More on Maintenance of Secondary & Local Roads
We often hear that: 1) road maintenance costs are overwhelming Virginia's pool of transportation funds; and 2) growth in secondary roads is crushing the State's ability to construct other roads all over Virginia. What do State data show?
Are maintenance costs for secondary roads a larger percentage of VDOT's maintenance budget now than ten years ago? According to VDOT data, 44% of VDOT's maintenance budget for 1996 was spent on secondary roads. In 2005, secondary road maintenance costs had dropped to 42% of VDOT's total maintenance budget. Even when one considers the more costly payments for local road maintenance made by VDOT, total secondary and local road maintenance costs as a percentage of VDOT's total maintenance costs dropped from 56% in 1996 to 53% in 2005.
From these figures, it does not appear that maintenance for local streets is overwhelming VDOT's budget. We cannot afford to ignore these costs, and VDOT needs to strive for more efficiencies; but secondary and local road maintenance does not seem to be the big budget killer that it is purported to be.
Perhaps, the truth is that the road-building crowd (developers, land speculators, contractors, etc.) simply want to see more pavement for their own private benefit? Or does the Virginia business community and the press just mouth slogans, rather than examine data? Could our problems require more sophisticated solutions than "we need more money"?
Clearly, Virginia is adding more secondary streets at a rate that is exceeding growth in primary and interstate highways. But is that found throughout Virginia? Which jurisdictions are the culprits for adding these local roads to the system? According to State data, they are as follows:
This chart helps explain why many Virginia legislators don't see the crisis felt by others.
There remain many questions about transportation that need consideration. It's too bad that the bulk of Virginia's press and organized business community aren't participating seriously in this analysis and discussion.
Are maintenance costs for secondary roads a larger percentage of VDOT's maintenance budget now than ten years ago? According to VDOT data, 44% of VDOT's maintenance budget for 1996 was spent on secondary roads. In 2005, secondary road maintenance costs had dropped to 42% of VDOT's total maintenance budget. Even when one considers the more costly payments for local road maintenance made by VDOT, total secondary and local road maintenance costs as a percentage of VDOT's total maintenance costs dropped from 56% in 1996 to 53% in 2005.
From these figures, it does not appear that maintenance for local streets is overwhelming VDOT's budget. We cannot afford to ignore these costs, and VDOT needs to strive for more efficiencies; but secondary and local road maintenance does not seem to be the big budget killer that it is purported to be.
Perhaps, the truth is that the road-building crowd (developers, land speculators, contractors, etc.) simply want to see more pavement for their own private benefit? Or does the Virginia business community and the press just mouth slogans, rather than examine data? Could our problems require more sophisticated solutions than "we need more money"?
Clearly, Virginia is adding more secondary streets at a rate that is exceeding growth in primary and interstate highways. But is that found throughout Virginia? Which jurisdictions are the culprits for adding these local roads to the system? According to State data, they are as follows:
This chart helps explain why many Virginia legislators don't see the crisis felt by others.
There remain many questions about transportation that need consideration. It's too bad that the bulk of Virginia's press and organized business community aren't participating seriously in this analysis and discussion.
posted by Toomanytaxes at 5:21 PM
1 Comments:
TMT - Don't you know that you're not allowed to bring math and facts to a debate that even touches on development?
It's not about facts and data, it's about the religion of high density and that traffic jams are All Richmond's Fault. Don't bring your data to this playground, it's not allowed.
Did I infer from your post that perhaps there is an understandable difference between urban and rural interests playing out in Richmond? Let's not explore that any further. The notion that more rural areas might be hurt by traffic-balancing measures that would benefit suburban and urban areas skirts the forbidden field of Facts again.
It does not fit with the acceptabed perception that the problem lies wholly with a few downstate Republican hicks who are too stupid to know what's right. The thought that perhaps some kind of middle ground, horse-trading and compromise might be examined risks detracting from the "high density is always good" mantra, so we cannot discuss it further.
Post a Comment
<< Home