There’s a rule of thumb that says if there is no organized opposition to a local tax or project then it will pass. If there is any organized opposition to Georgia’s one percent regional transportation sales tax, then I’m unaware of it and so are those polled.

While not a surprise that a majority approve, the margin was impressive.

Image via Wikipedia

The poll of 1176 registered Georgia voters was an 11Alive News Survey that showed approval across the state with the exception of the area defined as North / West Georgia, where the survey shows a 47/47 tie with six percent undecided.

This region may have been influenced by the self-identified party breakdown among voters. While Democrats favored the poll by a wide margin 70/24 with six percent undecided, Republicans opposed it 41/53 with, again, six percent undecided.

I do not have the tabs on the poll or the margin of error, but it appears to me that this is a significant margin. Overall, those polled favored passage of the tax by a 55/38 margin with seven percent undecided.

Somewhat surprisingly to me was that the highest level of approval was for the region listed as South / East Georgia where the margin was 60/35 with (you guessed it) six percent undecided. Who are these six percent anyway? This was slightly higher than the Metro region though the margin was one percent less.

So, will the transportation tax pass? Do Georgia voters understand what they will and will not get from passage or do they see it as a panacea for all that ails Georgia’s transportation ills. If so, will there be a backlash when they learn that there is a projects list already in existence? Discuss among yourselves and try to make it interesting, the legislature might be reading.

More details of the survey results on the 11Alive site.

Either there is a legitimate explanation or there is a scandal.

Jannine Miller is the Executive Director of the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority.

According to her biography, “Miller coordinated Georgia’s multi-agency proposal to U.S. Department of Transportation for an Urban Partnership Agreement, which led to a $110 million grant award to implement a HOT lanes demonstration project on I-85, one of metro Atlanta’s most congested interstate highways.”

What her biography does not mention, is that Ms. Miller is the patent applicant (and if approved, the holder of the patents) for both patented technologies used in the HOT lanes.

The first is the credit billing system.

The second is the electronic barrier technology to ticket violators.

Now, there is more likely than not a legitimate explanation for all of this, but it raises a real question too — did the Executive Director of GRTA push for a system she stands to profit from due to patent royalties?

UPDATE: The answer is that these folks assigned their claims to GRTA as employees of GRTA so they won’t profit. The additional questions though are (1) is their assignment in total or just for Georgia so if this rolls out elsewhere they stand to make money and (2) does GRTA stand to make money off a roll out in other states and (3) did we roll out HOT lanes so GRTA or some individual(s) could make some money off the patents later?

This news could very well destroy the regional SPLOST for metro-Atlanta.

I enjoy talking politics with members of our district GOP. I was on the phone with one of the executive committee members this weekend to discuss the transition and organization of district committees. We ended up on the topic of federal funding of state activities. He eventually said “I wish the state legislators would lay out an 8-10 year plan to ween us off of federal funding of highway projects.”  We also agreed on extending that plan to education as well.

From what I understand, there are many requirements/regulations/laws that are obeyed just to get full federal funding. A governor, state executive, or legislator wouldn’t be arrested…just wouldn’t get funding. Wait a minute…the state can’t make a decision to do something contrary to the federal government (and say that the law requires) because we won’t get money? Sounds like about 50 donkeys are being lead around with one big green money carrot tied to a stick by Uncle Sam.

It would be interesting to see how much (percentage-wise) that the federal government sends highway dollars to Georgia. Then, it would be interesting to see a few rising conservative stars in the state House and Senate that would lay out a plan to make Georgia more self-reliant starting with federal highway and education funding. It would be hard. We’ve been getting federal funds for years, so it would take many years to get ourselves off of it.

It might be a worthy experiment though.

According to the AJC, the I-85 toll lanes are the beginning of an extensive network that could extend more than 150 miles over the next three decades. After that, if the current model proves successful, it would be expanded again.

In the meantime, no one is certain how well it will all work. Replaced will be the old HOV lanes, but without adding additional lanes, will it actually make traffic better?

The emphasis seems to be on creating HOT lanes that will provide a reliable flow of traffic for those who are willing to pay between ten and 90 cents per mile, depending on traffic congestion, and those who fit the profile that allows for free access to the HOT lanes.

Car poolers with three or more occupants, motorcycles, transit vehicles, mass transit and cars with alternative fuel license plates all travel for free in the HOT lanes. One must; however, have a Peach Pass to do so. I would suggest reading this piece, also from the AJC, that gives the straight skinny on what one needs to know. If you screw up, there is a $25 fine from the SRTA – to go along with the possible $150 ticket from law enforcement.

