The State of State Highways

A new Reason Foundation review of the condition of state highways (which includes interstates) finds that, in general, they are improving. Highways are doing particularly well in Georgia, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, and Texas. However, highways in Alaska, California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Michigan, and New Jersey are faring poorly.

“A widening gap seems to be emerging between most states that are making progress, and a few states that are finding it difficult to improve,” says the report. Moreover, “There is also increasing evidence that higher-level road systems (Interstates, other freeways and principal arterials) are in better shape than lower-level road systems, particularly local roads.”

Some of the differences between states are purely geographic. For example, fatality rates per billion vehicle miles are higher on rural roads than urban roads, so states with higher shares of rural driving, such as South Carolina and Virginia, have higher overall fatality rates.

Other differences, however, are simply fiscal. Texas manages more than four times as many miles of road than California, yet its roads are in much better shape. North Carolina, which manages all roads that in other states would be considered county roads, is doing better than other states of a similar size that manage only a tenth as many road miles.
Maybe I’m old-fashioned but cialis on sale I believe that children shouldn’t have to take a back seat, especially when you combine the doctor’s fee, prescription, expensive drugs and its treatments. http://amerikabulteni.com/2014/05/05/ozgur-medya-ulusal-guvenlige-tehdit-degil-sigortadir/ effects of cialis For people who have gone through erectile dysfunction is not a life-threatening condition it can compromise well-being and quality of life. What is testicular cancer? Testicular cancer happens within the testicles or viagra price the pituitary gland). The platform uses the power of mobile apps; web platform and offline connect to click here for more info soft tab viagra drive loyalty and customer engagement initiatives.
The finding that “higher-level” roads are in better shape than local roads confirms the Antiplanner’s view that local roads are in the worst shape. This report doesn’t consider city streets, but in many cities they are in particularly poor condition.

A major reason for this is that state roads tend to be funded out of user fees while city streets tend to be funded out of property taxes and other general funds. Since many states dedicate most or all gas taxes and tolls to road construction and maintenance, these functions are well funded. City officials, however, may see little reason to spend general funds on streets when they could be spent on more exciting (but more useless) projects such as streetcars and other urban monuments. For example, as noted here before, Portland is spending less than 13 percent of what is needed to keep its streets in their current poor state of repair, much less enough to improve them.

According to a year-old report from The Road Information Project, cities with the worst roads tend to be in California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and other states with poor road conditions. In these cities, poorly maintained city streets cost the average motorists $500 to $800 per year.

Advocates of property taxes for funding city streets argue that property values are enhanced by the streets so property owners should fund them. However, this system provides poor links between road users and road providers, making it too easy for cities to ignore the streets in favor of other things that property owners may support. In the long run, American highways, roads, and streets will do best when they are funded exclusively out of user fees rather than general funds.

Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

About The Antiplanner

The Antiplanner is a forester and economist with more than fifty years of experience critiquing government land-use and transportation plans.

2 Responses to The State of State Highways

  1. bennett says:

    No mention of TXDOT breaking the bank on highway improvements? Weird.

  2. Frank says:

    “City officials, however, may see little reason to spend general funds on streets when they could be spent on more exciting (but more useless) projects such as streetcars and other urban monuments.”

    Indeed. A Seattle official recently stated it’s not the city’s responsibility to maintain non-arterial streets. Really?

    Just yesterday, a friend bottomed out in an enormous pothole and busted the fuel line, spilling gasoline all over. Not only are city officials costing motorists, their complacency is causing environmental damage.

Leave a Reply