- Agencies are created out of thin air. Thus, by all appearances they are too large to be involved with what should be local matters with not enough accountability. This creates the potential for abuse of power.
- Regions appear to be too vague in their boundaries and overlap each other making them susceptible to conflicts between agencies under the regional agreement.
- The creation of another layer of government would drive up costs while not really improving quality.
- A region seems like an unnecessary layer of government when you could just have the state provide road maintenance for the local governments.
- Regions are still too big. A county is a big enough unit of government to handle local matters.
Agencies are created out of thin air. Thus, by all appearances they are too large to be involved with what should be local matters with not enough accountability. This creates the potential for abuse of power.
Regional roads present an issue that is unusual in government in this country: the issue of creating a cooperative. Obviously a cooperative presents a unique situation where decisions are made democratically by partner agencies instead of operating under a sole government structure like with a state DOT or county. Is this a bad thing? Nonetheless, these issues presented above were all considered when the plan was first written. That is why this plan was written and revised considering all of the doubts and criticism over challenging the status quo model. The issue of accountability is a tough one, because with road maintenance any level of government can be aloof and irresponsible with public funds. Just like with a county, city or state there is no guarantee that every region will do a great job or will not be tarnished by corruption. The hope is that these issues will be minimalized by the division of powers present in this system by keeping construction funds local while limiting the powers of the cooperative to engineering and routine maintenance. In addition, the creation of an elected position just for each regional agency will also help to increase accountability. In any case, a large pool of money is basically being entrusted to a few individuals making decisions on where roads are built, how much is spent, which roads are fixed and how well any of that is done. For comparison, some states do a much better job than others.
What has been made very clear throughout this site are that the smallest local governments cannot be trusted to maintain roads to proper standards whether or not the roads are closer to the people. While these roads are closer to the people, you have a number of potential issues that affect the ability of a local government to provide high standards, including:
Any combination of these issues is often the case, and even if the factors are right for awhile, this can quickly change. It is not that these factors do not also exist on a state level, but there is safety in numbers. A large enough population and higher levels of scrutiny by citizens and attorneys alike are more likely to keep a larger agency on their toes as to what is right and wrong. The smaller agencies can plead poverty (not enough money) or ignorance ("Nobody ever told me that before, so I never thought it was an issue"), but the creation of regional roads as an option is designed to eliminate excuses. If they are too poor, too ignorant, to cheap, too lazy or just do not care about keeping up their roads correctly, they should be encouraged to exit the road maintenance business redirecting their funds to an agency that is never incapable of anything related to roadway standards.
Inversely, what has also been made clear is that state government is not always accountable with local level roads. The controversies surrounding the centralized structures in Virginia and South Carolina are precisely what gave birth to the partially-decentralized regional node model. With states refusing to raise revenues, diverting funding away from transportation, and putting pet projects ahead of maintenance it was considered that the state's role in maintenance on roads not otherwise designated state highways should be limited to maintenance and not construction. Nevertheless, regions might be a good middle ground. Even in Virginia it was proposed on Part 3 to create regional systems in the larger metropolitan areas while keeping the centralized state models in the rural areas less adept or capable of operating a successful regional model.
Regional roads present an issue that is unusual in government in this country: the issue of creating a cooperative. Obviously a cooperative presents a unique situation where decisions are made democratically by partner agencies instead of operating under a sole government structure like with a state DOT or county. Is this a bad thing? Nonetheless, these issues presented above were all considered when the plan was first written. That is why this plan was written and revised considering all of the doubts and criticism over challenging the status quo model. The issue of accountability is a tough one, because with road maintenance any level of government can be aloof and irresponsible with public funds. Just like with a county, city or state there is no guarantee that every region will do a great job or will not be tarnished by corruption. The hope is that these issues will be minimalized by the division of powers present in this system by keeping construction funds local while limiting the powers of the cooperative to engineering and routine maintenance. In addition, the creation of an elected position just for each regional agency will also help to increase accountability. In any case, a large pool of money is basically being entrusted to a few individuals making decisions on where roads are built, how much is spent, which roads are fixed and how well any of that is done. For comparison, some states do a much better job than others.
What has been made very clear throughout this site are that the smallest local governments cannot be trusted to maintain roads to proper standards whether or not the roads are closer to the people. While these roads are closer to the people, you have a number of potential issues that affect the ability of a local government to provide high standards, including:
- Poverty: County or municipality simply does not have the resources to provide much on their own
- Apathy: Road maintenance or road maintenance standards are a low priority to the local governing body
- Ignorance: Local agency is not aware of what constitutes proper standards or practices and nobody has made them aware of the problem
- Cronyism: Agency is staffed properly, but is staffed largely with friends and relatives that
- Stinginess: Local agency knows their roads are inadequate, but does not want to put out the funding necessary to provide proper equipment, staff and training nor spend an adequate sum on materials.
