From the time of the Romans over 2000 years ago it has been known that a good road system promotes business and commerce. In 1965 the much needed Corridor H project was initiated as part of the Appalachian Development Highway System for the same reasons. Now some forty-four years later about a third has yet to be completed.[i] For comparison in March of 1942 the US Army began constructing a road to connect Alaska to the rest of the nation. They finished the 1,422 mile unimproved two-lane road through a complete wilderness eight months later in November of 1942.[ii] Interstate 80 which was the first transcontinental Interstate to be completed took only thirty years to complete[iii] its 2899 mile length. The estimates for a Corridor H completion date is still twenty-six years away.[iv] An entire generation of West Virginians will have been born, gone through school, worked a life time and retired before Corridor H’s completion. To build 133 miles of the transcontinental Interstate 80 took an average of sixteen months.
The question to many; Why is the 133 miles Corridor H taking close to seventy years to complete? The short answer for the long delay is the flawed funding mechanism the state is currently using. It relies too heavily on fickle Earmark funding from Washington, funding that can be easily taken away as happened recently.[v] Barry Goldwater once said, “A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away”[vi] and that is exactly what happen with the Corridor H funding. The state is required to pay 20% of Corridor H construction cost with the Federal Government providing the other 80% through the Appalachian Region Commission.[vii] The reason stated by the Obama Administration for eliminating the latest Corridor H funding was because the Federal portion was exceeding the 80% formula.[viii]
West Virginia can no longer afford to wait to finish Corridor H and as a result we must change the funding model the state is currently using. Let’s compare the current model the state is using to build Corridor H to building a new home. It would be as if when you got your pay check you took a small portion and used that money to buy a few two by fours, some sheet rock or shingles. You would then build a small portion of your new home. Every once and awhile you might get a tax refund or better yet a stimulus check (Earmark) from the government, then you run out, splurge and build a bigger chunk of your new house. The problem with this method is the part of your home you are building now would be much more expensive then the part you built in 1965, meaning overall construction cost will be much higher in the end. Additionally you will not have your home ready to move into until your ready to retire and you would be unable to use it to raise your family. That is why, for the most part, we don’t fund new home construction in this way.
The way most new homes are constructed is we borrow the money, build the new home in a short period of time, move in and pay for it over time. This accomplishes several things. One it locks the price in to the prices at the time of construction. Two it still allows us to pay for the new home over the same amount of time. Lastly it allows us to use the home during our life time. The state should be using the exact system funding method to complete the final sections of Corridor H over the next four to six years, instead of waiting the estimated twenty-six years to completion.[ix]
West Virginia’s bond rating is in the middle of the pack,[x] and the state has been working hard to maintain or improve it. In other words the state has a good credit rating and this gives us the ability to have a good interest rate on a loan to complete Corridor H in the near future. Right now the estimate for building a mile of Corridor H is $22 million per mile.[xi] If we continue to use the current funding method, that final mile of Corridor H will cost the taxpayers around $51 million to build in twenty-six years,[xii] costing the tax payer an additional $29 million the last mile alone. If we build it now by issuing bonds we lock the construction cost in at $22 million per mile. We cannot wait to complete Corridor H and continue this current fiscal irresponsibility.
We must borrow the money to complete Corridor H within the next four to six years locking in the cost savings to the taxpayer. It will provide a strong economic impact in the construction industry during construction over the next four to six years helping to offset the current job losses in the state. As the road nears completion the increased traffic along the route will help create jobs in the travel service industry from Hardy County to Lewis County. The increased ease of transport will help retain and attract industry along the route now, all the while increasing tax revenue for the state without increasing taxes.
The increased tax revenue will make it easier for the state to pay its 20%, while the rest of the loan payments are made with the guaranteed 80% Federal matching funds. If we change now and stop waiting on earmark funding, then we take control of our own destiny and will no longer be subject to whims of Washington politics. Now is the time for West Virginia to stand up, be fiscally responsible and complete Corridor H within six years.
[i] WVCorridorH.com, The Route, Project Timeline
[ii] MSN, Encarta Encyclopedia, Alaska Highway
[iii] Federal Highway Administration, Celebrating the Eisenhower Interstate System, Facts of the Day March 5, 2009
[iv] Foxnews.com, Byrd’s Road to Nowhere, March 10, 2009
[v] Charleston Daily Mail, Obama’s budget eliminates Corridor H funds, May 8, 2009
[vi] Famous-Quotes.com, Famous Quotes by Barry Goldwater
[vii] Appalachian Regional Commission, ARC Project Guidelines, Section 3.2
[viii] The Intermountain, Obama budget eliminates Corridor H funds, May 8, 2009
[ix] Foxnews.com, Byrd’s Road to Nowhere, March 10, 2009
[x] Michigan State Senate, Senate Fiscal Agency Memorandum, Table 2 State Bond Ratings, Feb. 20, 2007
[xi] Foxnews.com, Byrd’s Road to Nowhere, March 10, 2009
[xii] InflationData.com, US Long Term Inflation Rate
No comments:
Post a Comment