In the meantime, if you simply want to drive fast on an interstate and have, as Chuck Berry says, “no particular place to go,” I suggest you just come on down and drive up and down I-16 to your heart’s content. It’s cheaper, you may not see another car for miles, and neither a Peach Pass nor a road manual is required.

Among Atlantans the big discussion seems to be, “Is it fair?” more than will it work. So is this just another way to cater to “the man” or is it a reasonable attempt to improve traffic congestion?

Steve Williams over at Georgia Road Geek posed the questions on if Georgia’s speed limits are too low. I’ll let you hop on over to his blog for his answer. Interestingly enough, I’ve been asking myself the same question. This past weekend, I visited a friend in Trinity, Alabama (right outside of Decatur…which is right outside of Huntsville). I got on to US-72 and travelled about 65+ miles per hour. I made very good time between my house and her house.

This got me to thinking: if Alabama can trust their people to go 65 MPH on a divided, non-interstate highway, why not Georgia? I see people routinely going in excess of the 55 MPH speed limit on highways in my area like US-27…especially along the Chickamauga Battlefield bypass, GA-193, GA-341, GA-2, etc. (granted, GA-193 and GA-341 are not divided highways, but could probably handle an upward bump in the speed limit). What really gets me is the 55 MPH speed limit in Atlanta where there seems to be a tacit “speed or die” mantra held by folks that live in the area.

I’m sure a few of us here have a lead foot and would like to see the speed limit increased on Georgia’s highways, but it probably won’t cure our lead foot syndrome. People will still speed in excess of the speed limit. However, I say raise the speed limit in rural, relatively flat and straight areas of highway (especially the stretch of I-16 running from Macon to Savannah…) in the state. Heck, let the engineers at GDOT use their discression to determine if a stretch of highway would be alright to travel at higher speeds. Just a thought.

H/T to Baker over at That’s Just Peachy for linking Steve Williams’ article this morning

I am not an angler.  At some point in the future, I may decide to angle, and at that point I may be glad that the state decided to spend some of my taxpayer money on the Go Fish initiative. But for now, I am not glad even though the state boasts that their investment can mean an economic impact of between $4-5 million or as high as $27 million for a big time tournament.  Of course, economic impact does not mean that it’s revenue neutral for the state as they only recapture some of that impact in the form of tax revenue (although with their tax proposal they are certainly trying to increase their return).

Now that we’ve finally dug ourselves out of this snow and ice storm, here’s my question: What’s the economic impact of a snowstorm like the one we just had?  I’ve seen some say that it’s minor but tell that to someone who works an hourly retail job, they can’t get those work days back.  Even if the economic impact for the week was only about $100 million, surely the cost to have minimized the delays and damage would be well below that.  And I know some people will say that it doesn’t make sense to budget funds for something that will only happen once every ten years – which I counter by saying that may be more often than I will use one of the Go Fish ramps.  Why has state government decided that anglers’ economic impact is more valuable than mine or the other hundreds of thousands of residents who were rendered homebound during the great blizzard of 2011?

It seems that Gov. Deal and others are kind of coming around to this viewpoint, and I applaud them for that after initially using the old “once in 15 years” excuse to ignore it.

Governor Nathan Deal, in his second day in office, continues to deal with a “State of Emergency” that was declared prior to his official swearing in.  It’s not what he had planned, and instead of enjoying the efforts of his innaugural committee’s hard work, he’s been mostly having to figure out the logistics of how to get his administration started when legislators couldn’t even get to the Capitol without assistance, and many more state employees either can’t get to work, or can’t get home.

Thus, in his first meeting with the press, Governor Deal said this:

The weather has to cooperate in order for us to do what we really need to do. So I would just urge everyone to make sure they take care of themselves, and that they do not put themselves in a position of danger,”

Which brought quick commentary from Atlanta’s queen of social media and our friend, SpaceyG:

Nathan Deal’s first emergency in office, starting  on Day One, included the glaringly un-populist behaviors of:  telling Georgians they’re on their own out there in snowed-in conditions, using state office/power to shuttle legislators (only) around in government vehicles (remember, in the emergency we’re under), and not answering any questions from press. What an amazing 48 hours of utterly UN-responsive new leadership in Georgia! Is this going to be a great 4-years around here or what?

