The County Line
- Volume 52, Number 2 - 2008
Can we solve the problem with Alabama's county bridges?
Sometimes a workable solution is so obvious that it is simply ignored for another alternative much more difficult, complex and politically unachievable.
Maybe that’s what’s happening with our quest to find additional revenue to address the continuing decline of our county road and bridge system. Or, at least that’s the conclusion I reached one Monday morning when data reached my desk in the form of an e-mail presenting some interesting facts on the condition of bridges on county roads in Crenshaw County.
The facts could lead one to a very obvious source of revenue that could be used to solve the state’s pending bridge crisis – a source that has heretofore been overlooked.
But, before getting to the conclusion in this forum, it is important to look at the county in question just a bit to distinguish it from the rest of the state.
Crenshaw County may be typical, and the conclusion we’ll reach may apply everywhere, but we really don’t have enough data to make that leap, at least not yet.
Crenshaw County is located in south-central Alabama, just south of Montgomery. The county’s population of just more than 13,500, puts it among the bottom 10 counties in population in Alabama.
Some 20 or so counties collect a local gasoline and/or diesel fuel tax to help finance the operation of the county road and bridge department. But, Crenshaw County is not among those. The county relies solely on the revenue it receives from the statewide gasoline tax.
You should also know a portion of the county’s eastern and southern boundaries are created by rivers.
One could assume the county’s population means it receives a smaller portion of the state-levied gasoline tax than many of its neighbors – which it does – and that, perhaps, the geography of the county could result it its having more bridge problems than other counties.
Today, Crenshaw County has dozens of bridges on its paved roads that are posted at weight limits that prohibit the bridges from being crossed by either school buses or other trucks. The weight limits aren’t enforced – of course – but one could argue the public’s best interest would be served by such enforcement.
In a county like Crenshaw, much of the economic engine is driven by the hauling of commodities, such as timber and farm products. The bridge problem is so widespread that the closing of the bridges would severely hamper, or perhaps even shut down, such operations in that area of the state.
In some cases, the bridges could not be detoured at all, and in other cases, the detours would be so costly that the economic endeavor would no longer be productive. So, the public is allowed to continue to cross the unsafe bridges every day. But, at what cost?
According to traffic counts conducted by the county, more than 650 trucks cross the posted bridges each day. Detouring around those bridges would require the 650 trucks to drive more than 4,000 extra miles each day. That’s right, 4,000 extra miles.
The number seemed so staggering that we rechecked it a couple of times. It’s correct.
If one assumes trucks can drive about eight miles on a gallon of diesel fuel (on average), and that the price of diesel fuel is about $4.85 per gallon, the numbers are even more surprising.
In a typical 50-week work year, the trucks traveling the roads in little Crenshaw County would spend more than $1.4 million in diesel fuel alone if they were forced to detour the unsafe bridges that they cross today. The cost of replacing all the bridges that are “posted” to restrict truck traffic in Crenshaw County is a bit more than $14 million or about 10 times the cost of buying fuel to detour the bridges for only ONE year!
If the weight limits were enforced and the trucks were forced to drive the detour miles on Crenshaw County roads, they would pay about $47,000 in extra STATE diesel fuel tax.
Because the state-levied diesel fuel tax is distributed only to the Alabama Department of Transportation, the Crenshaw County Road Department would not receive any revenue from the extra $47,000 in diesel fuel tax paid by the detouring trucks.
And, as a result, the county would not have any additional revenue to repair the damage the trucks would receive driving the extra 1 million miles necessary to the detour the bridges each year.
With little or no support for an increase in gasoline tax in sight and little hope of changing the distribution formula for the proceeds of the state’s diesel fuel tax, there seem to be few encouraging words for Crenshaw County – or the other counties, for that matter.
But, that’s when the light bulb ignited. There has been so much talk about “toll roads” in Alabama in the last few months, why wouldn’t that idea work for Crenshaw County and all the other counties that have bridge problems?
It would certainly make economic sense for the trucks that stand to be detoured 1 million miles per year.
The county could float a bond issue for the repair of the bridges and then charge a toll for those heavy trucks that wish to cross the new structures. The toll could be equal to half the fuel costs that would be paid for detouring had the bridges been closed in the first place.
Under this approach, the bonds could be repaid in about 20 years, the economy of Crenshaw County could continue to move forward and – most importantly – the unsafe bridges could be repaired before some horrific accident occurs on a lonely county road.
There...the bridge crisis in Alabama has been solved.
It will not be necessary for anyone to vote for an increase in taxes, it won’t be necessary to redistribute our oil royalties and – just for good measure – we can help lower unemployment by putting a bunch of people to work in the toll booths at all the county bridges.
|
