TRANSPORTATION

It often takes a tragedy to force people to focus on what should be in the forefront. Such is often the case when it comes to transportation issues. Almost all Rhode Islanders use some form of transportation in their daily existence, yet they leave it to others to ensure its safety and maintenance.

Rhode Island’s transportation infrastructure, for lack of a better word, sucks. According to some surveys, Rhode Island ranks last in quality of its roads. Its drivers are frequently amongst the lowest in terms of operator safety. Rhode Island’s bridges have seen their share of neglect. Our public transit system, which really is little more than a public bus line, is frequently crying for more funding. The gasoline tax used for roads is among the highest in the country. And we are just getting warmed up.

As is usually the case in any exploration of a public issue, we must first state the problem, and before we can consider realistic solutions, we have to understand just how we arrived at this point of distress.

Much of the problem dates back into the onset of Rhode Island’s reliance on roadways. There are two parts to roadways. The initial laying of the road and the maintenance of the road once it is there. Both have been a bane to the taxpayers of Rhode Island.

Early road construction, often lacking any real engineering oversight due to favorable government treatment, has produced a foundation that often demands repair. The basic under-surface of a road will determine whether or not it can sustain frost heaves and other natural abuse. People often point to New Hampshire’s roads in a comparison with Rhode Island’s pot hole laden streets. For my money, I will bet the road bed difference is the key.

But, Rhode Island, being far more urban than New Hampshire, has other matter with which it must contend. Due to the urbanization, our secondary highways are highly traveled. In addition, we utilize in-ground utilities that course through the middle of our roadways. The aging utility infrastructure is often in need of repair and in turn, results in a pock-mocked highway.

Rhode Island could easily solve the later problem by merely putting more engineering enforcement into the utility cuts. Repairs that have sunk or result in other deficiencies could be charged against the utility making the road cut. How hard is that?

As for the restructuring of the road bed, that is far more arduous. It is unlikely that we can rip up most of our main roads without tremendous cost or inconvenience. This means that we need to improve the methods of maintenance and learn from our earlier mistakes in awarding state contracts.

Rhode Islanders in general, and their leadership in specificity, are short-sighted when it comes to infra-structure issues. They frequently vote for bonds to finance the efforts, but fail to actively evaluate whether that spending has been put to good use.

Take for example the I-Way project. Yes, it will free up some city space that could make a nice profit for some investors in the area, but the project is expected to do little, if anything, to alleviate the traffic congestion that has plagued the 95-195 intersection for decades. Your transportation dollars at work.

You see, for years Rhode Island government, in conjunction and with the support of the labor unions, have lobbied the public for these projects. For labor the benefits are obvious. For government officials, the benefits are more subtle and less apparent, but still there.

By using highway funds, Rhode Island government is less on the hook to create other types of employment. Political support for such projects often results in campaign support or donations, or both. The hand washing hand approach, typical of Rhode Island politics, is a great motivation.

Every recent Governor has had an on-going transportation “wish list” that delineates various projects. That list is compiled to enable the state to access federal highway funds, but it is not always prioritized according to need. Who wants a shirt for Christmas when you could get an Ipod? It is that basic.

But, back to the earlier discussion, Rhode Island is now faced with servicing what it hath wrought. It is not glamorous to put tax money into fixing what exists. For the most part, it is not seen and cannot be related to the public as an “accomplishment” during a politician’s term in office. “I built this new bridge” provides far more political capital than “I made sure there were fewer pot holes on Route 138”. And therein lies the problem. The electorate prefers candidates that build new bridges.

A realistic transportation plan for Rhode Island should prioritize maintenance. A realistic transportation plan should seek to leap frog technology. For example, when I first visited Uruguay, the people there had few telephones. Land lines, made of copper wire, were both expensive to install in a largely rural nation and often susceptible to theft. Few rural areas had reliable in-home telephones. Today, most Uruguayans have a telephone – a cellular telephone. In short, they have leap-frogged in terms of technology. It is this type of thinking that I would expect in our transportation planning. To build not for today, but for tomorrow should be our objective.

As a small state with population centers existing in clusters, it is almost unforgivable to think that we do not have a viable system of public transportation that would encourage use by all segments of the society. Large urban centers in the United States, and most world class cities elsewhere, have strong public transportation systems. In Buenos Aires, for example, there are inexpensive taxis. In London, there is the tube. In Japan, there is a reliable, clean, albeit overcrowded, subway system. Here, we continue to blindly rely on our personal automobile.

Please don’t get me wrong. I am not advocating the abandonment of the auto. I am, however, advocating the limited use of that auto. It can be done, but it needs to have a committed effort on the part of government and the people. I personally find occasion to use the public bus system, but I know that I would utilize it far more often if it met my needs. If the bus had a greater frequency, I would use it more often, but to provide a greater frequency, there must be more riders. It creates the famous catch 22 of public transportation, but it is real.

Still, we fail to attempt to solve the problem and wish for better public transportation whenever the price of gasoline goes up. Light rail projects are frequently topics of discussion, but it all stops there. We need to look to where we need to be 20 years from now instead of where we are today. Until we do that, Rhode Island’s transportation problem will continue to exist.

In subsequent discussions of transportation I will discuss the relation of transportation to taxation, the use of alternative transportation modes, and the concept of clustering for better management of transportation and land. I will likely culminate this effort by an overview that reviews Rhode Island’s transportation spending in light of the points made in earlier blogs.