Map: Voters Closer to Atlanta Supported TSPLOST
A graphic from the Atlanta Regional Commission shows that the further precincts were from the city, the less residents backed the transportation tax.
Photos
The transportation tax that would have raised sales taxes 1 percent over 10 years to fund $8.5 billion worth of transportation projects failed in the July 31 primaries in all 10 metro Atlanta counties.
The final tally was 248,319 (37%) against, and 415,526 (63%) for.
The closer voters were to the city of Atlanta, the more they favored the tax, according to the above map provided by the Atlanta Regional Commission.
In some counties, precincts near interstates appear to have more strongly supported the tax, commonly referred to as TSPLOST. In Cherokee County, no precinct climbed above 28 percent for, the map shows.
The Atlanta District was one of nine Georgia regions to reject the tax; in the other three—the Central Savannah River District, the River Valley District and the Heart of Georgia District—it passed by just a few percentage points in each, the Atlanta Business Chronicle reports.
Here's the breakdown of how metro Atlanta counties voted:
| COUNTY | YES | NO | TOTAL |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cherokee | 9,105 (21%) |
35,280 (79%) |
44,385 |
| Clayton | 16,750 (46%) |
19,303 (54%) |
36,053 |
| Cobb | 38,703 (31%) |
85,412 (69%) |
124,115 |
| DeKalb | 57,915 (48%) |
61,792 (52%) |
119,707 |
| Douglas | 6,383 (32%) |
13,534 (68%) |
19,917 |
| Fayette | 6,677 (24%) |
21,712 (76%) |
28,389 |
| Fulton | 69,064 (49%) |
72,365 (51%) |
141,429 |
| Gwinnett | 28,884 (29%) |
70,273 (71%) |
99,157 |
| Henry | 9,405 (29%) |
23,371 (71%) |
32,776 |
| Rockdale | 5,433 (30%) |
12,484 (70%) |
17,917 |
Total: |
248,319 (37%) |
415,526 (63%) |
663,845 |
Keep up with all the news you care about by subscribing to our free email newsletter, liking us on Facebook and following us on Twitter.
Brian
1:05 am on Thursday, August 9, 2012
I found an error. 2nd paragraph: "The final tally was 248,319 (37%) against, and 415,526 (63%) for."
The author should switch for and against in this sentence. Looks like an unintentional mix-up since elsewhere in the article, the stats are correct.