0%

31.9%

21.7%

5.7%

31.5%

Mean Travel Time to Work (Minutes), 2008-2012
21 25 24 24 26 22 21 26 23 21 26 21 21 27 23 24 27

Average Median
Total

17,719 14,990 301,221

400 -
6,801

38

65.7%

3.7%

-

-

-

N/A

N/A

N/A

44

34,109

6,054

-

-

-

44

NA

102,914

9

18.7%

7.7%

32.6%

24

-

-

-

-

-

148

N/A

N/A

N/A

402

103

Note: Observation periods vary by data source; 2010 and 2015 observations are derived from decennial census and mid-term census reports while other time periods reflect the latest government data available.

TABLE 51 2010 SOUTHERN GEORGIA SOCIOECONOMIC DATA

2010 DATA

Panel 1: Southern GA

Population, 2010

Area (sq. miles)

Median Age, 2010

White Alone, Percent, 2010

Foreign Born Persons,
Percent, 2010

Population Density
(population per square mile)

Median Household Income, 2010

Number of Paid Employees, 2010

Building Permit Percentage of

Estimates,

Housing Units

Units, 2010 Vacant, 2010

Atkinson

8,332

339

33

70%

11%

25

33,834.00

3,225

0

21%

Bacon

10,969

259

36

78%

5%

42

31,429.00

4,058

0

19%

Ben Hill

17,631

250

37

59%

4%

70

30,134.00

6,268

36

17%

Berrien

18,708

452

37

85%

3%

41

32,202.00

7,296

28

14%

Brantley

17,650

442

37

95%

1%

40

37,343.00

7,366

22

15%

Brooks

16,338

493

39

60%

4%

33

41,309.00

7,482

24

17%

Charlton

12,310

774

37

68%

0%

16

40,850.00

4,504

17

15%

Clinch

6,841

800

36

67%

1%

9

31,963.00

2,739

5

16%

Coffee

41,647

575

35

66%

6%

72

35,202.00

16,402

45

14%

Cook

16,976

227

36

67%

3%

75

31,390.00

7,189

22

11%

Echols

3,973

415

29

68%

18%

10

32,390.00

1,650

3

17%

Irwin

9,642

354

37

71%

2%

27

38,376.00

3,469

19

18%

Lanier

9,404

185

33

70%

3%

51

37,522.00

3,890

68

17%

Lowndes

104,916

496

30

59%

4%

211

39,096.00

46,044

404

10%

Pierce

18,205

316

38

86%

2%

58

37,062.00

7,709

34

13%

Tift

39,823

259

34

64%

6%

154

36,847.00

17,251

72

12%

Turner

9,025

285

37

57%

2%

32

30,763.00

3,194

80

20%

Ware

36,006

892

37

67%

3%

40

35,517.00

13,716

45

20%

Average

22,133

434

36

70%

4%

56

35,179.39

9,081

51

16%

Median

16,657

385

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Total

398,396

7,815

NA

NA

NA

51

NA

163,452

924

NA

Percentage of Population 25 and Older with Bachelor's Degree, 2010

Percentage of Mean Travel Time to

Population Obese, Work (Minutes),

2010

2010

3%

31%

29

2%

31%

24

5%

33%

20

5%

30%

34

2%

31%

78

7%

33%

44

3%

32%

51

7%

33%

18

4%

31%

19

4%

32%

33

2%

28%

0

3%

31%

29

3%

29%

54

8%

31%

14

3%

31%

40

6%

32%

13

5%

33%

28

4%

34%

17

4%

31%

30

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

104

Note: Observation periods vary by data source; 2010 and 2015 observations are derived from decennial census and mid-term census reports while other time periods reflect the latest government data available.

TABLE 52 2015 SOUTHERN GEORGIA SOCIOECONOMIC DATA

2015 DATA

Panel 2: Southern GA

Population, 2015

Area (sq. miles)

Median Age, 2015

White Alone, Percent, 2015

Foreign Born Persons,
Percent, 2015

Population Density
(population per square mile)

