Editorial

Road-funding approach is good

After years of trying unsuccessfully to convince Missourians and lawmakers that the state highway system needs massive amounts of money for improvements and repairs, the Missouri Department of Transportation has opted to take a more mellow approach toward highway funding.

The Highways and Transportation Commission recently approved a 10-year plan that contains proposed road and bridge improvements through the life of the plan but also includes examples of what could be done with an additional $200 million, $400 million or $600 million annually.

Long-range plans such as this one offer the department a strategy for new construction and maintenance, and a timetable for projects to be accomplished. Because of funding limitations and unexpected needs, not all of the work is accomplished on schedule, and some don't get done at all.

Past plans have contained recommendations on how to raise additional money for highways, and the department has actively pursued new funding and lobbied for beefed-up funding from the General Assembly. The top need, as the department sees it, still is more money, but rather than asking for a windfall, the agency is willing to take anything it can get.

This plan says an additional $200 million annually could result in improvements to 1,200 more miles of highways and repairs to 250 more bridges, and could help fund 500 new vehicles and replace 250. An extra $400 million annually could result in 1,500 more miles of highway repairs and 300 more bridge repairs, compared to the current funding level. Another $600 million annually could allow the state to widen more two-lane roads to four lanes and further expand rural and urban public transit systems, the plan notes.

Last session, the agency initially said it needed an astounding $1 billion more annually, then welcomed a $700 million plan passed in the House. It eventually lowered its sights to a $500 million bill that ran into trouble in the Senate. The department ultimately got nothing more.

The department apparently has learned that using what amounts to scare tactics in citing needs for such enormous amounts of additional money gets it nowhere with the Missouri Legislature or taxpayers. It is refreshing to see the agency take a more realistic approach to financing and accepting the fact that it must function the best it can with the money it has.

In the long run, Missourians and lawmakers might take their pleas for huge amounts of additional money a little more seriously.

Comments