U.S. 72 Extension and Relocation in Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina

One thing that is truly missing across Appalachia and the Piedmont regions of Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina is proper east-west connectivity.  This is especially true north of I-20.  In particular, many have expressed for years the total lack of an adequate route connecting Atlanta and Huntsville.  Only two choices exist: a congested surface route along US 431 from Anniston to Huntsville leaving I-20 or a northern route crossing the Cumberland Plateau along a collection of entirely poorly marked and inadequate highways.  Much of that traffic follows the northern route to avoid the congestion of the southern route.  While the construction of such a route is decades away, the bigger problem is that no clear route exists connecting the two cities.  However, Google Maps has laid that out for us, and this route is not lost on the truckers that already use it.  While currently inadequate for major traffic, it is still built to adequate standards to become a U.S. route: a plan that hopefully will also emphasize the need to invest more in the upgrades of this route as well as improving the horrible east-west connectivity across North Georgia.

In addition, an oddity exists extending from Athens, GA to Rock Hill, SC in that a tri-state highway exists that just happens to carry the route number of 72: a hint that perhaps planners envisioned an eastward extension of US 72 that never actually happened.  This is highlighted by the fact that the number does not change in two states and that Georgia in particular placed the route under high priority with substantial upgrades from Athens to the South Carolina border.  In between are several very major routes that inexplicably only carry state route numbers.  If this route does not justify an upgrade in status to U.S. highway, then what does?

U.S. 72 at present goes through Stevenson, AL connecting Chattanooga to Huntsville, but the real need present is to connect Huntsville to Atlanta.  A simple fix to this portion of U.S. 72, including the portion through Stevenson, can allow U.S. 72 to be relocated to a much longer route of much greater need through large portions of Georgia and South Carolina than the present route in use today.

The U.S. 72 extension is a practical plan that would be handled in four phases.  They are as follows:

• The first relocates U.S. 72 in Northeast Alabama along several routes from Scottsboro to Adairsville in Georgia.
• Existing U.S. 72 north of Scottsboro would then become an extension of another U.S. route that currently ends in a very random place: U.S. 74.  
• The second extends U.S. 72 east from that terminus from Adairsville to Gainesville in Georgia transforming portions of GA 20 and almost all of GA 369 to a U.S. highway.
• The third portion basically connects the route to GA 72 in Athens via an overlap with US 129.  It then changes GA 72 and SC 72 into US 72 extending the highway from Athens to I-77 in Rock Hill, SC.  
• Due to GA's unusual rules with state overlaps of U.S. routes, GA 72 would become the unsigned state overlap equivalent (US 72/GA 72) thus creating the only instance where a U.S. and state overlap share the same number like it is in 46 other states.  
• A portion of US 72 will need to be located on SC 121 meaning existing SC 72 into downtown Rock Hill will need to be reassigned as US 72 Spur.
• The fourth portion would require new construction extending SC 72 to an eventual eastern terminus and reunion with US 74 in Monroe, NC.
• This portion would likely be limited access and will require a new bridge over the Catawba River
• It will most likely follow or parallel NC 75

The new U.S. 72 routing would follow the following routes:

PHASE 1: SCOTTSBORO, AL TO ADAIRSVILLE, GA

This route would follow the following state routes:

• AL 35 from existing U.S. 72 in Scottsboro to AL 40
• AL 40 from AL 35 to AL 117
• AL 117 from AL 40 to the Georgia State Line
• GA 48 from the Alabama State Line to U.S. 27 in Summerville
• Overlap with U.S. 27 from Summerville to GA 140 in Armuchee
• GA 140 from U.S. 27 in Armuchee to I-75 in Adairsville

Looking at Adairsville to Huntsville (I-75 to Huntsville), the proposed U.S. 72 route is chosen by Google despite curves, hills and slower speeds than the alternative through Chattanooga (Image from Google Maps).

However, what is MORE striking is that when the route is extended to Atlanta, this route is STILL preferred over all other alternatives.  This means that these lowly state routes are in actuality carrying U.S. highway traffic (Image from Google Maps).

PHASE 2: ADAIRSVILLE TO GAINESVILLE

This route would follow the following state routes:

• I-75 from GA 140 in Adairsville to GA 20 in Cartersville
• GA 20 from I-75 in Cartersville to GA 369 near Lathemtown
• All of GA 369 from GA 20 near Lathemtown to I-985 in Gainesville 

The route from Adairsville to Gainesville is clearly defined by Google matching up with typical truck routes of today.  It avoids windy GA 140 east of Adairsville instead following a portion of I-75 to Cartersville then following existing GA 20 and 369 to Gainesville (Image from Google Maps).

PHASE 3: GAINESVILLE TO ROCK HILL, SC

While less important than the two western legs, the need for the route extension further east is still viable.  It presents a badly needed east-west link for traffic as an alternative to traveling through Athens and as a means for bringing economic opportunity to parts of Northeast Georgia overlooked due to the lack of decent east-west routes.  The eastern phase also presents a unique and coincidental situation.  By sheer coincidence, GA 72 east of Athens is not only a major route but maintains its designation into South Carolina until its terminus in the southern suburbs of Charlotte.  U.S. 72 would ultimately assume this route replacing most of GA/SC 72 from Elberton eastward.

The route east of Gainesville is not so clearly defined, and part of this is due to a vital missing link east of Gainesville.  The connection and realignment of two county routes in Hall County would most likely correct this issue, but this does not necessarily mean that this correction is the most viable route.  Google analysis shows that three possible options are viable.  These options are:

1. Route U.S. 72 along existing U.S. 129 to Athens then along all of GA 72 east of Athens meaning a full U.S. 72/GA 72 overlap.
2. Route U.S. 72 along GA 98 from Maysville to Comer then along GA 72 east of Comer
3. Route U.S. 72 along parts of GA 51 and 17 from Gainesville to Elberton in conjunction with other shorter routes.