Median Household Income, 2015

Number of Paid Employees, 2015

Building Permit Percentage of

Estimates,

Housing Units

Units, 2016

Vacant, 2015

Atkinson

8,294

339

35

66.8%

13.4%

24

30,933

3,342

0

Bacon

11,222

259

37

77.9%

6.0%

43

37,162

4,564

0

Ben Hill

17,477

250

39

61.0%

2.4%

70

29,994

6,011

7

Berrien

19,019

452

39

84.1%

2.5%

42

31,835

6,499

20

Brantley

18,452

442

39

94.5%

0.7%

42

37,206

6,620

2

Brooks

15,637

493

41

59.2%

3.2%

32

32,663

5,411

23

Charlton

13,130

774

41

71.8%

9.5%

17

42,778

4,611

20

Clinch

6,791

800

36

67.2%

1.9%

8

24,015

2,270

5

Coffee

43,003

575

35

66.2%

5.4%

75

33,965

15,107

64

Cook

17,033

227

37

69.1%

3.1%

75

35,683

6,934

27

Echols

4,048

415

35

83.6%

13.5%

10

32,959

1,658

3

Irwin

9,408

354

39

68.6%

0.8%

27

34,156

3,083

19

Lanier

10,403

185

34

72.4%

2.2%

56

37,605

3,630

16

Lowndes

113,203

496

29

57.8%

4.0%

228

36,834

47,298

899

Pierce

18,934

316

39

86.4%

2.5%

60

40,247

7,173

34

Tift

40,787

259

35

64.3%

6.0%

158

37,653

15,784

51

Turner

8,338

285

38

55.6%

4.3%

29

31,806

2,830

6

Ware

35,723

892

38

65.8%

3.5%

40

34,909

12,854

114

20.3% 17.0% 19.0% 19.6% 17.4% 14.1% 20.6% 13.2% 15.6% 15.0% 15.0% 18.9% 13.6% 13.4% 13.5% 13.9% 21.3% 15.2%

Average

22,828

434

37

70.7%

4.7%

Median

16,335

385

-

-

-

Total

410,902

5,580

NA

NA

NA

58

34,578

8,649

73

-

-

-

-

74

622,403

155,679

1,310

16.5% NA

Percentage of Population 25 and Older with Bachelor's Degree, 2015
5.2% 7.9% 7.1% 7.2% 4.7% 9.0% 5.9% 7.4% 8.6% 8.0% 6.5% 5.0% 7.7% 14.2% 7.7% 8.7% 7.9% 7.3%

Percentage of Mean Travel Time to

Population Obese, Work (Minutes),

2013

2008-2012

35.3%

22

32.7%

20

35.3%

16

34.7%

23

33.1%

32

33.5%

24

32.0%

28

29.6%

20

34.8%

20

31.4%

26

28.3%

25

29.2%

21

33.2%

25

31.3%

19

28.5%

27

34.0%

21

34.6%

24

35.5%

19

7.6%

32.6%

23

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

105

Note: Observation periods vary by data source; 2010 and 2015 observations are derived from decennial census and mid-term census reports while other time periods reflect the latest government data available.

2010 Baseline Data for Heart of Georgia Altamaha and Southern Georgia Regions There are 17 counties in Heart of Georgia, and 18 in Southern Georgia. In 2010, the Heart of Georgia Altamaha region had a total population of 303,199, with Laurens having the highest population per county at 48,434. For Southern Georgia, the total population in 2010 was 398,396, with Lowndes having the highest population per county at 104,916.
Heart of Georgia Altamaha has a total area of 6801 square miles and Southern Georgia has a total area of 7815 square miles. Though having a smaller land area, Heart of Georgia Altamaha still had lower population density than Southern Georgia with a total of about 44 people per square mile in 2010. Population density was about 51 for Southern Georgia in 2010.
In 2010, the average median age was 38 years for Heart of Georgia Altamaha and 36 years for Southern Georgia. Similarly, the difference between each region's White populations was small; it was about 66 percent of the population in Heart of Georgia Altamaha, and 70 percent in Southern Georgia. The percent of foreign-born persons was just 4 percent in both regions. Atkinson and Echols Counties in Southern Georgia had 11 percent and 18 percent foreign-born persons, respectively.
In Heart of Georgia Altamaha, just over 7 percent of persons over 25 years of age had received a bachelor's degree. Four percent of Southern Georgia's population met this criterion, including Lowndes County with the highest value of 8 percent.
The average median household income in Heart of Georgia Altamaha was about $34,000 in 2010, and it was just over $35,000 in Southern Georgia. The total number of paid employees was 67,345 in Heart of Georgia Altamaha and about 163,500 in Southern Georgia. While the
106