- Laziness: Nobody working on a local level cares about making the extra effort to properly supervise road maintenance even if the money is there. Often tied to cronyism
Any combination of these issues is often the case, and even if the factors are right for awhile, this can quickly change. It is not that these factors do not also exist on a state level, but there is safety in numbers. A large enough population and higher levels of scrutiny by citizens and attorneys alike are more likely to keep a larger agency on their toes as to what is right and wrong. The smaller agencies can plead poverty (not enough money) or ignorance ("Nobody ever told me that before, so I never thought it was an issue"), but the creation of regional roads as an option is designed to eliminate excuses. If they are too poor, too ignorant, to cheap, too lazy or just do not care about keeping up their roads correctly, they should be encouraged to exit the road maintenance business redirecting their funds to an agency that is never incapable of anything related to roadway standards.
Burnet County, TX is just one of many counties in the country who are too small or too numerous to be accountable in terms of road standards. This unmarked 90 degree turn on a county road demonstrates that the county has skimped on traffic control to fund other roadway priorities. If grouped into a larger region such matters that are currently viewed as excessive in cost by the county could become routine for a more technocratic regional agency. Nevertheless, the same region would be centered near or not far from Burnet County (most likely in an Austin regional system not connected with TxDOT) in lieu of being operated as a division of the TxDOT centered in Austin. (Image from Google Street View).
Inversely, what has also been made clear is that state government is not always accountable with local level roads. The controversies surrounding the centralized structures in Virginia and South Carolina are precisely what gave birth to the partially-decentralized regional node model. With states refusing to raise revenues, diverting funding away from transportation, and putting pet projects ahead of maintenance it was considered that the state's role in maintenance on roads not otherwise designated state highways should be limited to maintenance and not construction. Nevertheless, regions might be a good middle ground. Even in Virginia it was proposed on Part 3 to create regional systems in the larger metropolitan areas while keeping the centralized state models in the rural areas less adept or capable of operating a successful regional model.
Regions appear to be too vague in their boundaries and overlap each other making them susceptible to conflicts between agencies under the regional agreement
Because it is still a subdivision of the state, a region would obviously be far more accountable than either the state or the local governments. It would be both removed from local politics while likewise being responsible to a specific region of similar needs and characteristics. It means that neither a rural area and large city nor two cities will not have to compete for the same dollars when it comes to local level roads, but it also means that the revenue sources will be ample to provide state level maintenance on local level roads.
It was initially proposed just to have a minimum population threshold as the only plan on how to form a region, but an additional criteria was added based on the federal regional planning commissions. This means that you have three required categories:
Picture if such a system exists in Texas. Texas is clearly too large for a fully centralized road system, but a state within a state concept would help tremendously. Here are the figures for Texas:
They say don't mess with Texas, but the road system could stand to be messed up in a good way. Far too large for centralization, but far too fragmented to provide consistent road standards this plan carves the state into clusters of single purpose city-states for the sole purpose of road maintenance. In the majority of cases the state-owned primary and farm-to-market roads would be maintained by the regions shown here along with most county roads and municipal streets in all the areas shown. Because of the very low populations in rural areas and the very high populations of the metropolitan statistical areas, these regions cover a huge number of counties. The smallest of these districts still has over 300,000 residents.
The concept of regional roads is a "city-state" model where 1-2 larger cities are sharing resources with the less populous surrounding areas. For instance, Houston metro alone has 6.6 million residents: roughly the same population as the entire state of Massachusetts and only slightly less than Washington State! Couldn't Houston alone greatly benefit all 10 counties in the region especially lower population Austin and Chambers Counties? While regions would be somewhat more distant than a county, city or town, they would still be able to do a much better job than a smaller agency on their own. Nevertheless, people do not want to deal with an aloof agency with no public connection. As a result, controls were proposed for regions including boards that include local elected officials. Another possibility is term limits for all positions and/or elections for chief traffic engineers thus rotating the position. Regardless, the outcome of having a traffic engineering team overseeing a large number of roads that is able to pool resources and funding is going to be much better than a small county, city or town doing the same without the resources to fund traffic engineers, staff or purchase higher cost materials to complete the job. When a geographic area made up of many small jurisdictions can act as high population area through one single agency, the potential for better roadway standards greatly increases. Hopefully the Texas example demonstrates how this can work.
One thing that has been made very clear about the outcome of regions is that these are NOT overlapping entities. They may overlay counties, cities and towns within the region but the boundaries are set and are set top-down. With exception to pilot projects, the idea is that all parts of a single state must fall into at least one regional road district in effect carving the entire state into smaller regions that are much larger than single counties, cities or towns. The boundaries touch each other, but they do not overlap. This is not an issue of individual counties/cities opting out if they want more control or the establishment of vague and gentlemen's agreements for various services. This is designed to be a clear and very public mandate that creates more local control than a complete state takeover of local roads and streets. It has the express purpose of making sure that road funding creates the highest standards and is most effectively and efficiently spent. Significant autonomy was worked into this plan for local agencies, and the general position is that regions primarily handle engineering and road maintenance with local agencies handling construction funding. Picture in the case of Texas that Texas is essentially carved into 25 separate phantom states except that these 25 "states" are single purpose districts instead of general purpose mini state governments. While it could be a model for regional autonomy, this is NOT the idea behind this plan. All counties, cities and towns listed still retain the same powers they have except those exclusively given to the regions for roads.