Option 1:

The first option utilizes only existing state routes.  It follows:

• U.S. 129 from GA 369 in Gainesville to GA 10 Loop in Athens
• GA 10 Loop from U.S. 129 to U.S. 29
• U.S. 29 from GA 10 Loop to GA 72
• All of GA 72 east of U.S. 29 creating the coincidental U.S. 72/GA 72 overlap

This route is obviously the most simple to execute, but it has a distinct disadvantage in that it does not allow traffic to avoid Athens.  This means that U.S. 72 traffic would be forced into congestion related to Athens instead of by-passing it along less traveled routes through smaller cities and towns.  It is the least preferred option for that reason, but it does effectively establish all of GA 72 as a U.S. route as well as linking existing GA 72 to other routes.  In this plan, GA 316 should become the state overlap of all of U.S. 72 to avoid confusion and because the route would still be "Highway 72".

Option 2:

This option is probably the most logical route giving a completely direct east-west link with the fewest turns.  However, it does require substantial upgrades and intersection realignments where it passes through Hall County.  It also will require a renumbering of the westernmost portion of GA 72 between Athens and Comer.  It follows:

• Old Cornelia Highway from I-985 to Joe Chandler Road (part of Old U.S. 23)
• Joe Chandler Road from Old Cornelia Highway to GA 52 
• GA 52 from Joe Chandler Road to GA 98 in Maysville
• GA 98 from GA 52 in Maysville to GA 72 in Comer
• GA 72 from GA 98/22 in Comer to South Carolina State Line

The GA 98 routing gives the most direct east-west route from Gainesville to Elberton helping drivers find a suitable alternate to driving through more congested Athens.  It also helps better locate larger cities such as Commerce and the small Madison County seat of Danielsville.  However, it faces limitations from the need for costly upgrades along the portion between Gainesville and Gillsville since the route follows existing county roads (Image from Google Maps).

Note that this route cannot be added as-is.  Several significant changes would have to be made to make it work.  First would be major upgrades to Joe Chandler Road.  This would include intersection realignments at GA 52 and Old U.S. 23 to make Joe Chandler Road the primary movement, lane widening on Joe Chandler Road, an intersection improvement with East Hall Road and completion of an already programmed bridge replacement.  In addition, both county sections would also become an extension/relocation of GA 98.  Also, two routes would have to be renumbered to make this work.  The first is existing GA 98 north of GA 52, which is recommended for a reassigned GA 207 (out of use for 30 years).  The second is the renumbering of existing GA 72 west of where U.S. 72 joins the route in Comer.  The route can no longer carry the GA 72 number under this plan due to excess confusion.  However, several good candidates are available.  These include:

• GA 316 eastward extension along part of GA 10 Loop and all of GA 72 including the portions overlap with U.S. 72
• Re-designation of GA 350 along all of GA 72 including the portions overlapped with U.S. 72
• Re-designate the existing parts of GA 72 not included in the new U.S. route as U.S. 72 Spur
• Designate existing GA 72 south of the proposed route and part of U.S. 129 west of Athens as U.S. 72 Alt
• Extension and relocation of GA 53 along GA 316 and part of GA 10 Loop to overlap all of GA 72 including the portions overlapped with U.S. 72.  Existing GA 53 south of GA 316 could be renumbered or transferred to local maintenance.

Option 3:

This option is the northernmost option and would offer likely the greatest benefit as an east-west alternate route.  However, the existing roadways were not designed to carry an east-west route and would thus require substantial reconfiguration to make work.  Most of this would be west of I-85.  This route includes:

• Old Cornelia Highway from I-985 to Joe Chandler Road (part of Old U.S. 23)
• Joe Chandler Road from Old Cornelia Highway to GA 52
• GA 52 from Joe Chandler Road to GA 323 in Gillsville
• GA 323 from GA 52 in Gillsville to GA 51
• GA 51 from GA 323 to GA 145 in Franklin Springs
• GA 145 from GA 51 to US 29/GA 8 in Franklin Springs
• Overlap with US 29/GA 8 from GA 145 to GA 17 in Royston
• GA 17 from US 29 to GA 72 in Elberton

The GA 51 routing is considered because at present it recommends routing traffic along a long overlap with I-85.  While this is an acceptable option, it provides no benefit for communities near the route and dumps addition traffic onto I-85 that is already congested.  However, the route shown here does not consider using county road such as Joe Chandler Road.  The map below shows the same route with the modifications including distance and time to show the advantage especially after upgrades are made (Image from Google Maps).

The second map shows the GA 51 routing removing the barriers presented with routing traffic along an existing county road.  However, the upgrades required west of I-85 are significant and costly compared to the second option that includes only upgrades to Joe Chandler Road (Image from Google Maps).

In addition to the corrections along Joe Chandler Road, significant intersection realignments would be necessary to make this new routing work effectively, handle truck traffic and save time in comparison with other routes.  These upgrades would include:

• Reconfiguration of intersection at GA 52 and GA 323 in Gillsville to make GA 323 the primary movement and/or construct a traffic circle.  If a higher speed option is chosen, this would require a short by-pass on the NW corner of the two routes.
• Reconfiguration of the intersection of GA 51 and GA 323 creating a new roadway on the SE corner of the intersection between the two routes.  The new roadway would close the existing GA 323 east of that point and would make GA 323 the primary movement requiring GA 51 traffic to turn off of the new road
• Realignment of GA 51 intersection at Historic Homer Highway (Old U.S. 441) in Homer to make GA 51 the primary movement
• Construction of a traffic circle at the junction of GA 51 and 145 in Franklin Springs
• An improved roadway connection in Royston possibly including the state takeover of Cook Street or a new southwest bypass
• The construction of a full diamond interchange at GA 17 and 72 in Elberton

PHASE 4: SOUTH CAROLINA EASTWARD: WHERE DOES IT GO?