While I’ll give her points on the refusal to answer questions (Deal needs to appear comfortable in front of the press), I’m actually glad he didn’t offer any false platitudes that somehow the government can trump mother nature, or provide a false sense of security.  The fact is, if we are going to believe in “limited government”, then we have to understand that government has practical limits.  It would be nice if we could fund heated streets and vast armadas of salt trucks with ice removal devices, able to cover a metropolitian area larger that most norther states where folks who take mass transit brag about their ability to drive in the snow.  The fact of the matter is there is an opportunity cost to spending money on these things that will have little effect just a few days every other year.

Furthermore, Deal asserted that we as individuals first and foremost are responsible for our safety.  The GEMA, State Patrol, and GA National Guard folks who stand at the ready to assist are mostly a re-active force when it comes to safety.  Government can possibly rescue you after you crash, but its better if everyone understood the physics of a 5,000 pound car crossing ice at 50mph, and concluded that it was best to stay home until the ice melts.  Luckily for the first responders and Georgia’s citizens, most are doing just that, and thus, are the most safe.

Let’s hope this relatively off the cuff statement represents the ongoing philosophy of Government from the Deal administration.  Government is here to help, but individuals must take appropriate responsibilities for their actions first.

A group of Legislators from north Fulton have sent a letter to the Department of Transportation urging a reversal of the decision to extend the toll on 400 for an additional ten years.

“On behalf of the Georgia state representatives and senators representing 350,000 north Fulton residents, I am writing to request the State Transportation Board reverse its action extending the Georgia 400 toll for 10 additional years. We are gravely concerned about the negative impact on our constituents and Georgia as a whole as a result of the manner in which the decision was made without community engagement and support and the broader ramifications for future support for transportation funding and improvements.

It is unacceptable to make a decision of this magnitude, one that revokes a 20-year long commitment to citizens for a time-limited user fee in return for corridor improvements, without the explicit involvement of state legislators representing the primarily affected residents, collaboration with other locally elected officials, and extensive discussion and hearings.”

Read the entire letter here.

Bravo!

Dade County just seems isolated from the rest of Georgia; which is probably why they were left off of the state quarter.   Hopefully that will begin to change as my county’s next door neighbor begins to plan for its transportation future.

The county has begun a transportation infrastructure study that involves getting commuters’ and residents’ views about the current network of roads and highways.

“The study is focusing on improving connectivity, access and safety to important locations throughout the county, including the city of Trenton, schools, commerce centers, the industrial areas, colleges, parks and other important locations,” said consultant Steve Cote with Atlanta-based RS&H Inc., which was hired by the Georgia Department of Transportation to guide the study.

The goal is to develop a plan to determine transportation needs over the next 30 years.

That second paragraph should read something like “we’re going to find ways to make Dade County repatriate with the rest of Georgia.”   All joking aside, this points towards other transportation problems outside of the Atlanta-metro area and areas south.   I’m not saying that Atlanta or south Georgia isn’t important, but that transportation woes affect everyone across the state.  We must also be mindful that these issues won’t be solved overnight.  It’ll be challenging, but nothing that the future graduates of the UGA School of Engineering can’t handle.  Right?

H/T Chattanooga Times Free Press

The Douglasville City Council approved road improvement projects to be submitted to the GDOT as part of the Transportation Investment Act of 2010 (Ga HB 277).

The city submitted 41 projects to GDOT for consideration.

The top three projects on the list are Phases I, II and III of the Ga. Highway 92 realignment and widening project, which total $87,154,406.

Phase I will see the construction of a bridge under Bankhead Highway (US 78) and the railroad track and create six lanes for traffic. The project will cost approximately $28,088,000. Phase II will widen Ga. Highway 92, expanding the road from Fairburn Road to Highway 78 from two to six lanes at a cost of about $32,499,000.

Phase III will expand the road from two to six lanes from Bankhead Highway to Dallas Highway (SR 92) and is estimated to cost $26,567,406.

Read more: Douglas County Sentinel – Hwy 92 tops Douglasville’s transportation priorities list

Readers of PP will remember that the open-to-all townhall so-called community meeting on Highway 92 was the topic of discussion that garnered Rep. David Scott (D-GA13)some national attention back in August.

Georgia missed out on a round of $8 Billion in Federal dollars granted to states earlier this year.  Our neighbor to the Northeast, North Carolina, received over a half billion in real construction dollars.  We eventually were awarded $4.4 Million to keep some consultants busy with a study.