The creation of another layer of government would drive up costs while not really improving quality
It was initially proposed just to have a minimum population threshold as the only plan on how to form a region, but an additional criteria was added based on the federal regional planning commissions. This means that you have three required categories:
- Minimum population threshold of 300,000 residents
- Once the minimum threshold is met, regions must be tied to the boundaries of regional planning commissions
- Regional planning commissions should not be confused with metropolitan statistical areas. RPC boundaries encompass every county, municipality and township within a state
- During the formation of regions, initial partnerships should not be restricted by RPC regions. They should be divided off once every potential RPC region has at least 300,000 residents among its member local governments
- If regional population falls below 300,000 residents, the region must partner with the region with the next smallest population
- If the next smallest region is already partnered, then the region may partner with any other available region
- The region with the next smallest population is preferred if it is available
Picture if such a system exists in Texas. Texas is clearly too large for a fully centralized road system, but a state within a state concept would help tremendously. Here are the figures for Texas:
- 254 counties: the largest number in the United States
- A state population of 27,695,284
- Texas counties range from 82 residents (Loving County) to 4,092,459 residents (Harris County). Many Texas counties have less than 1,000 residents and the largest population counties are carved into numerous cities and towns.
- The proposed rural regions are designed to have at least 300,000 residents
- 24 regional planning commissions exist in Texas
- This means a maximum range of 55-92 regions thus consolidating road maintenance into far fewer entities covering far more terrain.
- 24 MSA regions exist to successfully group urban and rural counties together
- The four largest MSA regions range from 1.7 million residents (Austin) to 6.4 million residents (Dallas-Fort Worth). This would range from a combined approximately 4 regions in Austin to approximately 13 combined regions for Dallas-Fort Worth.
- The combined metropolitan regions would most likely result in an actual sum of 25-30 regions statewide.
- Texas has 1/4 of their roads under state control, but the regional model would permit TxDOT to transfer ownership of the farm-to-market roads to the regions in addition to the majority of county and municipal roads in the vast rural areas across the state.
- This division into regions would provide state-level maintenance to the local level for all of Texas while keeping funding localized to regions surrounding the state's largest cities. Money for regions would not be doled out by Austin. San Antonio would not have to compete with Dallas for funding and a large remote region in West Texas would not have to compete with Corpus Christi for dollars.
- The regional plan frees the lower population counties to focus on other matters while making sure that roadway dollars stay close to home. San Antonio road dollars stay close to San Antonio but will also extend beyond the Bexar County line to help the eight surrounding counties improve their own standards and stretch their local dollars further.
They say don't mess with Texas, but the road system could stand to be messed up in a good way. Far too large for centralization, but far too fragmented to provide consistent road standards this plan carves the state into clusters of single purpose city-states for the sole purpose of road maintenance. In the majority of cases the state-owned primary and farm-to-market roads would be maintained by the regions shown here along with most county roads and municipal streets in all the areas shown. Because of the very low populations in rural areas and the very high populations of the metropolitan statistical areas, these regions cover a huge number of counties. The smallest of these districts still has over 300,000 residents.
The concept of regional roads is a "city-state" model where 1-2 larger cities are sharing resources with the less populous surrounding areas. For instance, Houston metro alone has 6.6 million residents: roughly the same population as the entire state of Massachusetts and only slightly less than Washington State! Couldn't Houston alone greatly benefit all 10 counties in the region especially lower population Austin and Chambers Counties? While regions would be somewhat more distant than a county, city or town, they would still be able to do a much better job than a smaller agency on their own. Nevertheless, people do not want to deal with an aloof agency with no public connection. As a result, controls were proposed for regions including boards that include local elected officials. Another possibility is term limits for all positions and/or elections for chief traffic engineers thus rotating the position. Regardless, the outcome of having a traffic engineering team overseeing a large number of roads that is able to pool resources and funding is going to be much better than a small county, city or town doing the same without the resources to fund traffic engineers, staff or purchase higher cost materials to complete the job. When a geographic area made up of many small jurisdictions can act as high population area through one single agency, the potential for better roadway standards greatly increases. Hopefully the Texas example demonstrates how this can work.
