By J. Richards Todd

Many states’ entitlement politics have gotten them into financial trouble, and squeezed out critically important, essential projects like roads. People have a tendency to see the benefits of their wants, but don’t consider all the hidden costs. Those days may be over, as we face an “era of austerity.” We’re already seeing some real push-back.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie recently halted work on the Hudson River passenger rail tunnel due to revised double-cost estimates, with predictions of tripling the original budget. Interest groups wanting taxpayer subsidies for their visions screamed “foul!” Blame part of the flap on New Jersey’s history of corruption, cost overruns, and requirements to pay prevailing union wages. But, it’s also being asked: how much is too much – and for what/whose benefit?

Gov. Christie now says if it is such a federal/interstate-transportation priority, then the federal government (in reality, that’s us) will have to provide a greater share of the funding. Credit the rest to an epiphany of the zealotry of some special interests’ bankrupting entitlement agendas.

The huge expenses involved in entitlement/parochial projects crowd out real money for real priorities that serve all citizens, like expanding existing roads. Major transportation-infrastructure projects like these incur cost overruns nearly 90% of the time according to an international study in 2002 by economic geographers.

The cost overruns were especially large in rail projects. The researchers determined that people allow their best hopes and optimism to dominate the planning process, and to inspire themselves and others. One research scientist characterized it like this: “Looking forward makes you look more optimistic. Looking backward makes you more realistic.” He said officials and interests engage in “strategic misrepresentation” when producing early numbers. Another observed once projects gain momentum, and approval, all sorts of interests tack on additional elements.

Public and private unions want rail projects because they produce jobs for them, and support from their favored politicians. Apparently there are no privately owned, publically accessible passenger rail systems because they require tremendous public (taxpayer) subsidies, not only to build, but also to operate.

Environmentalists promote them instead of expansion of roadways because congestion aids their goals of making the life of a commuter or commercial vehicle operator more difficult, less efficient and free, therefore more expensive. They want to drive us out of our vehicles and onto fixed-rails (or bikes) - or confine us to our “livable communities.” With as little population density as we have, commuter rail would be a financial boondoggle around our neck, choking off funding for other critically needed projects to move the masses of people and freight.

Left-idealists claim public transit improves air quality. The fact is that gains have come from use of unleaded and ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuels, and ever increasing fuel efficiencies and emissions-improving technology on cars, buses and trucks. Cleaner, zero-emission vehicles are coming, so ironically, as far as their agenda is concerned, these vehicles and expanded roadways would actually make us more efficient, save energy and increase quality of life.

Likewise, not all road projects are equal. Some projects are touted by proponents as solutions for “economic development.” Others claim “deserving” status, or “justified” as routes of regional or statewide-significance but which may be better suited for substantial widening through existing rights of way.

South Carolina is not immune to this phenomenon. Rail, environmental and special-project advocates tout their visions and agendas in all major areas of our state. In the past, most of us quietly listened and thought “no big deal.” Your view probably depended on where you live and work.

A well-informed public is the key vaccination against the European disease of financing programs that are not economically sound, but may look “green” or be “politically correct.” Some will levy condescending accusations that this view is small-minded, backward thinking. But, all this is to suggest that our state must exercise an even greater degree of due diligence. Deference to special agendas and “visions” should not replace thorough vetting and solid taxpayer support,  on a specific project-by-project basis.

Accepting that our public resources are limited is not fun or easy. But promises made have to be paid when the bills come due. As we look forward, we must cost-compare what we need with what we want. Government that tries to do everything ends up doing nothing well, and it runs out of money before it does what it fundamentally should.

We have many roadways and bridges that need a lot of repair and/or replacement. Fixing and expanding our most important, most-used facilities must be priority No. 1, and the state Department of Transportation has a decent process in place.

Critical to public trust is that we dedicate and protect the revenues exclusively for what we’ve decided we really and truly need. Then we can begin the funding debates.

J. Richards Todd is president of the South Carolina Trucking Association.