HIGHWAY PROMISES NEED TO BE KEPT

When Charles Kruse, president of the Missouri Farm Bureau, visited Cape Girardeau recently, he didn't mince his words regarding highway needs in the state. In plain language, he said the 15-year highway plan adopted in 1992 needs to be completed. Why? Simple, says Kruse. Taxpayers were promised the projects would be done in return for a bigger share of Missourians' pocketbooks.

It is hard to argue with Kruse's logic. Over the years since the 1992 plan was adopted, taxpayers have been saddled with higher fuel taxes to pay for the projects anticipated by the 15-year plan. As a matter of fact, taxpayers continue to pay those taxes, even though the Missouri Department of Transportation has officially abandoned the plan.

In its place are the recommendations of Gov. Mel Carnahan's Total Transportation Commission. This is the commission whose chairman refused to allow any discussion of the 15-year plan, and who wouldn't entertain any proposals to make sure the 15-year plan's promises were kept, even if expanded transportation needs were to be added.

The Missouri Farm Bureau is a major force in this state, with members in each of the 114 counties. The Farm Bureau worked hard to get voter support for the 15-year plan. Now Kruse's message is plain: The Farm Bureau will work just as hard to make sure those highway promises are kept.

After all, what credibility would any new plan -- the TTC's recommendations or anyone else's -- have if the old plan is scuttled? In fact, Missourians would wind up paying double for any new plan. They would continue to pay increased fuel taxes that were originally designated for the 15-year plan, plus any new taxes -- the TTC proposed another penny of state sales tax.

There is no question that 15 years is too long for highway plans. Needs change. Costs change. Federal participation changes. That's all well and good. Missouri learned its lesson. No more 15-year plans. But that still doesn't relieve the obligation to the plan.

What the TTC hoped for was a shift of focus to a new plan that would sound better than the old plan, particularly if the old plan had a black eye from poor financial planning. But even that has been called into question. There are indications the money is available to do the 15-year plan, even if it takes a few years longer than expected.

Meanwhile, there is another component to highway funding that is drawing the attention of the Farm Bureau: the amount of federal dollars Missourians pay and how much the state gets back from the federal highway trust fund.

In short, Missouri only gets back 80 cents of each dollar it sends to Washington. Other states break even, and still others reap huge bonuses by collecting far more in federal highway aid that they pay.

The Farm Bureau is circulating petitions that urge a higher rate of return from the feds.

This effort is connected to the Farm Bureau's overall position on highway plans for the state. If the feds kick in more money -- to which the state is clearly entitled -- then the 15-year plan's financial shortfalls start to disappear.

Others, including the TTC, would rather see those and any other dollars poured into non-highway projects such as mass transit in urban areas. Those projects, which serve one locality rather than a whole state, should be paid for by those who use them. Highways are still a top priority for Missouri, and the attention should be on using available funds and a possible increase in federal aid to get the job done.