One thing that has been made very clear about the outcome of regions is that these are NOT overlapping entities. They may overlay counties, cities and towns within the region but the boundaries are set and are set top-down. With exception to pilot projects, the idea is that all parts of a single state must fall into at least one regional road district in effect carving the entire state into smaller regions that are much larger than single counties, cities or towns. The boundaries touch each other, but they do not overlap. This is not an issue of individual counties/cities opting out if they want more control or the establishment of vague and gentlemen's agreements for various services. This is designed to be a clear and very public mandate that creates more local control than a complete state takeover of local roads and streets. It has the express purpose of making sure that road funding creates the highest standards and is most effectively and efficiently spent. Significant autonomy was worked into this plan for local agencies, and the general position is that regions primarily handle engineering and road maintenance with local agencies handling construction funding. Picture in the case of Texas that Texas is essentially carved into 25 separate phantom states except that these 25 "states" are single purpose districts instead of general purpose mini state governments. While it could be a model for regional autonomy, this is NOT the idea behind this plan. All counties, cities and towns listed still retain the same powers they have except those exclusively given to the regions for roads.
The creation of another layer of government would drive up costs while not really improving quality
Another view of regions is that it will just create another layer of government. Regional road systems are not a general purpose unit, and they are designed to replace full local government responsibility for road maintenance of non-state roads in the vast majority of cases. They also do not carve up existing counties, cities and towns into smaller unit. By design they are no smaller than a single county and in most cases much larger. They serve a single purpose: to supervise the construction and maintenance of roads. The plan is that they will assume the entire responsibility that is currently entrusted to smaller local agencies with exception to higher population counties and cities that are able to handle controlling the more local streets. In those exceptional areas, regions would still be required to maintain federal-aid eligible roads not otherwise owned by the state and would also typically maintain state roads on behalf of the state. As a whole they are designed primarily to relieve local agencies of road maintenance duties for the purpose of raising local road standards and improving cost efficiency. While boundaries for regions would be flexible based on population changes, the boundaries would completely cover the state meaning that no agency is allowed to completely opt out once the regional plan is established. Opting out would by necessity be restricted thus limited to only certain functions and/or certain roads as laid out in the three types of regional systems described below.
A region seems like an unnecessary layer of government when you could just have the state provide road maintenance for the local governments
A region seems like an unnecessary layer of government when you could just have the state provide road maintenance for the local governments
The above example with Texas points out the reason why this statement is unrealistic. The sad reality is that states for the most part would like to be out of the road maintenance business, and the huge population increases in the majority of states mean that the states would prefer to at least reduce, not expand their roles. With the increased polarization of the population to larger cities, the balance between rural and urban needs no longer exists. Urban areas need new roads and larger roads more quickly while rural areas do not want to be left behind. Urban areas do not care if some far flung portion of the state does not have enough money to pave their roads while rural areas do not want to see a large chunk of the state's budget used just to rebuild a large interchange that could be used instead to improve a much longer major highway in their area. When those same dollars are spread down to both the smallest subdivision street and gravel track with three houses on it, it creates the potential for conflict meaning the the states in turn want to concentrate all available dollars to the major roads with the greatest needs. In this concept the state can turn more responsibility away without transferring it to a unit of government too small to keep the roads maintained to the same levels that the state had prior.
The potential is there for something much better than what we have today. These two images show a well-engineered sign program for Jamestown Road in Chattooga County vs. what is unfortunately actually there. It is designed by GDOT as minor collector, but is actually an important road extending over a long distance connecting Gadsden, AL to towns and sites in Broomtown Valley. However, that will never happen as long as status quo is maintained (and obviously in a very half-assed way).
Having a more centralized, coordinated system based on regions gets rid of information holes created by multiple small jurisdictions that exhibit little interest in the functional needs of the road such as roadway realignments to eliminate unnecessary turns/doglegs, posting directional guide signs, and posting trailblazers. Although signed for "New England" from I-59, Slygo Road has no further signage describing the two addition turns needed to reach it nor does it relay the needed turn to connect to the original highway, US 11.
Along with the funding disputes, state DOT's laced with aging infrastructure also want the legal responsibility for less traveled roads off of their hands. Moreso, state legislatures do not want to take credit for a huge tax increase required to maintain a larger road system at the same levels as in the past preferring to pass the responsibility to the local governments. Local governments in turn do not want the state to dictate road standards including how and where road funding is spent. This argument is not new. The problem is that most local agencies are not suited for this responsibility and never will be. They are too small in funding, road mileage responsibility, the structure necessary for a professional DOT-level agency, and in economies of scale required for efficient distribution of funding for both low and high cost improvements. If the state completely refuses to offer to work as a contractor on behalf of these counties, where else can they turn? This is how the regional idea was born. The regional idea is designed with the intent on bringing state standards to local roads without having to funnel all of those funds through the state capitol where competition for funds strips funding from the local level. The state conflict may not be solved, but this does not mean that regional matters should be forced on a small local government that lack the resources to do what a state or high population area can do much better. The regions bring high population agencies to every corner of the state without relying on the state. The fact that Georgia has the population to support multiple regions is the same reason that a centralized state agency is a bad idea: the ratio of employees to citizens on both levels is very out of whack.