From Elberton, the route would continue along GA 72 eastward to the South Carolina line.  In South Carolina, the following takes place

• Route in South Carolina follows all of existing SC 72 until SC 121 in Rock Hill
• From there, U.S. 72 overlays existing SC 121 from existing SC 72 to its eastern terminus at U.S. 21 with an overlap of U.S. 21 to end at I-77.
• Existing SC 72 into downtown Rock Hill would become U.S. 72 Spur
• An eventual eastern extension may one day be possible to end at U.S. 74 in Monroe, NC via a new roadway connecting NC 75 to SC 122
• This new roadway should be preferably limited access, especially on the new portions
• A southern route connecting U.S. 21 east of I-77 to NC 75 may also be considered

The map above shows where US 72 would end in Rock Hill (following SC 72 and 121) and the proposed eastward extension.  The northern route in magenta following SC 122 connects the road as a surface highway to NC 72.  The southern route forking off of US 21 would be a freeway or expressway on new alignment ending at an interchange with US 74 east of Monroe.  This new route would create a southern connector from fast-growing Rock Hill to US 74 east of Charlotte.

WHY IS THIS NEEDED?

Northern Georgia and Northern Alabama have been known for many years to have poor east-west connectivity and part of that is due to the lack of a single major route to prioritize upgrades along.  Travelers from Alabama to South Carolina north of Atlanta at present have not a single U.S. route other than mountainous U.S. 76 and rely on a confusing splicing of state routes.  In neither South Carolina nor Alabama have any corridors been developed along these routes with by-passes or four lane sections that are needed to better manage traffic leading to a lack of development along these corridors and dangerous traffic situations as large trucks are using inadequate roads.  This state routes have not been unified in any logical fashion, do not indicate badly needed turns, have not been upgraded in such a fashion to better manage long distance travel and receive weak funding priority due to their lowered status as regional state routes instead of major intrastate routes.  In addition, Georgia has also not added a single mainline U.S. route in over 50 years relying instead on state route "corridors" such as the 500 series GRIP corridors that do nothing but contribute to public confusion.  Fewer designations are needed, and major routes in the state should be part of the U.S. route system in the majority of cases with the GRIP designations dropped due to their needless overlaps of already present routes.  

In fact, the politics of GRIP corridors do not actually line up with route importance in this case.  While the Scottsboro to Adairsville route has the highest need, it has received low priority for improvements by both Alabama and Georgia who both effectively treat it as a regular surface state route.  For instance, GA 48 is shown as a minor arterial instead of major arterial and has received very low priority for upgrades.  In contrast, GA 72 from Athens to the South Carolina line is not only a GRIP corridor but shown as a major arterial.  Some portions are only classified major collector such as GA 369 in Forsyth and Cherokee Counties.  All portions of this route should be reclassified as major arterial along with a renumbering to U.S. 72.

WHAT ABOUT OLD US 72?

Most of U.S. 72 north of Scottsboro does not follow a logical east-west direction before becoming essentially an unnecessary overlap with U.S. 41 and U.S. 64 in Jasper east of I-24.  In Chattanooga, U.S. 72 unceremoniously enters city streets terminating at the exact western terminus of U.S. 76: two east-west U.S. routes ending into each other!  It's a logical fallacy that came as a result of extending routes without thought as to where they would terminate.  U.S. 76 itself is mostly overlapped with U.S. 41 west of Dalton making it extend miles beyond its logical western terminus, so U.S. 74 makes the most sense to replace it.  U.S. 74 at present ends at the junction of I-75 and I-24, but it is not signed past its interchange with I-75 near Cleveland.  By signing U.S. 74 and extending it westward along I-24, U.S. 74 can easily and cheaply replace U.S. 72 between I-24 in Jasper and AL 35 (proposed U.S. 72 relocation) in Scottsboro.  Better yet, extending U.S. 74 effectively ties two APD corridors together: Corridor K and Corridor V.  In no way is the importance of Corridor V diminished, and in fact U.S. 74 becomes effectively a longer route tying Huntsville to Cleveland, TN through Chattanooga.  This extension effectively eliminates at least two logical fallacies leaving only U.S. 76 to correct (which will likely come later since a new route is planned from Dalton to Trenton that could carry U.S. 76 on a better route).  It also better unites two corridors that function much like surface interstate highways.

Corridor K and Corridor V can be linked together in a logical fashion by simply extending U.S. 74 westward along I-24 to take over U.S. 72 up to the relocated portion in Scottsboro (Image from Google Maps).

WHY THIS IS BETTER

Moving U.S. 72 onto these major routes through Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina will only consolidate what people have already known for years, but the purpose will be better travel and hopefully greater emphasis on upgrading this very substantial yet substandard route.  Most sections of this route are long overdue for a major overhaul including four laning, interchanges, new by-pass sections and intersection relocations to better reflect traffic patterns.  Unclear routes also discourage economic activity in all of the cities along this route due to difficulties involved in shipping and commerce.  At this point, the plan is simply to add a number to existing roads, but the hope is that in the future it will improve the economies and connectivity of all cities along its route.  

Mileage Caps vs. Proportional Ratio Caps

Caps are often a popular method to manage things that seem to be growing out of control.  While they seem logical, it is important to think about a particular cap that this country has set that has not worked.  That cap is on the number of members in the House of Representatives.  Set in 1911, no more than 435 members are allowed in the House despite the country more than tripling in population since that time.  The result of this completely arbitrary cap has been massive gerrymandering that has led to severe political corruption, partisan gridlock and poor representation.  As evidenced by this misguided law, strict caps based on a randomly chosen number are a bad idea.  Let's imagine instead that a proportional cap had been created on Congress.  If that proportion was set based on the growth of the US population since 1911, today we would have 1,485 members of the House meaning far more local representation, less gerrymandering and the chance for competitive third parties to bring accountability to the electoral process.  Mileage caps for roads have a similar detrimental effect corrupting the way that states do business with local governments.

