Money to move (News and Observer Editorial)
Published Thu, Apr 01, 2010 02:00 AM
Modified Thu, Apr 01, 2010 06:37 AM
Cities spawn traffic jams. There is a difference, though, between some modest rush-hour backups and the kind of intolerable congestion that can throw a region’s economy out of whack and generally make life miserable.
It’s not surprising to hear local officials complain that North Carolina’s method of dividing up highway money shortchanges the cities and puts them at risk of gridlock. Mayor Charles Meeker of Raleigh has been making that point consistently for years as the capital has scraped for a larger share of road improvement funds in what amounts to a contest with the hinterlands.
An analysis by The N&O of road spending offers one perspective that supports the urban view. As reported Saturday, the state’s per-capita spending for highway construction and maintenance in Wake County ranks 90th among all 100 counties. On its face, that seems way too low – even though it’s a product of what’s known as the equity formula for road-money distribution. Surely a crowded metropolitan area has road investment needs that are in a reasonable ratio to population size.
Yet it’s not that simple, of course. Rural counties don’t have as many residents, but they are just as dependent on serviceable highway links – in some respects, even more dependent than their urban counterparts. And gauged on a per-capita basis, the cost of a highway project through the countryside is bound to compare unfavorably to the cost of a project in a county such as Wake or Mecklenburg.
North Carolina in years gone by typically saw rural areas flex their political muscles in matters of state spending. Building bigger and better roads was among the most important state services, and legislators made sure their rural constituents weren’t neglected even while the cities were benefitting from new loop highways.
In a state with one of the largest highway systems, roads also became a tool for economic development, ensuring companies access to markets even if they set up shop in small towns. That remains a vital function of the transportation network. Folks who live in a county struggling to hold onto jobs even while traditional manufacturing sectors have withered look to good roads as a lifeline.
So the state Department of Transportation’s perspective on the money-sharing debate is worthwhile. This investment has to be undertaken with an eye toward needs that are truly regional and statewide, as well as addressing conditions that are specific to individual cities. The state’s overall economic health requires clear arteries throughout.
A project like the complete four-laning of U.S. 17 from the Virginia border near South Mills to the South Carolina line near Calabash means significant spending on a roadway through boondocks. It also helps invigorate a large swath of Eastern North Carolina, including towns such as Williamston, Washington and New Bern.
It’s altogether reasonable to scrutinize the 21-year-old equity formula to see if in fact the cities are being cheated. But urban areas can and should benefit from mass transit funding that would be pointless in the rural counties. Wise growth planning also can reduce the need for costly urban road projects.
Is there enough money to go around? Never. But North Carolina can’t bankrupt itself and its taxpayers (or its soon-to-be tollpayers) with the expense of building roads. It has to balance the needs of all its regions. None of them can prosper if others are dying on the vine because people and goods can’t get where they need to go.