The City of Atlanta was slightly more sucessful with funding for their proposed streetcar.  After initially being snubbed, Mayor Kasim Reed went to D.C. to essentially tell the Obama administration, “Hey, we’re not all anti-transit exurban Republicans down here, you know?  His trip was rewarded by a $47.6 Million dollar federal transportation grant that all stakeholders agree will do nada for the regions traffic woes.

And then, there was an election a week ago, and suddenly, some of those “winners” (of our tax money) in other states no longer want the money. 

 High-speed rail projects in Wisconsin and Ohio appear close to derailment, with Wisconsin’s outgoing governor saying Monday he’ll leave the future of his state’s project to his Republican successor, who has vowed to kill it, and Ohio’s incoming governor saying again he plans scrap his state’s project.

Jim Doyle, Wisconsin’s outgoing Democratic governor, told The Associated Press that although he thinks a high-speed rail line to connect Milwaukee with Madison is a good idea, he feels obligated to leave the project’s future up to Republican Gov.-elect Scott Walker.

Minutes after Doyle made his comments, Walker said he remains opposed to the $810 million project.

“My position remains the same,” Walker said. “I don’t see anything that would change my mind.”

…

In Ohio, meanwhile, incoming Republican Gov. John Kasich wrote to outgoing Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland on Monday asking him to immediately cancel all passenger rail contracts to save taxpayer money.

Kasich sent letters to both Strickland and President Barack Obama telling them he doesn’t plan to support developing a passenger line connecting Cincinnati, Columbus and Cleveland.

And yet, with equally strong Republican majorities and a new Republican governor about to take the helm in Georgia, the attitude toward that money may be a little different here.   After all, nearly $1 Billion in potentially available federal funding can change a lot of attitudes.

One of the most concrete signs of Georgia’s leadership moving towards a rail/transit working model is the ongoing discussions to develop Atlanta’s “Gulch“, the land currently South of Marietta Street between Underground Atlanta and CNN Center.   The land is often mentioned as both a transit hub because of the already existing rail lines underneath, as well as a potential site for a new football stadium if the Falcons decide to move.

It’s one thing to see Democrats like Kasim Reed lobby a Democratic Administration for inner city transit projects.  It’s another thing to see a conservative Republican Congressman say this about federal funding for a multi-modal transit station in Downtown Atlanta.

Even so, U.S. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland of Coweta County said he expects a highway bill next year “that will be able to authorize funds to beneficial projects, like this one, and I encourage GDOT to work to secure funding for this project in this bill.”

And so there it is.  The Fed has some money being freed up by fiscally conservative Republicans.  Georgia fears it is losing out to a rival neighbor to the North.  There are politically connected developers who want to build a massive transit station/multi-modal terminal in downtown, and a suburban Republican Congressman whose district doesn’t touch MARTA, but whose residents suffer the worst commute in the nation.

It’s an interesting mix, and given the states budget woes, one would wonder where the state’s matching contribution would come from.  Yet, with a new governor that has promised both jobs and traffic solutions, one would have to consider high speed rail a possibility.   The Billion dollar question is whether Republican Deal would be willing to show up Republicans Kasich and Walker.  And if a Republican legislature would back him up if he did.

I think I’m in the minority of Peach Pundit contributors on these yes votes, and frankly the hour and day are late, so this post is perhaps more “off the cuff” than normal. I’m sure you all will let me know where I’m wrong, but consider this a place to start the discussion.

Amendments 3 and 4 allow the state to enter into multi-year contracts. A3 allows for long term transportation projects. There are many contracts that take more than one year to complete (i.e, the recent GA-316 interchange on i-85) You may recall that there was a huge accounting issue with GDOT recently, and much of that had to do with cost vs. accrual accounting. Many long term projects were started without the full amount of cash in the bank because they would be conducted over a multi-year period. Thus, it made no sense to have $10 Million in the bank dedicated to the project if it would only require $2.5 Million a year each year for 4 years.

The concept here is to get as many projects started as possible, while locking in prices up front rather than renegotiating every year. While there is always an opportunity for abuse of the system, I don’t see how the potential for abuse is that different if a project is let as one big contract or 4 smaller ones. In theory, this makes these contract more efficient, and matches expenditures with tax receipts.

Amendment 4 was covered earlier, but covers savings from energy efficiency upgrades to state buildings. Companies are willing to do upgrades to state buildings with payment from guaranteed savings on utility bills. To enter into this arrangement, the state must enter into multi year contracts so that the contractors can be paid out of long term savings. The state is at realtively no risk, and less natural resources are used in the long run. It’s a win-win, so I’m voting yes.