THE INSIDIOUS MILEAGE CAP: BAD TRANSPORTATION POLICY

The example with the House of Representatives has nothing to do with roads, but the concept of arbitrary caps does.  In this case, it is the mileage cap used by states to limit highway system expansion to a set mileage.  The mileage cap is essentially a state agency deciding that they will no longer accept any new miles into the state highway system regardless of overall gains in road mileage.  Usually when these caps are created, it is done as a hasty action as a means to stop the bleeding of funds for a road system that was growing past the point of efficiency or as a means to reign in politically motivated roadways that never had any reason to be on the highway system and were not otherwise part of a special farm-to-market highway network.  Mileage caps are typically based on a completely arbitrary number that is set that essentially rounds off what just happened to be the approximate state highway system mileage at the time usually rounded off.  The result, however, has been hardship for local governments and leads to the slow, but proportional devolution of the state highway system.

Old US 19E north of Elizabethton, TN is an example of an old alignment that is maintained below standards.  Lines are faded out, guardrails are damaged and signs are in disrepair along this stretch of roadway that was turned to the local government in 1988.  It is still designated a collector route, but if a mileage cap had not been in place it may have remained on the state system as a secondary state route.  (Google Street View, May 2012).

Why is this bad?  These states with such caps use the "lane miles" argument to justify a continued devolution of the highway system, but evidence in these states is that the local funding ratio likewise does not increase in relation to the proportional decrease in state responsibility.  Lane miles will almost always increase regardless of who is in charge, and the "lane miles" argument is a weak one since population and thus the state's tax base also increases in conjunction with added lane miles.  If the state doesn't want more lane miles, then they can always choose to build, widen or pave fewer roads focusing funding instead on operational improvements.  This Trojan Horse argument has nothing to do with the unfunded mandate known as the mileage cap.  In addition, far more miles go to the local governments than the mileage indicates.  This is because every time a new road is built and added to the state highway system, some road must be downloaded to the local government, especially when a roadway is entirely new construction instead of a relocation of an existing highway.

Old GA 184 was turned to local maintenance in 1989 as a result of mileage swaps.  It was turned to Banks County who clearly does not have sufficient means to maintain it.  It is a major collector route.  While the state has funded significant improvements to the road since this image was captured, the fact is that that the road was in a neglected, unsafe condition for over 25 years because it was transferred to a county unprepared for that responsibility.  (Image from Google Street View, May 2014).

Local governments are still largely dependent on state funding, and local governments are generally not the most efficient means of maintaining arterial and major collector roads.  This was detailed in the Farm-To-Market Cooperative Plan.  When the state sets a mileage cap, it does not just mean that an old highway alignment is placed on the local level when a new road opens.  It also means that other highways, usually in rural areas, are also turned to local maintenance.  With no additional funding or state maintenance, roads like this tend to fall into disrepair under local control.  This is especially true when local policies and practices for road maintenance are already weak meaning that these local agencies are not going to make any special effort to maintain a former state highway vs. other local roads.  The need to "swap" roads simply leaves local governments with the cost of maintaining a road that they never built in the first place that they likely also lack sufficient means to maintain.  In all, it is a bad transportation policy and it weakens the abilities of local governments to manage limited funds by spreading available local funding even thinner.

What's also worse with mileage caps is that it prevents the road system from periodically being corrected to better adapt to new traffic patterns.  Roadways that no longer serve any statewide purpose are kept on the state system because the local agency does not want to lose those miles just to gain more on another road.  The states also start using these roads as "mileage banks" to withdraw at random just to deposit as added mileage for another new road meaning that the state has already deemed these older routes effectively useless.  Often times, a "lane mile" swap is even required thus a local agency is stuck with maintaining sections of roads twice as long as the new state routes.  Because of this, local agencies rarely propose any changes that would make sure that state routes actually line up with the best and most useful function.  If local agencies were not always threatened with losing state highway miles, this attitude would change and better routes would thus be developed.

THE RATIO CAP: A MUCH BETTER TRANSPORTATION POLICY

The ratio cap is a concept that balances the needs of the state with the needs of local governments.  If a local agency's road responsibility massively increases then likewise they should be seeing more roads turned to state control.  They shouldn't have to worry if it "meets state standards" or that they have to "swap out another road".  In fact, all counties and municipalities should be able to put out a wish list each year on qualifying roads to place onto the system with the state able to add them based on the greatest need.  The state then takes them over as-is and then makes the needed changes themselves.  Picture this example in "sample state".

• Sample State created a mileage cap in 1980 that restricted the state highway system to 10,000 miles
• In 1980, the sum of all public roads in the state was 80,000 miles
• Since 1980, the public road system has grown since then by 20,000 miles to 100,000 miles
• In 1980 the state ratio was 12.5% under state control
• In 2010, it had since dropped to 10%
• The state also built and took over maintenance of 2,000 miles of new roads thus transferring 2,000 miles of other roads from the state system to the local system
• This means that local agencies have had to take on an additional 20,000 miles of roadways without any additional funding from the state to do so
• This 20,000 mile mandate includes 2,000 miles of roads formerly maintained by the state

What is seen here is an incredibly unfair situation for the local agencies.  The state has essentially devolved 2% of the state highway system directly to the counties that they transferred to new road mileage while the counties have subsequently had to maintain 20,000 more miles of roads.  While the gas tax in sample state did not change, the available funding grew proportional to the population growth.  This means that essentially the state has created an unfunded mandate.  Local governments were not given an option of keeping these roads on the state system before, because the mileage cap was inflexible.  The state was adding 2,000 miles of newly constructed roads and had to take the mileage from other roads.  After much debate and frustration from local authorities, sample state caved and reversed their policy.  

