Transportation plan says we can't move forward on the cheap
Published September 18, 2014
by Doug Clark, Greensboro News-Record, September 18, 2014.
Pat McCrory made comprehensive, long-term transportation planning a centerpiece in his 2012 campaign for governor.
Indeed, progressive transportation development was one of his top accomplishments as mayor of Charlotte.
So it's good to see his vision for North Carolina's transportation future begin to take shape.
Very clearly, getting there will be very expensive, as the report says:
"Overall funding levels for investments in transportation infrastructure are insufficient. In 2014, metropolitan and rural planning organizations and NCDOT identified more than 3,100 projects, totaling $70 billion in infrastructure needs across all modes of transportation. With $1.5 billion per year in funding available over the next 10 years, clearly, there is not enough money to support all of those needs. The largest portion of that available funding goes toward highways and bridges. North Carolina must find a way to financially support investments in all modes of transportation and be prepared to address emerging trends, such as fuel efficient/alternative fuel vehicles, autonomous vehicles, public-private partnerships and light rail systems."
Yet, our political leadership -- including the governor -- have so far acted as if cutting taxes is the ticket to future prosperity. More cuts are coming on top of those already enacted. How does this square with paving a road or runway to future economic development? It doesn't.
So the governor and his transportation secretary are talking about a $1 billion bond to get work started. The borrowing would be paid back through future revenues -- source unknown?
The administration will "present targeted revenue recommendations to the General Assembly for its action during the 2015 legislative session." Good luck with that.
(And, by the way, these plans for a $1 billion bond should have been presented earlier, in time to put a referendum on the ballot this November. Many Republicans have vowed to oppose future state borrowing unless approved by voters.)
Then there's this tidbit from the plan: "Optimize the use of public-private partnerships, innovative managed lanes and other fee-for-service projects." Which, for motorists, sounds like pay as you go.
Here's the deal: It costs money to move goods and people. You have to pay the freight. The key is to do it as efficiently as possible, but we have to compete with other states and countries and we can't get ahead on the cheap.
If our political leaders think we can run state government on the cheap, this plan should tell them otherwise. But the governor has to sell it.
September 18, 2014 at 10:28 am
pattie marshall says:
And who can make sure ANY of this borrowed money goes towards infrastructure? Kind of like the 1989 Highway Trust Fund....Fool me once shame on you ... Fool me twice shame on me!
September 18, 2014 at 1:37 pm
Richard Bunce says:
Get the politics out of the project selection process and whether pay as you go or borrowing based funding... the final question is who pays the bill. Users is the best answer and technology provides many more ways to achieve that going forward than in the past.
