The Jefferson Journal

Michael W. Thompson



 

$650 Million in Hiding

 

There is a lot more new money for transportation projects than commonly realized -- if lawmakers would only count it!


 

Building transportation capacity is center stage in this year’s General Assembly. The central issues are: how much money is needed to add to Virginia's transportation network, how much can we afford, and whether additional taxes and fees need to be extracted from the citizens of Virginia. This debate is long overdue.

 

Everyone knew this debate was coming. It was evident when the 2004 tax hike set aside no additional funds for transportation, and last year when the General Assembly earmarked some $800 million from the surplus for transportation. The stage was set for this year’s confrontation.

 

The goal that many have set is to raise about $1 billion a year for transportation. That number was talked about two years ago, and it has become the accepted spending number by many business organizations today.

 

Reaching that number does not require new taxes, and it shouldn't be difficult as long as we are talking about “new transportation” dollars -- dollars that were not available when $1 billion a year was first tossed on the table. We need to open our eyes to significant changes in the past two years. Here's what's missing from this year's debate:

 

First, last year's federal “highway” bill – so controversial for its 6,000 plus earmarks -- is bringing $300 million a year in new transportation funds to Virginia. This huge influx of funds should be considered part of the formula in reaching our $1 billion-a-year goal. These are brand new dollars. Yet, no one is talking about them.

 

Of course, federal dollars add significantly to the overall cost of the projects they fund: as much as 40 percent according to the U.S. Congress itself. The use of these dollars would be much more efficient, and the cost of providing Virginia’s transportation needs would be much reduced, if they were applied to only a few of the most costly projects. Spreading federal transportation dollars and accompanying inefficiencies across the landscape would be very costly and should be stopped.

 

Second, private investments through public/private partnerships will bring in additional funds not currently being calculated into the $1 billion-a-year goal. Yet, these are new dollars not part of the formula and they should not be left out of the calculations. Billions of dollars are being negotiated for improving Interstate 81, building more capacity on the Interstate 95/495 corridor in Northern Virginia and the Dulles corridor as well, and private funds will surely be part of the “third crossing” in Virginia Beach. The private investment just for HOT lanes in Northern Virginia is expected to amount to $900 million, or $225 million a year. The deals may not be finalized yet, but everyone knows that they're coming in the next several months. 

 

Third, contracting out the maintenance of our roads to the private sector has proven financially successful. But only 250 miles of over 9,000 miles of our interstate and primary roads are under private maintenance. And there are over 40,000 miles of secondary roads that could also use private maintenance. It is projected that Virginia could save more than $200 million or so each year by moving maintenance to the private sector. Contracting out road maintenance should be the goal over the next four years and the savings should be used to pay for the maintenance backlog and for new construction. These savings also should be applied to the 20-year, $1 billion-a-year plan.

 

These sources of “new” transportation dollars are, conservatively speaking, likely to total $650 million per year once they are fully implemented. In other words, nearly two-thirds of the $1 billion a year that Virginia needs is already on the table. Including these additional sources of funding could make the transportation debate less shrill and more transparent. 

 

Breaking down where the resources are available to solve the problem makes the “crisis” much more manageable and government action much more focused.

 

-- February 27, 2006

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Thompson is chairman and president of the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy, a non-partisan foundation seeking better alternatives to current government programs and policies. These are his opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Institute or its Board of Directors.  Mr. Thompson can be reached here.