• Seeing that the state ratio in 1980 was 12.5% when the cap was created, the state agreed to expand the state highway system back to the ratio it was in 1980
• The state will continue to maintain this ratio cap not exceeding 12.5%, but it will allow the road system to grow thereafter in proportion to total system growth
• This means that 2,500 miles will now be added to the state highway system
• 1,500 of the 2,000 miles turned to the local authorities are then restored to the state highway system since they were determined to remain of high enough functional classification and traffic volumes to justify restoring
• 1,000 miles of new state roads along existing local roads are added with mileage shared evenly among all 10 state highway divisions so that each division is able to add 100 miles of local roadways to the state system
• Many local agencies were then no longer torn between paving and upgrading miles of former state routes and other major local roads
• In 2015, the public road system grew an additional 500 miles
• Thus, the state allowed up to 63 more miles of roads to be added to the state highway system since 2010.  50 of those miles were new roads with a couple old alignments retained as business routes.  13 additional miles were distributed to all 10 districts with some used and some reserved for additional growth of the system.  
• While the state's responsibility increased, proportionally it did not change from 1980 after the mileage cap was replaced with a ratio cap and the 1980 ratio restored.

MILEAGE CAPS AND FUNDING ISSUES

Many states that have mileage caps set these caps due to funding being inadequate, but is this really an excuse to place more responsibility on local governments that are suffering even more financially?  Is funding not going to increase with population?  In recent years very few states have grown their state-owned highway system at all.  Several have also recently begun turning back roads to local agencies at an increasing amount such as Colorado and Iowa.  States like Florida recently dropped below 10% for the first time since the 1940's.  If the states are unable to raise new revenues, that doesn't mean that they should make local governments suffer more for it.  The system should still be growing proportionally regardless of this, and the increasingly poor condition of state roads should only highlight the need to create new funding sources.  It is NOT an excuse to burden counties and cities with roads they have an even harder time affording.  While the proposals that State and Local Road Reform proposes are designed to promote more operational efficiency, improve safety and upgrade engineering standards they are not designed to repave roads.  The only way to repave roads when the money runs out is to raise more money.  Turning roads to the local level either through mileage caps or large-scale turnback events is not going to raise that money: it will only mean that local agencies will have to do more with less and that the road system will subsequently become less efficient.

It is understood that one of the reasons for mileage caps is to force counties to take over segments of old alignments that they would refuse to give up otherwise.  In states like Louisiana, Mississippi and Maryland it is not uncommon to see dead end roads, including old alignments with long-closed bridges, remaining on the state system.  However, this is a mileage distribution issue not a road mileage issue: it is a management issue.  The state DOT should have the authority to say "this road is not necessary for statewide travel and will be returned to the local government" while transferring that mileage to a road that does serve statewide traffic.  It is ridiculous to see roads that obviously serve a statewide purpose as county roads so that a road that no longer serves any purpose except as a two-lane driveway remaining on-system.  You see this sometimes in Maryland where a state primary route in Pennsylvania becomes a county road in Maryland while five sections of an old alignment nearby are still state highways.  Assuming that the county road has equivalent mileage to those segments, does it not make sense for the mileage to be transferred?    

REAL EXAMPLES

Several states have openly advocated and advanced policies to transfer roads to the local level regardless of mileage.  These mileage caps also tend to mean mileage is lost instead of maintained at the level of the cap.  Louisiana, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Kansas are some of the most recent examples.  Analysis of the road systems in these four states between 1992 and 2012 show that:

• Louisiana has instated a mileage cap with a net gain of only 12 miles
• Pennsylvania has lost 4,629 miles in those 20 years (the system began scaling back mileage beginning with a large-scale turnback event in 1984)
• South Carolina instated a mileage cap in 1993 but has officially turned back 245 miles
• Kansas's state road mileage dropped by 356 miles despite a gain in local road mileage of 6,959 miles.

State ratios dropped, respectively, from 28.4% to 27.2% in Louisiana, from 37.4% to 33.2% in Pennsylvania, from 64.9% to 62.5% in South Carolina and 8.0% to 7.3% in Kansas.  It should be granted South Carolina is a unique situation with its high level of state responsibility, but is clear that most states today are not a friend to local governments in terms road funding and maintenance responsibility.  

Let's look at two states with known mileage caps comparing data that demonstrates the proportional decay of their state highway systems:

Indiana

Indiana is well known for its 12,000 mile cap on state highway mileage.  This cap keeps the system small in relation to other Midwestern states, and unlike its neighbors on each side, the state lacks a township road program to consolidate county responsibility to a few major roads.  While this might seem more efficient, these are still lower population counties.  The resulting county road standards unfortunately mirror the unpredictable conditions found on county roads throughout much of the Southeast with some more populous counties and cities doing a better job than others.  Regardless, the state has been so prudent that mileage is actually well below the mileage cap and declining.

In 1992, INDOT was responsible for 11,294 miles or 12.3% of the road system.  In 2012, that number dropped to 11,006 miles or 11.3 % of the road system.  This means that officially local governments had to take over 288 miles of former state roads, but the actual local road mileage jumped 5,234 miles since that time.  This means if a ratio cap had been set in 1992 at the rate it was then, the state road system should already be close to approaching 12,000 miles at 11,936 miles.  If the rate had been 12,000 miles then, the rate would have been 13.0%.  This means that system should have grown to 12,647 miles in that 20 year span: a modest net gain of 647 miles which would have at least retained state highway mileage as new roads were built.  Instead, local governments have had to take on nearly 300 additional roads instead of INDOT gaining around 650 miles.  The state would have not been hurt by this modest gain, but the counties and cities that lost these highways certainly were.  

What Indiana should consider is going back to the date when the mileage cap was instated and calculate the ratio in relation to what the total public system mileage was that year.  That ratio should then be calculated based on the current public road mileage to determine the correct road mileage that the state should be maintaining.  In this example, it was 13% but considering that the mileage cap was likely created during the 1960's or 1970's, the ratio is probably closer to 15%.  This means that 14,593 miles should be on the state highway system adding a sum of 3,587 miles.  