Very few parts of the country are able to see past this big lie that local control via counties, cities, and townships are an excellent way to manage roads. The entire myth of this has to be at least a product of "NIMBYism" where the priviledged few that "got there first" get to hoard any available road funds just for them and be damned the rest of the state, a neighboring county, etc. as if their county, city, etc. is a big country club surrounded by the undeserving abyss. What they fail to notice is that THEIR costs go up, quality goes down, and taxes also go up. Inversely sharing services does NOT mean sharing everything. Let the counties, cities, and towns build what they want, but that doesn't mean that they are going to provide suitable routine maintenance. That is the goal here: to get both the state and the counties out of a business that they are failing at. It is the creation of "just right" government vs. too big (GDOT) and too small (159 counties and over 500 cities). The regions proposed here are likely no larger than the largest counties in Arizona or California, but they will have much larger populations to work with as a means to raise adequate funds for all roadway services.
As was stated in another post, a low population county, city or town does not provide an efficient model for local services. While proximity to the people has always been an ideal of small units of government, certain services cannot be provided at acceptable levels on a local level unless both the population is there and roadway services are shared among the municipalities in that county like they are in most cities in Los Angeles County, California. In an ideal situation, a state will simply provide services to local governments as a contractor paid for by local funds or a retainer where their economies of scale, population and funding are just too low to handle it themselves. In theory these local agencies would see that they are not able to do what the state or urban counties can do and ask for relief where the state then steps in and provides those services with no complaints from anyone. A means test would be applied to those who do provide it, and an expectation that state and federal standards would be placed on all local governments along with ample funding from the state government.
In truth, the states rarely step in. Outside of a few high class zip codes, most local governments are often teetering on bankruptcy with failing schools, inadequate facilities, and a total lack of accountability given the rampant nepotism found in local control. Likewise, many local governments resist help when it is available because they put politics ahead of the public's best interest. Typically local political machines are operated by just one or two wealthy families in the small communities with the only real accountability happening in more transient areas with higher populations. Just because a person can drive 5 miles to talk to the mayor or county commissioners does not mean that either is willing or able to fix the problem. Most likely the person in charge of fixing the problem is related to someone else and in that position for that reason alone not because they are actually qualified for that position. While cronyism is found in all levels of government, it is routine in rural local agencies.
It should also be pointed out that nearly every county, most cities and most townships across the country were not designed with any intention of being able to handle road maintenance. When they were established, most people were not even driving cars and most roads were unpaved wagon trails. Modern traffic engineering expertise was thus needed less often and quite often road work was handled in a manner similar to jury duty with compulsory work crews brought in to repair and maintain roads. Today, a typical county has the majority of its roads paved and must include as much as 50% of their budget for roads thus reducing available funds for other services. With such a high demand, this leaves little left for items that are manageable for a larger unit of government such as traffic engineering services and specialized equipment. Hiring contractors to do local matters has a profit motive thus additionally driving up costs forcing a local agency to permanently cut corners in a number of areas. Most of these counties and townships would willingly hand the direct responsibility up to a higher level of government as long as they were able to maintain control over planning and have funding available to continue local construction projects, but right now nobody is offering! The regional model is designed to make this easy for all local governments.
In truth, the states rarely step in. Outside of a few high class zip codes, most local governments are often teetering on bankruptcy with failing schools, inadequate facilities, and a total lack of accountability given the rampant nepotism found in local control. Likewise, many local governments resist help when it is available because they put politics ahead of the public's best interest. Typically local political machines are operated by just one or two wealthy families in the small communities with the only real accountability happening in more transient areas with higher populations. Just because a person can drive 5 miles to talk to the mayor or county commissioners does not mean that either is willing or able to fix the problem. Most likely the person in charge of fixing the problem is related to someone else and in that position for that reason alone not because they are actually qualified for that position. While cronyism is found in all levels of government, it is routine in rural local agencies.
The perception people have of local roads and streets.
An actual local road (major collector carrying state highway traffic).
It should also be pointed out that nearly every county, most cities and most townships across the country were not designed with any intention of being able to handle road maintenance. When they were established, most people were not even driving cars and most roads were unpaved wagon trails. Modern traffic engineering expertise was thus needed less often and quite often road work was handled in a manner similar to jury duty with compulsory work crews brought in to repair and maintain roads. Today, a typical county has the majority of its roads paved and must include as much as 50% of their budget for roads thus reducing available funds for other services. With such a high demand, this leaves little left for items that are manageable for a larger unit of government such as traffic engineering services and specialized equipment. Hiring contractors to do local matters has a profit motive thus additionally driving up costs forcing a local agency to permanently cut corners in a number of areas. Most of these counties and townships would willingly hand the direct responsibility up to a higher level of government as long as they were able to maintain control over planning and have funding available to continue local construction projects, but right now nobody is offering! The regional model is designed to make this easy for all local governments.
THE THREE TYPES OF REGIONAL ROAD SYSTEMS
As was discussed before, three different models are proposed for regional road systems. These have varying degrees of control and responsibility.
