ISSUE IN-DEPTH: TRANSPORTATION PLAN: Asphalt and money

For weeks if not months, the governor, lieutenant governor and speaker of the House have been in secret negotiations to find a way to fix Georgia’s dysfunctional transportation system.

Last week, they finally emerged with their proposal. Not surprisingly, it would give the governor, lieutenant governor and speaker a lot more power over billions of dollars in transportation funding.

In a news conference Thursday, Gov. Sonny Perdue, Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle and Speaker Glenn Richardson laid out their plan in the barest of forms. A new 11-member state board would be created to oversee a new State Transportation Authority. All members of that newly powerful Transportation Authority would be appointed by the three officials who drew up the plan.

The governor would have five appointees; the lieutenant governor and speaker would get three each. The governor would also have the power to appoint a secretary of transportation to oversee the new agency.

That agency, as described in the 160-page “Transforming Transportation Investment Act,” would effectively be granted all powers, responsibilities and obligations of the current state Department of Transportation. Because it was created by the state constitution and cannot be eliminated by a change in law, the DOT would continue to exist, but only in a zombie form. It would have no mind or authority of its own, and the only remaining function of the vestigial 13-member DOT board would be to name a commissioner to run that emasculated agency.

Such dramatic changes are necessary for two reasons, Perdue said Thursday. First, because the DOT as it is currently run has proved itself incapable of planning and building a 21st-century transportation system to meet the needs of one of the fastest-growing states in the country. Second, because the independence of the current DOT has frustrated elected top state leaders who are “being held accountable for things we can’t control.”

The proposed legislation, Perdue said, would make the system both more transparent and more accountable.

Legislators, on the other hand, might not agree with that assessment. The members of the current state Transportation Board are elected by members of the General Assembly and are accountable to those legislators. The changes demanded by Perdue, Cagle and Richardson constitute a significant transfer of power away from legislators and into the hands of the speaker, lieutenant governor and especially governor.

But to tell the truth, that’s probably a good thing. Under the current system, professional transportation planning —- the kind in which the most important projects are identified, funded and built first —- too often takes a back seat to political patronage. Money is allocated to projects to please the well-connected and to keep the DOT and its board members in good favor with legislators, not on projects that would move freight and people most quickly.

One result is that over the years, the DOT has approved far more projects than it could ever possibly build. As Perdue noted Thursday, some 9,000 projects are now on various DOT lists as approved. “I found some I had put on there as a state senator back in the early ’90s,” he said.

Perdue said he wants the law to take effect July 1, which means it has to pass in the current legislative session. The General Assembly would have to move very quickly to get that done given that the session is already more than halfway through its 40-day limit. That’s asking a lot. However, Perdue also made it clear that he would not sign any measure increasing funding for transportation until the bill is approved.

The major challenge in writing such a bill is balance. The new agency has to be accountable to top public officials without making it vulnerable to the same political pressures that have rendered the DOT so inefficient. If the new system merely gives the governor, lieutenant governor and speaker enhanced power to reward friends and punish enemies with their control of transportation dollars, nothing much will have been accomplished.

The details are important. For example, under the bill, Transportation Authority members would serve terms that run concurrent with the official who named them. The five members appointed by the governor, for example, would leave office when the governor does, to be replaced by five new members appointed by the incoming governor. Members can also be replaced at any time by the person who appointed them.

That system ties board members quite closely to those who elected them. To Perdue, Cagle and Richardson, that means board members will be accountable to them. It also means they could be more vulnerable to pressure. A system in which authority members are given staggered six-year terms, with removal only for cause, might better insulate them from politics.

The process by which this plan has been drafted is also cause for worry. It’s reassuring to see Perdue, Cagle and Richardson —- three leaders with a history of friction, to say the least —- cooperating on a project of such importance. But in effect, Perdue and his colleagues have tried to fix a system plagued by backroom deal-making by themselves engaging in backroom deal-making.

While the plan they have concocted seems solid in its basics, it could probably be improved by a few more constraints on the power of those who created it.

> Jay Bookman, for the editorial board (jbookman@ajc.com).

30-YEAR BENEFITS

Consultants hired by the state estimate Georgia could generate up to 320,000 jobs and $590 billion in economic benefits over 30 years if public officials invested in the transportation needs for metro Atlanta, statewide rail networks and other parts of the state. They found:

> A $26 billion to $43 billion investment in metro Atlanta could generate $345 billion in economic benefits and reduced congestion costs.

> An $18 billion to $37 billion investment in rail freight and the Savannah port could add up to $88 billion to the state’s gross domestic product.

> A $15 billion to $36 billion investment in the transportation needs of small and medium cities could generate $156 billion.

FOR METRO ATLANTA, the consultants recommended a combination of strategic investments:

> Demand reduction: Conversion of existing, free HOV lanes to HOT, or high occupancy toll, lanes; congestion pricing or “pay by the mile fees.”

> Infrastructure: HOT lanes connecting all major employment centers; express bus systems; streetcars and commuter rail to Griffin. High-capacity road projects, such as tunnels linking I-675 and Ga. 400 and a subterranean downtown connector could ease congestion. But the $17.2 billion cost exceeds the projected $10 billion benefit.

Source: McKinsey & Co.

CONGESTION COSTS

Traffic congestion forces Atlanta drivers to spend the most money of any similiarly sized metro area on lost productivity and fuel. Annual congestion costs are $2.8 billion, 20 percent higher than in similar cities.

Annual congestion costs per traveler:

$854……..Tampa

$924……..Charlotte

$959……..Miami

$962……..Denver

$1,036……Phoenix

$1,079……Houston

$1,111……Dallas

$1,162……Washington

$1,247……Atlanta

Source: McKinsey & Co.