Georgia

For around 20 years Georgia enjoyed one of the best funded road networks in the Southeast due to an earnest commitment to use road funding for only roads.  Plentiful revenues were funneled into massive road projects all over the state meant to both keep up with the fast growth in North Georgia while attempting to improve the economic conditions in rural counties in other areas.  This also meant that the state highway system should have been growing to help the fast growing state keep up with the demand for new and wider roads.  Instead, GDOT has enforced a strict mileage cap since 1963 when the legislature panicked over the growth of the state highway system.  The cap in 1963 was put in place to force the state to maintain the roads they had built thus stopping the growth of politically-motivated state highways additions.  While that seemed like a good policy at the time, that did not mean that slow growth could not have continued since then.  

During the period of massive system growth via new construction during the 70's and 80's, the state likewise turned back between 1,000-3,000 miles of state routes to the local governments to funnel to these new roads.  Most of these highways were located in rural counties who lacked adequate resources to maintain them thus the condition of those roads declined markedly.  While the state later worked with counties to greatly improve the condition of the worn out pavement on those roads all throughout the 1990's and early 2000's and is now using federal-aid for safety upgrades, these aging roads are still proving too much for local governments to adequately maintain on their own.  In other words, the counties are not really doing much themselves to maintain these roads.  They're just waiting for the state to help them when at one point the state maintained them consistently.

While statistics for mileage cannot be located back to 1963, the mileage for 1967 is available.  At that time, the state system was around 18-19% of the total road system mileage with state system mileage not yet reaching the 18,000 mile cap until 1972.  The first data including city streets available was in 1975 and showed a state ratio of 17.9%.  That ratio has dropped today to 14.3%.  This means that in 40 years, the ratio of state control has dropped by 3.7% while the local road system has increased by 24,000 miles: an increase of 19.2%.  

What this means is that Georgia should have enacted an incremental increase of mileage over the past 40 years.  Based on 1975 statistics alone this comes out to at least 4,528 miles.  This mileage could place the majority of functionally significant former state highways back onto the state highway system as well as adding many new roads that are currently maintained by county and city governments.  This would thus relieve local governments of many expensive to maintain roads in both poorer rural areas and in areas with high traffic and population.  This averages to 28.5 miles of roads per county or 646.9 miles per GDOT district. 

If GDOT does not change any other policy, the state system should be expanded to more closely align with the original state control ratio in 1963.  This would mean the state assuming control of the thousands of miles of federal-aid secondary road projects they built.  Under this, the state ratio would also bump higher to around 20% meaning that 7,000 miles of state highways would fall under state control.  This would mean not only the restoration of all former state routes that remain today functionally classified as major collector or arterial roads but also the addition of many other major collector roads.  The highway system would then be allowed to grow proportionally to at least be adequate to not only prevent unjustified mileage swaps, but also to occasionally add new roads to the system.  

CONCLUSION

If the goal of states is to improve their state road system, then that state road system should have reliable mileage that is not gradually chipped away as the system grows with a commitment to place that mileage on the roadways that provide the greatest benefit.  This blog has demonstrated that roadways transferred to local governments are frequently maintained at well below the standards they were as state highways.  Local governments have also shown that they do not have the resources to expand their responsibility periodically onto more and more roads.  These states who have mileage caps in place need to revisit and revise their policy, preferably rectifying the mistake they made by replacing their mileage cap with a ratio cap.  Furthermore, they need to subsequently restore state ratios to their prior levels when the cap was put in place.  While states may feel strained from added mileage, this cost is a sunk cost.  Somebody has to maintain these roads, and the states are the ones best suited to do it or these roads would not have been state roads in the first place.

The absurdity of "starving the beast": stealth devolution by refusing to raise statewide revenues

USA Today posted this article in April 2014 about the fast-growing devolution trend.  The first question begging to be asked is, "Where is the opposition?"  Surely somebody supports keeping these large state maintained road networks in place or expanding the state's role?  Why is there this newly found trust of local government?  Since when did local governments of small means and population have the means to supervise large scale maintenance and infrastructure projects?

Even the local governments themselves don't want to have to take over thousands of miles of state-owned roads knowing it will swallow up a very large percentage of the county budget.  These counties also know that unless they have a very broad tax base they're not going to be able to do what the state did even at their worst.  Why does nobody see the benefit in consolidating the road responsibility under a larger statewide or regional agency who has the proper staff and resources to make sure that consistent road standards are found in both urban and rural areas and that costs are managed in such a way that work actually gets done?

History has shown that these unfunded mandates also mean a virtual guarantee of lower standards.  This means unsafe roads.  Local agencies are given two choices: higher taxes or lower standards.  The history of local control in the South shows that lower standards win when a small tax base is coupled with a very inefficient system.  The last time that devolution fever swept the country to this level was in the 1970's citing oil shocks and stagflation as an excuse.  This time a similar tactic is being employed, except that this time it is quite simply a refusal by state governments to raise adequate revenues to do what they always did before.

Yes, nobody likes taxes but with roads you will pay one way or another.  It is not cheaper to give the responsibility of one government agency to hundreds!  The problem is that these states would rather drive up costs significantly on the local agencies, pass the buck (literally) and do a one time large payment to repave the road before dumping them on the counties for good.  This was bad policy in the late 70's and it's still bad policy today.  Better ways are available to handle this, but none are being considered by the state legislators.  The local control bandwagon is a runaway train prepared to take the quality of more of the nation's roads off of a cliff.  This bandwagon can be stopped and put on the right track with smarter policy reforms than the proven failure known as devolution to counties and municipalities.