- Regional highway systems (A proportion of roads deeded to the region with local control retained for local streets)
- A comprehensive regional system (All local road maintenance in the region consolidated into a single agency)
- Regional engineering districts (Local control retained, but traffic engineering and traffic control consolidated into a regional agency)
Among these types include combinations of these three types of systems as described below.
Regional Highway Systems
In regional highway systems, a portion of sales or gas taxes is transferred to a regional highway agency for the purpose of maintaining regionally important roadways that are not otherwise owned or maintained by the state. A regional highway system can be roughly compared to the county road systems found in the upper Midwest where counties are responsible for mostly federal-aid eligible roads while townships are responsible for the truly local streets. Thus, a regional highway system provides a three-tiered approach on a level higher than a county. Here is how they would compare in different regions of the country:
- In the Southeast, a regional highway system carves off the most important county roads and municipal streets to be maintained by a region covering multiple counties and cities. County roads and city streets would still exist, but they would be limited to roads that actually are functionally local while higher classification roads are the responsibility of either the state or region.
- In the Northeast, a regional highway system would cover multiple townships not necessarily overlaying existing county boundaries if no county highway system otherwise exists. They would be based on population and township/municipal boundaries instead of the boundaries of the otherwise defunct counties thus a region may include part of a county, all of a county or parts of multiple counties.
- In the Midwest, a regional highway system would replace the county road system. In these states, county authority for maintenance would be replaced with regional authority. While this would mean fewer agencies involved the overall structure would remain with counties maintaining generally higher classification roads.
- In the West, a regional highway system would likely be less common due to the size of the counties and lack of population in outlying areas. They would most likely exist closer to large metropolitan areas as well. Most regions would either be single counties plus the cities except in rural counties where the population is low if they are used at all. In very low population states like Wyoming or Idaho a regional road system would consist essentially of a separate division of the state DOT working on behalf of the counties and cities meaning a separate state agency.
- In very small states, a regional model may not work since the population and land area is already low enough that the state could essentially handle those services more easily with the population too low to form more than 1-2 regions. In states like Vermont and New Hampshire, a regional road system would more than likely end up being the consolidate of engineering services and certain roadway functions to the state level.
While these regional roads under the first type would still be mileage-limited highway systems, a fundamental difference is that unlike the approach states are taking functional consolidation would still be pursued for remaining roads and streets. This means that the region would typically handle maintenance for county, city, town and township road they do not otherwise own. The difference in this model is that regions would not own roads beyond the roads they are required by legislation to maintain. In these cases either the county/city/town voluntarily opts out of road maintenance handing the responsibility to the region and/or the local agency is required to use regional forces if the population of the local agency is too low. Either way, the local agency and not the region would own those roads and would be responsible for their financing. This means that basically the county/city/town pays the region to maintain their roads and streets while retaining exclusive jurisdiction for planning and financing larger roadway improvements on those roads. The regional routes, on the other hand, would be collectively funded similar to state routes and would be solely regional responsibility. Regional highway systems would likely also be contracted to handle routine maintenance of state highways within their regions similar to the set up that currently exists with county roads in Michigan and Wisconsin.
Elements of this plan can be compared to the Secondary State Roads Plan, Two Way Consolidated Road Maintenance Plan and Cooperative Maintenance Plan
Elements of this plan can be compared to the Secondary State Roads Plan, Two Way Consolidated Road Maintenance Plan and Cooperative Maintenance Plan
Regional Road Maintenance Consolidation
In theory, the ideal plan is to cut out the middle man and transfer all roads presently designated county, city or town to the regional road agency. This approach would provide the greatest cost efficiency and least bureaucracy. It would be similar to how North Carolina revoked authority of counties to maintain their own roads except that in this case it would be handled by the "state within a state" regional agency. Another fundamental difference from North Carolina is that the regional road maintenance includes cities and towns while the North Carolina approach typically limits or excludes cities and towns. Why this approach was not considered exclusively is because a consolidation measure that completely revokes local authority by transferring that responsibility to a larger agency is controversial. Accountability may be more difficult to achieve if the regional agency is solely responsible for every road not otherwise maintained by the state.
Nevertheless, a rural region may willingly adopt such a strategy. If a region consists entirely of lower population counties or townships, obviously these local agencies will not be financially capable of providing state-level maintenance standards on their own for any road and may be struggling to fund road maintenance at all. Unlike a state where a transportation plan must be evenly applied statewide, individual regions have flexibility. While a more urbanized region may adopt the first regional highway plan, a rural region where all counties have low populations may be more willing to completely transfer responsibility to the region. In this case, a region would likely gain complete taxation power with all local agencies avoiding direct responsibility other than seed funding road improvements through local property taxes.
Elements of this plan can be compared to the State Contracting Plan and Secondary State Roads Plan.
Elements of this plan can be compared to the State Contracting Plan and Secondary State Roads Plan.
