Mobility fund (Winston Salem Journal Editorial)
North Carolinians must pay higher taxes and transportation-related fees if they want highways and mass-transit systems that work effectively in the future.
Put aside all of the generalities about “tax-and-spend,” “fraud and waste,” and “no new taxes,” and look at reality: North Carolina’s roads are in bad shape and getting worse. It’s hard to imagine that we once called ourselves “The Good Roads State.”
Transportation planners foresee a $65-billion difference between what the state will collect in transportation-related revenues over the next several decades and the projected cost of the state’s transportation needs.
Some taxpayers scream at the first mention of a tax increase. They say the DOT has enough money already, if it will just use it efficiently.
Well, expecting the DOT, or any huge organization, public or private, to operate at 100-percent efficiency is simply quixotic. Just look at British Petroleum. Waiting for 100-percent performance means we’ll all be stuck in traffic, bouncing our way to and from work on pothole-pitted streets, for years to come.
Gov. Bev Perdue has a new idea. She wants to create a new N.C. Mobility Fund. It would include new money, raised from higher fees and taxes. It would cost more to register our cars every year and we’d pay a higher tax when we buy a new car. In all, she figures to raise $300 million a year to meet urgent road needs and other transportation projects, The Associated Press reports.
We don’t argue with the need for more funds. Considering the high cost of land, road-building material and maintenance projects, it’s just unreasonable to think that the state can meet its needs without new money.
Our concern with the Perdue plan lies elsewhere, with the process of deciding how this fund operates. Perdue wasn’t absolutely clear regarding who would choose the most deserving projects. She says the Yadkin River Bridge over I-85 is the first priority, and we don’t argue with that. But what is next, and who decides?
Perdue must develop a plan that shows exactly how those decisions would be made on truly need-based criteria and out in the public. We don’t need a repeat of the last administration, which sent a disproportionate share of funds to the DOT secretary’s home county.
Some taxpayers would prefer to deny the need for extra money. They are, in effect, voting for congestion and bumpy roads. The bottom line, however, is that we’ll get what we pay for, and right now we’re falling way behind on our transportation infrastructure.
