Editorial: Bridging gap on transportation needs (Salisbury Post)
Gov. Beverly Perdue’s proposed state budget answers one question of particular interest to Rowan and Davidson County residents: How does the state plan to pay for replacement of the I-85 Yadkin River Bridge?
Previously, after the state learned it would get only $10 million in federal stimulus funds to help with the estimated $300 million cost of replacing the bridge, the governor and state transportation officials said the critically important project would move ahead. A major chunk of the cost was to come by borrowing against future federal appropriations. However necessary that might be, it’s far from an ideal solution. The state’s Debt Affordability Advisory Committee reported earlier this year that the combined debt capacity of the N.C. High Fund and Highway Trust Fund was already “more than utilized” until fiscal year 2013. (While federal borrowing wouldn’t count against the state’s debt capacity, that doesn’t negate the prospect of the state digging itself into an ever-deeper debt hole without establishing a self-sustaining road revenue mechanism.)
However, Perdue’s proposal for creation of an N.C. Mobility Fund offers a more transparent — and potentially, more fiscally responsible — means to build a new Yadkin Bridge and finance other major transportation needs. Initially, the $95 million in start-up revenue would come through two sources, a modest increase of $7 in the DMV registration fees and the gradual phaseout of about $72 million in annual transfers from the Highway Trust Fund to the general fund. The transfers are simply a budget shell game and part of the reason North Carolina’s former “good roads state” reputation is on the road to ruin.
It isn’t clear yet how Perdue’s Mobility Fund would fit in with proposed revisions in the “equity formula” used to distribute most N.C. road-building money. If the Mobility Fund is truly treated as a sovereign transportation fund — inaccessible by law for other uses — and it targets major projects of statewide relevance, that could help relieve funding pressures elsewhere. That might help make the formula more equitable for rural areas that fear their needs are neglected in favor of metro projects.
We’ll wait to see how the Legislature views the Mobility Fund and the proposed revenue mechanisms. On first examination, it looks like a feasible and fair way to replace the Yadkin River Bridge and fund other urgent transportation needs. It sounds promising — but then, so did the Highway Trust Fund when it was created as a supposedly inviolable source of funds for transportation needs. We’ve seen how that worked out. Let’s hope that, lesson learned, Perdue’s Mobility Fund not only will facilitate replacement of the I-85 Yadkin Bridge but also help lead us back to a “good roads” future.
Thursday, April 22, 2010 12:00 AM