Regional Engineering Districts
A regional engineering district is the most stripped down portion of the plan. While it is less likely to be cost efficient, it would be just as effective in improving road standards. The idea of a regional engineering district is to consolidate traffic engineering into one unit while otherwise retaining local control. This means that while every local street department remains intact, day to day operations fall under the authority and supervision of a regional traffic engineering unit. The regional engineering district is also the primary method which local agencies could combine forces without any state involvement. Essentially all counties, cities and towns involved pool resources to fund a regional engineering unit who is responsible for providing engineering for all agencies involved. In such a plan the engineers look for ways to streamline certain functions and responsibilities while keeping others separate.
A regional engineering district should retain one duty exclusively in such an arrangement and that is traffic control. Federal guidelines state that traffic control is required to be supervised by a registered civil engineer which most local agencies lack. Thus, traffic control is consolidated into a single unit serving the entire region so that every single road and street has traffic control handled by a staff of engineers. This means a single traffic operations facility, joint purchasing and engineering decisions made by a team working for the entire region. Other efficiencies that could be adopted include shared equipment, shared materials (street cleaning, mowing, plows and road salt) and co-location of facilities. While each local agency would otherwise by responsible for constructing and maintaining their own roads, the specific responsibility for traffic control and implementation of roadway projects requiring a civil engineer would fall to the region.
It should also be noted that for best results state maintenance standards should be applied in all regional engineering districts since the population and revenues would be sufficient to cover higher cost materials. This means that traffic control devices installed and maintained by the region should be in substantial compliance with both the MUTCD and state standards. The beauty of the concept of regional engineering districts is that the state will be able to far more easily supervise regional work and mandate best practices while a county, city or town can claim weak finances or local control as an excuse to shun them.
It should also be noted that for best results state maintenance standards should be applied in all regional engineering districts since the population and revenues would be sufficient to cover higher cost materials. This means that traffic control devices installed and maintained by the region should be in substantial compliance with both the MUTCD and state standards. The beauty of the concept of regional engineering districts is that the state will be able to far more easily supervise regional work and mandate best practices while a county, city or town can claim weak finances or local control as an excuse to shun them.
It is also important to note that civil engineers are among the highest paid employees of any local agency, which is why they are typically not affordable for most local governments without special state funding in states with a large number of counties. Not all states offer this. Alabama is a good example.
Considering this number, a team of at least three engineers is preferred running at about $270,000 a year for a region of 200,000 residents. If this is split among for instance eight counties, each county pays on average $33,750 a year meaning that they pay nearly a third of the cost for three full time engineers when just one would have costed them three times as much. Having a team allows specialization and less dependence on state forces for technical matters.
As was also stated before, the regional engineering district is the best approach to start a pilot project for regionalization of roads. The engineering district is the bare bones approach to regional roads where the organization is in place but can just as easily be dismantled because the structural changes are very limited covering what could be as few as 10 full time employees. The success or failure of a pilot project should be used to determine if a more permanent approach (the first two options) can be chosen since real cost savings are less likely to be achieved maintaining separate street departments under a region.
Elements of this plan can be compared to the Consolidated Traffic Operations Plan
In a statewide road system, flexibility is not typically allowed. One DOT district cannot decide to maintain county roads while another refuses to do so. Individual districts also have no authority over taking over or turning back roads relying on the DOT board to make those decisions. This makes the process even more political when a more logical means can be used to designate such roads within a smaller region. While state laws and guidelines are needed, this does not mean policies and goals cannot differ per region.
Consider a region involving a large metropolitan area such as Atlanta. The Atlanta metro region would most likely adopt the highway system approach consolidating the most expensive roads to a metro region to streamline costs for maintenance while retaining local control for more lightly traveled roads and streets in subdivisions. A rural area on the other hand may not want any direct road responsibility at all considering that the costs take too much of the local budget. Unfortunately, in most cases it may be difficult to radically reform the road system due to home rule. In those cases, an engineering district may be the solution allowing a form of regionalization that is highly specific and limits direct control to only technical matters. This version incorporates the "consolidated traffic operations plan" while the former plans are closer to the secondary state highway system plan and state contracting plans. In this plan state maintenance levels can be achieved without having to operate on a statewide level allowing a more voluntary approach to shared services in other areas.
Single-county regions would typically have a hybrid of the either the first and second plan or first and third plan maintaining major streets in the cities and towns within the county while maintaining all county-level roads if townships are not present. Monroe County, NY has a hybrid of the first and third plan (see page 6) where the county handles traffic control for both the largest city (Rochester) and all of the townships within the county as well as consolidating some other functions. Nevertheless, local control is retained making it an example of the "regional engineering district" plan involving a metropolitan area.