Amendment 5 is a technical correction that I’m told only affects two pieces of property in the state, both in Savannah area I believe. These properties somehow got screwed the last time the constitution was re-written, and this allows them to achieve proper zoning classifications. Or at least, that’s my surface level understanding of it.

Here’s Part II of FOX 5 reporter Dale Russell’s look into how the Governor became very involved in a GDOT project near his land in Bonaire:

A three-month FOX 5 I-Team investigation, which we teased yesterday, learned that Georgia taxpayers will spend $100,000,000.00 to widen a state highway through Governor Sonny Perdue’s hometown of Bonaire. The new highway will also run right along property owned by the Governor. Project records show that Governor Perdue was actively involved in deciding where the road would go.

FOX 5 – Atlanta is heavily promoting two in-depth reports that kick off Monday during their 6 p.m. and 10 p.m. broadcasts with the results of an investigation from reporter Dale Russell (website | Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn). Russell’s investigation examines how a planned GDOT project was laid out in relation to the land belonging to a certain squishy sitting Georgia Governor. The twelve minute report, broken into two parts, is a result of a three month long review of thousands of pages of GDOT and Federal Highway project files, Houston County deed and tax records, campaign reports, historic land documents, and interviews with dozens of sources and after being “on the ground” for nearly a week in Bonaire.

As they say, tune in tomorrow night for more…

A couple of years ago, when Grady Hospital’s financial troubles could no longer be ignored even by suburban Republicans, a series of compromises was made on all sides to place Grady on tenable financial footing. The major concession by Grady was a complete reconstitution of its board of directors.

Marta stands next in line for the Grady treatment, according to the AJC, with an amendment to SB 22 poised to remake the Marta board. Again.

House Speaker pro Tempore Jan Jones said that the legislation (an amendment to SB 22) would reduce the current MARTA board from 18 to 13 voting members, with three appointed by the state. The governor, lieutenant governor and speaker would each appoint one voting member to make up that three. In addition, the Department of Transportation commissioner and the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority director would have non-voting seats.

Jones said it was to ensure balance on the board and make sure Fulton and DeKalb taxpayers were protected.

According to a copy of the amendment, this is how the 13 voting seats would break down:

State – 3

City of Atlanta – 3

DeKalb County – 4 (at least 1 from north DeKalb, at least 1 from south DeKalb)

Fulton County – 3 (1 from south Fulton, 2 from north Fulton)

Jones pointed out that nearly all of Fulton County’s population lives in municipalities, so it only made sense for mayors to make the appointments. She also said it was about protecting taxpayers.

I recommend clicking the link and reading Ariel Hart’s entire article, to get the true flavor of the points of contention, and the motivation for the change.

Jan Jones is still trying to deliver fiefdoms for a still non-existant Milton County, making Fulton/Milton significantly “more equal” than DeKalb in the allotted board seats, presuming that the City Of Atlanta doesn’t select board members who live in the sliver of Atlanta that encroaches into DeKalb.

There is also the question of what MARTA receives for this new board setup. When Grady was forced to accept a new board, it came with new funding avenues. There was a nice carrot to accept that stick. The changes at MARTA seem to be mostly stick. I’d love to be a new board member at MARTA who would understand with my new appointment that I would be running an organization where the beatings will continue until Morale improves.

Should this amendment pass and become law, I have a quick suggestion for one of the appointments at the State level. The Gov, Lt. Gov, or Speaker should appoint Dick Williams to one of the seats. He would balance the ratio of DeKalb/Fulton ratio, lack of transportation planning is one of his greatest pet peeves, and it would give him some quality time with Representative Jill Chambers, should she be re-elected.

The material that this appointment would provide may not change MARTA one bit, but it would certainly liven up Sunday mornings again.

I had a conversation with Rep. Austin Scott last evening regarding his proposal to eliminate the State Road and Tollway Authority. I had a few questions directed my way earlier after I posted his announcement that he wanted to eliminate it, and wanted to dig deeper into his reasoning. He was his usual direct self:

“The SRTA was conceived to build GA-400, just like most government agencies they kind of fed upon themselves, and now they’re looking for something to do.”

And the scope of that something to do has grown over time. Specifically, SRTA does more than collect a half dollar from every ITP GA 400 commuter. They are also the Governor’s shadow DOT. They operate accountable only to the Governor as an authority, and thus, have little transparency that would be associated with an agency that is typically funded through the legislative process.

