Transportation demands long-term solution

Published 12:00 am Monday, July 3, 2006

I read with interest the “Other Opinion” of Delegate Chris Jones (April 11, 2006).

I admire Chris for his hard work in the House of Delegates and his representation of his constituents in Suffolk and Chesapeake.

I am especially appreciative of his courage, in the face of severe political consequences, in 2004 to lead the fight in the House for a budget that would serve the needs of Virginians in years to come in delivering the core services demanded of our government.

Email newsletter signup

Much of what he offers about the House 2006-08 budget plan is correct.

However, it is what he doesn’t tell readers that you should be concerned about.

Everyone agrees that the Commonwealth needs about $1 billion a year for the next 20 years to meet our transportation needs.

The House proposal provides about $900 million for fiscal year 2007, but only about $360 million each year thereafter.

The House proposes spending significantly LESS for the following core services than either the Governor’s introduced budget or the Senate’s budget:

* $43 million LESS in constitutionally required deposits to the Rainy Day Fund;

* $55 million LESS for colleges and universities;

* $48 million LESS for teacher salaries;

* $30 million LESS for school construction;

* $40 million LESS for land conservation and water quality improvement, eliminating the Southern Rivers program;

* $16 million LESS for economic development; and,

* $19 million LESS for courts, commonwealth’s attorneys, public defenders, clerks of court and other court costs.

The House transportation plan also depends on $179 million from increased driver fines and fees each year, when fully implemented.

The Senate estimate of those fees is only $48 million.

The hidden shortfall in the House budget is DEBT.

For example, the House proposes to borrow money for $258 million for college and university construction projects, which will result in a 50 percent increase in costs, rather than using some of the cash surplus from the General Fund as the Senate is proposing.

The House wants a special session for transportation only.

That is not unreasonable.

What IS unreasonable is their refusal to commit to finding a sustainable increased revenue stream for transportation without looking to short-term fixes that rely on possible future revenue surpluses in the General Fund.

We need a long-range solution, not another short-term fix.

I am certain that Delegate Jones understands the real problem and the need for a long-term solution.

I hope that he will dedicate his efforts to finding one as the Senate has.