In all, the beauty of the regional plan is that local control is retained in respect to a larger region in lieu of a single county or municipality or an entire state. If adopted by states across the nation, it would result in substantially higher standards and cost savings without the complications involved in centralization to a state level. This plan is tailored essentially to benefit states the most that are either too large to be operated from a state level or too fragmented to efficiently manage from a local level. The main issue, however, is that the plan must be laid out clearly in a top-down fashion essentially requiring the reorganization of local governments to provide road maintenance services in a fashion that is more typical of state government and less typical of small local governments. The idea behind this is to achieve sound engineering practice, more balanced road maintenance and supervision by qualified personnel often missing on a smaller local level. Hopefully the issues that have been brought up have been clearly addressed and the more detailed explanation of the three options will clear up confusion as to what exactly a regional road system entails.
- In Alabama, county engineers are paid $90,000 a year.
- This covers 67 counties meaning that the state pays $6,000,000 or 1.2% of the state's roadway budget annually for this purpose.
- If Alabama carved the state into 12 regions (with an average population of 400,000 residents per district), the state could have four engineers per region budgeting 48 engineers a year after attrition.
- This means a cost savings of $1.7 million with a better distribution of workload and/or a raise for the chief engineer to $125,000 a year: still 75% of the initial $1.7 million savings.
- This would also create a team of engineers meaning that greater accountability and specialization is possible than with a single county engineer.
- In addition, if additional engineers are needed a region could easily fund an additional employee.
- This also means that all engineers working for the region will have plenty to do handling at most 100,000 miles a piece when at present the responsibility ranges from a high of 650,000 residents in Jefferson County to a low of 9,045 residents in Greene County.
- In the region including Greene County, the county would need to budget $2,245 per year to fund an additional engineer if funded on a proportional population ratio basis. Obviously the Greene County engineer presently does not have enough to do.
Considering this number, a team of at least three engineers is preferred running at about $270,000 a year for a region of 200,000 residents. If this is split among for instance eight counties, each county pays on average $33,750 a year meaning that they pay nearly a third of the cost for three full time engineers when just one would have costed them three times as much. Having a team allows specialization and less dependence on state forces for technical matters.
As was also stated before, the regional engineering district is the best approach to start a pilot project for regionalization of roads. The engineering district is the bare bones approach to regional roads where the organization is in place but can just as easily be dismantled because the structural changes are very limited covering what could be as few as 10 full time employees. The success or failure of a pilot project should be used to determine if a more permanent approach (the first two options) can be chosen since real cost savings are less likely to be achieved maintaining separate street departments under a region.
Elements of this plan can be compared to the Consolidated Traffic Operations Plan
ONE SIZE DOES NOT HAVE TO FIT ALL
In a statewide road system, flexibility is not typically allowed. One DOT district cannot decide to maintain county roads while another refuses to do so. Individual districts also have no authority over taking over or turning back roads relying on the DOT board to make those decisions. This makes the process even more political when a more logical means can be used to designate such roads within a smaller region. While state laws and guidelines are needed, this does not mean policies and goals cannot differ per region.
Consider a region involving a large metropolitan area such as Atlanta. The Atlanta metro region would most likely adopt the highway system approach consolidating the most expensive roads to a metro region to streamline costs for maintenance while retaining local control for more lightly traveled roads and streets in subdivisions. A rural area on the other hand may not want any direct road responsibility at all considering that the costs take too much of the local budget. Unfortunately, in most cases it may be difficult to radically reform the road system due to home rule. In those cases, an engineering district may be the solution allowing a form of regionalization that is highly specific and limits direct control to only technical matters. This version incorporates the "consolidated traffic operations plan" while the former plans are closer to the secondary state highway system plan and state contracting plans. In this plan state maintenance levels can be achieved without having to operate on a statewide level allowing a more voluntary approach to shared services in other areas.
Single-county regions would typically have a hybrid of the either the first and second plan or first and third plan maintaining major streets in the cities and towns within the county while maintaining all county-level roads if townships are not present. Monroe County, NY has a hybrid of the first and third plan (see page 6) where the county handles traffic control for both the largest city (Rochester) and all of the townships within the county as well as consolidating some other functions. Nevertheless, local control is retained making it an example of the "regional engineering district" plan involving a metropolitan area.
In all, the beauty of the regional plan is that local control is retained in respect to a larger region in lieu of a single county or municipality or an entire state. If adopted by states across the nation, it would result in substantially higher standards and cost savings without the complications involved in centralization to a state level. This plan is tailored essentially to benefit states the most that are either too large to be operated from a state level or too fragmented to efficiently manage from a local level. The main issue, however, is that the plan must be laid out clearly in a top-down fashion essentially requiring the reorganization of local governments to provide road maintenance services in a fashion that is more typical of state government and less typical of small local governments. The idea behind this is to achieve sound engineering practice, more balanced road maintenance and supervision by qualified personnel often missing on a smaller local level. Hopefully the issues that have been brought up have been clearly addressed and the more detailed explanation of the three options will clear up confusion as to what exactly a regional road system entails.
No comments:
Post a Comment