difference in median household income of $1,000 is negligible, a difference of 96,000 paid workers between the two regions is worth noting.
The average percentage of vacant houses in 2010 for Heart of Georgia Altamaha was 18 percent, and it was 16 percent in Southern Georgia. In 2010, a total of 162 building permits was issued in Heart of Georgia Altamaha and 924 in Southern Georgia. Six of 17 counties in Heart of Georgia Altamaha did not issue any building permits in 2010, compared to just two counties in Southern Georgia.
As an indicator of health, Heart of Georgia Altamaha had an average of 29 percent of the population suffering from obesity in 2010. In Southern Georgia, the reported obese population was 31 percent. For each region, the variation between counties is less than 5 percent.
The average mean travel time to work was 23 minutes in Heart of Georgia Altamaha and 30 minutes in Southern Georgia. In Heart of Georgia Altamaha, the county with the highest mean travel time was Johnson at 28 minutes. For Southern Georgia, the mean travel time to work had more variation between counties. Seven out of 18 counties in Southern Georgia had a mean travel time over 30 minutes. Some outliers include Brantley County at 78 minutes of travel time, Lanier County at 54 minutes, and Charlton County at 51 minutes.
2015 Data and Changes Since 2010 for Heart of Georgia Altamaha and Southern Georgia Regions The number of counties in Heart of Georgia Altamaha and Southern Georgia did not change from 2010 to 2015. For the entire region of Heart of Georgia Altamaha, the population decreased by 1978 persons. In Southern Georgia, however, the population increased by 12,506. The directionality and magnitude of these differences is worth noting. Lanier County
107

in Southern Georgia experienced the greatest change of any county in both regions with about an 11 percent increase in population. In terms of population density, Heart of Georgia Altamaha experienced less than a 1 percent decrease.
Median age changed by just over one percent for Heart of Georgia Altamaha between 2010 and 2015. During the same period, Southern Georgia experienced a change of 2.8 percent.
The percentage of White population did not change much from 2010 to 2015 in both regions overall. However, at the county level, Echols County in Southern Georgia experienced abo ut a 16 percent increase in the White population since 2010. The greatest change in the number of White population in Heart of Georgia Altamaha was seen in Treutlen County with a 5 percent increase.
Region-wide educational attainment (25 and older with bachelor's degree) increased by less than 1 percent in Heart of Georgia Altamaha and about 3 percent in Southern Georgia since 2010. In Southern Georgia, Lowndes County has the highest percent change in educational attainment at just over 6 percent. Median household income increased by less than 1 percent since 2010 in the Heart of Georgia Altamaha region, but there was about a 16 percent decrease in Candler County. In Southern Georgia, median household income decreased by about 2 percent region-wide.
One of the most notable differences between the regions is the number of paid employee s. For Southern Georgia, there was a region-wide decrease of about 5 percent since 2010. However, in Heart of Georgia Altamaha there was a 53 percent increase in the number of paid employees, totaling an increase of 35,569 paid employees in the region since 2010. Southern
108

Georgia experienced a loss of 7773 employees between 2010 and 2015. The counties in Heart of Georgia Altamaha that experienced the highest percentage increase in the number of paid employees since 2010 were Wilcox (349 percent), Johnson (265 percent), and Treutlen (262 percent.) The percentage of vacant houses did not change much since 2010, with Heart of Georgia Altamaha changing by about 1 percent and Southern Georgia changing by a just over a halfpercent. Heart of Georgia Altamaha decreased the number of building permits it issued in the region overall since 2010 by about 9 percent, while Southern Georgia issued 42 percent more building permits. In Heart of Georgia Altamaha, there was a 4 percent increase in the obese population compared to a 1 percent increase in Southern Georgia. Mean travel time to work in minutes for Heart of Georgia Altamaha remained almost unchanged between 2010 and 2015, i.e. 23.2 minutes and 24.0 minutes respectively. In Southern Georgia, the mean travel time to work decreased from 30 minutes to 23 minutes during the same period.
109

LOCAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Highway project expenditures 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 on other goods and services, new rounds of spending occur. This creates a cumulative effect that is larger than the initial spending.
The local economic impact of project expenditures depends upon the extent to which the successive rounds of spending recirculate within the local area or leak 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, or 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 highway construction projects.
The IMPLAN model is used to capture these dynamic expenditure processes. It is a 440-sector social accounting table and inputoutput matrix. The model replicates industry supply-chain linkages and patterns of household expenditures occurring in each 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. The model of Georgia's economy yields a total output multiplier of 1.89 for
110

highway construction expenditures. This means that highway projects generated a total economic impact of $1.89 for every dollar of project expenditure, and 16.6 new jobs for each $1.0 million of expenditures.5 GDOT's TIA web site (http://www.ga-tia.com/) reported that project expenditures through December 2016 amounted to $222.1 million. Expenditures reported through the Spring of 2018 amounted to $317.9 million and they covered the completion of 448 of the 871 projects approved by voters. Fifty-seven additional projects were under construction. The economic impact model was based on project expenditures made through 2016. The research estimated the combined economic impact of voter-approved projects is 3686 new jobs and $419.7 million in total economic activity. A secondary impact results from the participation of small businesses and Disadvantaged Business Enterprises on TIA-related projects as of 2016. Those amounts, respectively, were 4.1 percent and 5.1 percent. (See Tables 5355.)

TABLE 53 TIA FUNDS BUDGET AND REVENUE COLLECTED TO DATE

TIA funds budgeted ($2011)

Total Number of Voter Approved
TIA Projects

Revenue collected through 2016

Percent of total revenue collected
through 2016

2018 revenue collected to
date

Total expenditures to
date

CENTRAL SAVANNAH RIVER AREA $728,259,334

84

$261,745,875

35.9%

$334,432,573 $135,127,796

HEART OF GEORGIA ALTAMAHA $360,100,595

764

$117,437,889

32.6%

$148,943,955 $84,874,189

RIVER VALLEY

$410,754,730

23

$185,388,158

45.1%

$234,319,138 $97,993,414

TOTAL

$1,499,114,659

871

$564,571,922

$717,695,666 $317,995,399

5 The multiplier for Georgia highway expenditures are derived for a previous GDOT research report; see T. Boston (2014) Economic Development and Workforce Impacts of State DOT Highway Expenditures; Project Number 12-19, January 2014.
111

TABLE 54 TIA VOTER-APPROVED PROJECTS AND PROJECTS COMPLETED TO DATE

Total

expenditures to Total projects

date

completed

Total projects under
construction

Percent of total Percent of total

revenue

revenue

collected to expended to

date

date

Percent of total projects
completed or under
construction to date

CENTRAL SAVANNAH RIVER AREA $135,127,796

35

18

45.9%

18.6%

63.1%

HEART OF GEORGIA ALTAMAHA $84,874,189

409

33

41.4%

23.6%

57.9%

RIVER VALLEY

$97,993,414

4

6

57.0%

23.9%

43.5%

TOTAL

$317,995,399

448

57

TABLE 55 UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESSES AND DBES FOR TIA-FUNDED PROJECTS, THROUGH 2016

CSRA $ PERCENT HOGA $ PERCENT

RV $

PERCENT PROGRAM PERCENT

TOTAL $

TOTAL INVOICES PAID TOTAL DBE TOTAL SBE

63,714,983 4,989,022 3,116,214

100.0 7.8 4.9

49,606,003 1,222,483 311,964

100.0 2.5 0.6

62,585,959 2,722,456 3,777,008

100.0 4.3 6.0

175,906,946 8,933,961 7,205,186

100.0 5.1 4.1

112

CONCLUSIONS
With decreasing funding for transportation from traditional sources, local jurisdictions are increasingly looking to ballot-box measures and referendums on sales taxes to fund transportation projects. In Georgia, the ballot-box measure emerged as an option at the county level through the Local Option Sales Taxes. These measures were voted on for the first time at the regional level with the TIA referendum in 2012. The referendum was adopted in three regions, but rejected in the remaining nine regions, including in the Atlanta region, despite its major transportation problems. At the same time, two regions in Georgia are currently reconsidering the referendum, and there appears to be growing support for transit initiatives through referendums at the national level.
Important Findings and Conclusions The overall sentiment regarding the TIA program is overwhelmingly positive. A comparison of comments from Phase I to Phase II indicates there has been an overall increase in the level of satisfaction with the TIA program even though the satisfaction during Phase I was very high. Responses to the surveys and personal interviews indicate that providing local discretionary funds is extremely important to the success of referendums and to the level of satisfaction with the program. Greater local control over how transportation dollars are spent is the single-most important factor in TIA and non-TIA regions.
113