This “little” agency that most folks have never heard of, and even fewer understand it’s scope, also has the legal authority to issue bonds – a power not even granted to the DOT. And when I asked Representative Scott if he understood the implication of removing the bonding authority from this transit agency, he sent me this link. It’s to the SRTA annual report for 2009, with 2008’s Financial report.

As of June 30, 2008, this little know authority has outstanding bonds exceeding $1.6 Billion dollars. A press release from February 2009 indicates a successful placement of an additional $600 Million. That’s real money being spent on transportation projects somewhere in Georgia under a separate organization from our often maligned DOT. And, of course, we also have the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority hanging out somewhere as well, just to add to the confusion – and transportation bureaucracy and overhead.

As for Rep. Scott’s understanding of the implications, he absolutely understands that SRTA has been used to increase the bonded indebtedness of the state, and believes that an authority without proper oversight and transparency has no business putting the taxpayers of Georgia on the hook for Billions.

I didn’t have to get far into my question about the implication of these actions on the Governor’s race when he cut me off with “I’m running for Governor, but I’m trying to decentralize the power that has collected in that office and put it back into a structure that has oversight and is transparent, outside of the Governor’s direct control. It’s the right thing to do.”

My guess is that given the depth and complexity of the SRTA, as well as the outstanding bonds issued, there will not be able to be a complete wind down and consolidation with the time remaining in this session.

But as for transportation reform, we have duplicative agencies that can be consolidated. And as for the tolls on GA 400, they should have already ended. Kudos to Rep Scott for bringing this issue to the forefront of discussion. Perhaps a piece or two can be accomplished this year. But we’ll be paying off those bonds for a long time. That bell has been rung, and the bills toll for we.

First, the Georgia House is helping GDOT to right the proverbial ship with regard to accounting and contractual practices.

The House voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to authorize the DOT to award multi-year contracts for highway projects and a variety of other activities, a system of “accrual” accounting the agency used before a 2008 state audit concluded that it violated Georgia’s Constitution.

Swell. Meanwhile, consumers remain concerned about the economy and are likely to pull back spending over the next 30 days, according to the Atlanta Business Chronicle, which cites the Consumer Reports Index. Even tougher times may be ahead for state coffers, it would seem.

The AJC did a summary article depicting transportation woes under the Perdue Administration. It does give credit for finishing some high profile (and high dollar) projects like the GA-316/I-85 interchange under the Governor’s “Fast-Forward” program.

The result, however, has been higher interest payments on bonds let to fund these projects, with fewer dollars available for new projects. The spike in earlier activity with few follow on projects has taken jobs out of the Georgia economy just as it hit a major downturn.

The dollar amount of transportation projects out for bid went from $2.65 billion in fiscal 2007 to $484 million in fiscal 2009, which ended June 30. That $484 million included federal stimulus money.

At the same time, the recession dragged down gas tax revenue, adding to the DOT’s woes.

The slowdown helped the DOT start building back its treasury balance, which was at about $809 million by the end of fiscal 2009, according to agency officials.

But the lack of contracts for road projects led highway contractors —according to some estimates — to shed up to 10,000 jobs in Georgia just as the recession started to kick into high gear last year.

So, the question remains, in an election year with power struggles and political fiefdoms still in flux, will the legislature attempt to find new revenue for transportation? Or will this be another year where we decide to study the problem?

I was told the other day that legislators are, in fact, working right now on transportation issues. Digging around a little more, I talked to a State Representative today who said he expects a comprehensive transportation plan to make it through the legislature “faster than a trip up the connector at 5pm on Friday.”

The approach will be regional and local — devolving transportation planning outside the DOT and out of central planning in Atlanta. In short, it’s going to be a very federalist plan letting elected people closest to the voters make decisions with voters having final say.

It all sounds intriguing, but it is also very, very early with much subject to change. The goal, however, is to come up with a comprehensive plan, have key lawmakers briefed by mid-December, get buy in from key players, and then rush it through the legislature in the first few days. Why rush?

I’m told it’s not that the House and Senate leadership are afraid of reaction to the plan. They intend to get out there aggressively to talk about it at some point. But, they are already seeing that budget and fiscal issues are going to explode and the bulk of the session is going to be spent dealing with a shaky financial picture. The necessities of transportation need to be dealt with, so they are trying to get it all done as soon as possible.

That’s probably the best approach all around.