Commentary on article:

The USA Today article describes the effect of devolution on Beaufort, SC.  This article is odd because it is mentioning cities instead of counties who usually are the least interested in state meddling in their domain.  The issue here is more with counties than cities who stand to lose the most when it comes to devolution of secondary roads to counties.  Cities like Beaufort should be offered a different approach with city maintenance agreements where they can use funding from the state or their own resources to have state forces maintain their streets for them without actually owning the roads.  That way the city has leverage to build roads to their own standards but have state forces do the nuts and bolts maintenance for them.  This was one of South Carolina's major mistakes: instead of adopting the North Carolina or Virginia system they just added roads across many jurisdictions randomly into a crazy patchwork of secondary state highways that did not promote adequate efficiency or real need to continue to operate without substantial revenue increases.  Virginia, in contrast, took a more hands-off approach with cities allowing only small population towns to contract with the state taking a reverse approach with cities.  Cities in Virginia are required to maintain both state surface roads and local streets.  While not a perfect system, it is still more efficient than duplication of services.

The article also mentions that North Carolina, Texas, West Virginia and other states have tried devolution tactics.  In other words, they want to dump a bunch of roads on individual cities and/or counties that are neither financially nor structurally prepared.  However, they want to sweeten the pot by giving them a one-time handout so that they'll shut up and never mention secondary roads again.  States have been successful at forcing roads on the counties in the past, but the quality of those roads noticeably declined the second the deed was signed over.  However, some high population counties have ultimately recovered such as in many high population urban counties in Florida.  These exceptional counties with populations of small states, however, should not be used as a case for devolution.  If devolution is to be done, it can be replaced with more sensible solutions such as local agencies hiring back state forces, statewide or regional cooperatives and, if nothing else, creating a separate state agency that splits the responsibility for farm-to-market and local roads from major highways.

Essentially this is an era of white knuckled fiscal conservatism, and a bunch of mostly conservative states have decided that instead of taking a risk by making sure that enough revenues are raised to pay the bills, they will just play the more safe political route by passing the cost onto counties who will ultimately charge a lot more for a lot less work.  Texas, mentioned in the article, has 27% of their roads under state control and is routinely rated one of the best state-maintained road networks, but they'd also rather pass the cost to the counties and cities who clearly are by no means financially prepared for the job.  In Texas's case this is even worse considering that the farm-to-market roads they are looking to turn back are maintenance-only roads that require local governments to fund capital improvements thus a small cost on the state compared to rural roads.  Most county roads in Texas are severely substandard even in some larger metropolitan areas similar to how they are in many other Southern states.  The state-maintained systems all work just fine as intended as long as they aren't starving them for funds the way South Carolina has, but they'd rather not have the responsibility or liability.  

We also tend to suspect a motivation for more local control so that the liability involved in maintaining to proper standards can be bypassed.  Roadway standards are almost never enforced on a local level the way they are on a state level, and there is far less money, equipment or resources for proper safety improvements.  If counties and cities were held to the same standards as states are, you can bet that the majority of counties and cities would be screaming for the state to take over their roads.

Maybe Texas should look into the regional approach presented here, which will be a periodic theme with throughout this site as different maps will be created carving up states into regions.  As such a large state with such a large population, a regional approach would be very effective since most regions would rival many states in size and population.  Placing farm-to-market and ranch-to-market roads under regional responsibility and expanding that responsibility so that more roads are farm-to-market than what TxDOT currently offers would be far better than just burdening local governments with tens of thousands of miles of roads that they can't afford.

The main focus of the article, however, was South Carolina.  While South Carolina's road plan correctly was designed to improve planning statewide, its use for political power purposes was only partially true.  This was a progressive-era plan that was championed by then-governor James F. Byrnes who was a proponent of the Good Roads Movement.  Unfortunately the proponents of this movement are all dead meaning that they are not here anymore to either explain why they did it nor argue against devolution.  He probably liked North Carolina's system, but was afraid of political fallout from having a sweep of all the county road agencies into a single state agency.  Remember that it was 1952 instead of 1932 with the depression long over.  In other words, the risk was less calculated in North Carolina and Virginia since both states at the time had a single-term governor system with a clear mandate to rescue destitute local governments at the height of the depression.  The strategy employed then was also to have the state take over these roads only after they were brought to state standards.  Because of the 20 year difference, Governor Byrnes let the system grow slowly.  Unfortunately, the legislature did not respond by adjusting the tax structure accordingly nor did they ever finish the job of taking over remaining county roads as-is.

SCDOT spokesman Pete Poore was quoted in the article suggesting that the system they have is a relic of 1930's and 1940's politics and does not relate to life in the 21st century.  This is an absurd argument.  It can basically be translated to "Because this system was set up before my time and it's not the way that every other state does it, it is thus archaic and unworkable and thus should be replaced with an even more archaic, inefficient and unworkable system called "local roads" that doesn't save any money but makes it look like the state is keeping your taxes low and takes the liability off of us".  Absolutely no imagination is applied to this argument, and the state is only giving counties and cities a leaky boat.

Beaufort then states that that if they took over secondary roads they simply need more money and that they should do exactly what they want.  Wrong answer, Beaufort.  It's not that you need more or less money.  You just need the system to work as it is intended and make it work better.  You're saying "if you give us more money, we'd be glad to take on the roads".  That's going to cost you, and the roads will not be any better.  It's time to reform your argument.  If you want to take over the roads, incorporate it into a unified statewide strategy to provide something equivalent to what SCDOT provided for years.