Most recipients of local discretionary funds have spent them on repairing and maintaining roads and bridges.
More jobs and faster economic growth is the second-most important factor to local participants of the TIA program.
Of respondents, 90.9 percent of residents in the TIA and 73.4 percent in the non-TIA regions indicated they would vote yes on TIA if they were to do it all over again. Broken down by specific areas, the results are as follows: Central Savannah River Area 87.2 percent; Heart of Georgia Altamaha 92.0 percent; River Valley 92.9 percent; Northeast Georgia 78.3 percent; Southern Georgia 65.3 percent; and Middle Georgia 79.1 percent. About 28 percent of respondents in the Southern Georgia region were undecided. This was the largest undecided percentage in any region.
TIA region residents are pleased with the way GDOT has implemented the program; 88.1 percent were either very satified or satisfied.
Of respondents in TIA regions, 92.4 percent indicate their region's participation was a good thing.
Notable Areas of Concern Some residents expressed concerns about the lack of construction in some areas, and they indicated that more local contractors need to be engaged. One concern expressed by a resident of Northeast Georgia is that the State puts too much emphasis on state routes instead of other transportation projects.
114

An important finding is that the public seems confused about the difference between the TSPLOST and the TIA program.
115

RECOMMENDATIONS
While most respondents were familiar with the TIA program, the regions would benefit if more marketing and education were devoted to households, as opposed to stakeholders.
All respondents emphasized the importance of local control over dollars, and the need for more jobs and economic growth. Focusing on these benefits of the TIA program might enhance the probability of the referendum passing in Middle and Southern Georgia. This is particularly important in Southern Georgia, which has the largest percentage of undecided voters.
It is important that the Phase III research on TIA highlight the specific economic benefits of the program.
Until now, most researchers have focused on why TIA failed in Atlanta. However, this Phase II research finds that it is more important to investigate other non-metro Atlanta regions of the state to truly understand the perceptions about TIA.
Educational campaigns about TIA should emphasize that the funds generated by the special tax (whether the 25 percent discretionary or the 75 percent for voter-approved projects) are not all being invested in the Atlanta metropolitan area. Additionally, it is important to explain the difference between the TSPLOST and the TIA program.
116

REFERENCES

Bowling, C. (2016). "Controversial tax paying off for rural Georgia Transportation." Atlanta

Journal

Constitution.

Retrieved

February

13,

2018,

from

http://www.myajc.com/news/state--regional/controversial-tax-paying-off-for-rural-

georgia-transportation/GSCwBcGX1Pd7vlk8UfcY3K/

Center for Transportation Excellence. (2016). "Voters Continue Legacy of Strong Support for Transit at the Ballot Box." Retrieved February 13, 2018, from http://www.cfte.org/campaign-profiles/2573/voters-continue-legacy-of-strong-supportfor-transit-at-the-ballot-box

Center for Transportation Excellence. (2018). "Transportation Ballot Measures." Retrieved February 13, 2018, from http://www.cfte.org/elections

Crabbe, A.E., R. Hiatt, S.D. Pliwka, and M. Wachs. (2005). "Local Transportation Sales Taxes: California's Experiment in Transportation Finance." Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Berkeley.

Fang, K., and C. Thigpen. (2017). "Transportation Policy at the Ballot Box." Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. No. 2605, 9298. Retrieved February 13, 2018, from http://trrjournalonline.trb.org/doi/abs/10.3141/260509

Frick, K.T. (2013). "The Actions of Discontent: Tea Party and Property Rights Activists Pushing Back Against Regional Planning." Journal of the American Planning Association, 79:3, 190 200, DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2013.885312

Georgia Department of Transportation. (2018). Transportation Investment Act Program Fact

Sheet.

Retrieved

February

13,

2018,

from

http://www.ga-

tia.com/Content/pdf/TIA%20Fact%20Sheet%20(with%20background).pdf

Paget-Seekins, L. (2013). "Campaign for the 2012 Transportation Referendum in Atlanta, Georgia." Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2345, 1723. https://doi.org/10.3141/2345-03

Ross, C.L., M. Woo, and T. Boston. (2011). "Impact of Regional SPLOST on County Infrastructure." Georgia DOT Research Project 10-17 Final Report.

The Pew Charitable Trusts. (2015). "Funding Challenges in Highway and Transit." February 24. Retrieved February 13, 2018, from http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-andanalysis/analysis/2015/02/24/funding-challenges-in-highway-and-transit-a-federal-statelocal-analysis

117