The article then goes on to talk about a loss of interest by state governments in keeping up large state road systems stating the often abused 19% nationwide figure.  If everybody else jumps off a bridge, should these five states do the same?  This is a logical fallacy just because most states weren't willing to adopt the North Carolina plan in the 1930's.  The only reason these states did not adopt the plan was because at the time counties were stronger and less willing to give power to the state government.  They even noted at the time that North Carolina's roads greatly improved by adopting that system.  Instead of adopting the archaic and broken county model of road maintenance, why not try something new such as regional roads, statewide cooperatives or separating the secondary system into a separate state agency from SCDOT with a better local funding mechanism?  Why not have the state maintain all county roads in exchange for counties taking back literal ownership?  Nothing like that seems to be on the table.  All or nothing is the only game in town.  The winners?  Short-sighted South Carolina politicians.  The losers?  South Carolina motorists and local governments.  

The article states what is already known in that states took over county roads because they weren't building enough roads or weren't maintaining them well.  The problem is that they still don't maintain them adequately except in less corrupt or higher population counties.  Nothing changed except the view from the top.  The state DOT's don't want the liability for the roads and the state legislature doesn't want the price tag.  This might sound fair enough if they plan to hold the hand of every county and city, but history has shown that is not the case.

The article also states how these large state road systems are a drain on state resources.  In this they are correct, but where else is the money coming from?  The only other option counties have independent of statewide legislation is property taxes.  While the states are probably too big to handle it themselves, the states took them over in the first place because the counties were too small and poor to handle it alone.  This is still true today in the majority of South Carolina counties, but unfortunately most states have shown no interest in local government reform.  Unless the states want to redraw county boundaries so that each state has huge, high population counties with deep tax bases then either the state is going to have to stay involved or a regional approach to local control is going to have to be considered.  The article also states that states own portions of local roads that were added long ago because of political reasons.  This is true in pretty much any state that has a state road system.  No system is perfect and a powerful politician usually can wrangle at least a few miles of roads into places state roads are not needed.  This is evidenced by the lopsided Georgia highway system where in a few parts of the state where powerful politicians resided saw far more roads added to the system than others.  About the only solution to that is to have only the most bare bones state highway system consisting of 8% or less of the roads.  The downgrade planned of the system to 34% will not get rid of all political roads, but it will ramp up costs for the counties.  At that ratio counties will still be too underfunded to do a very good job with these new "county" roads that they had no hand in building.  

It is also true that inflation and better vehicle fuel efficiency are stripping states of a solid revenue stream.  However, the real problem is that a fiscally conservative, anti-tax approach is part of why revenues are drying up.  Any state road system is only going to work as long as revenues are sufficient. Starving the beast is going to kill it not make it lean.  Even states like Michigan and Minnesota, both which have very small state highway systems, are having real trouble raising adequate revenues.  State control is not the issue.  Money is. 

The article quotes a representative from the National League of Cities stating that local governments are being stuck with roads they neither chose to build nor given the money for them.  If that's the case, shouldn't these roads be maintained by the state or a regional entity with enough resources pooled together to be able to manage them efficiently and effectively?  A county with 12,000 people should not be on the hook to maintain a road built to state highway specifications complete with expensive to maintain roadway features.  If they are given enough money to do it, it will cost more in taxes than if it's handled by another higher population county or regional government with at least 100,000 people.

States are also turning into salesman trying to "pitch" local control to city and county governments such as the TxDOT turnback program mentioned in the article.  If instead counties and city road agencies could be grouped into regional or statewide cooperative highway commissions, turning these lower maintenance roads down from the state system might make sense.  Texas has the highest number of counties in the country along with the largest land area.  Having 50-70 regions instead of 254 counties handling at least the farm-to-market roads would be more beneficial than dumping them on counties that in many cases have populations under 10,000 residents.  Likewise having 1-2 agencies handling 46 counties in South Carolina makes much more sense than assuming that every county is the same with the same capabilities.  Since regions are not an actual government jurisdiction they can also have authority to maintain these city streets now under TxDOT responsibility.  Until then Texas should just stick to their commitment to maintain 1/4 of the state's roads.

The article mentions that West Virginia was proposing local funding mechanisms that did not require devolution.  At least West Virginia gets it that regional cooperation for funding makes more sense than a big dump on counties and cities.  West Virginia's entire state population is very low meaning that the counties can hardly afford to take on what the state does for them.  WVDOT is struggling to maintain what it has, but with a lower population and more consistently rural population they are able to do it more effectively than fast-growing North Carolina and Virginia.  

Fortunately, the article makes mention of the other problem being too much local control.  That's what devolution creates with roads: too much local control.  The article cited New Jersey counties and townships struggling to fund roads after the rough winter of 2013-2014.  Indeed, New Jersey also has a major issue with townships, and this fragmentation of local responsibility has resulted in very high local property taxes and very inconsistent standards.  As another inefficient means of maintaining roads, road responsibility should revert to either regions or counties with townships primarily taken out of the road business.  Costs could be far lower when authority is centralized into high population counties.  New Jersey is one of the most populous states in the country and their 21 counties typically have populations that well exceed 100,000.  By just using county government alone, the regional concept would work very effectively with the few counties who are under 100,000 residents partnering with the higher population counties.  This is why most county roads in New Jersey are often better maintained than in other states because they do have such high populations and responsibility, but those benefits do not expand to townships or to the lower population counties.

In all, this article helped to highlight the real issues that local governments face and why states are giving them a raw deal.  It is time that we re-evaluate our approach to how we handle roads instead of simply thinking that starving the beast and forcing counties and municipalities large and small to shoulder the burden is some sort of forward way of thinking.  Are they honestly suggesting that the whole Good Roads Movement was a mistake?  Authority for roads other than counties did not exist before 1920, and states took that role in varying degrees because local government was not a reliable source for efficiency, construction standards or long-distance travel.  While this article in no way is suggesting the complete removal of state authority, it is assuming that a "county" road is a pretty little tree-lined one lane country road.  The fact is that on average 24% of every state's road network is eligible for federal aid with a further 5% designated collector and often built to highway standards.  Most small local agencies really don't have the revenues to keep up roads like that.  We need to either re-think our approach to local government or resist devolution as a "solution" to funding problems on a state level.