State-local highway consultation and cooperation : the perspective of state legislators Page: 42
vii, 46 p. ; 23 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
has 50 percent of the state's population and corresponding power. No attention
is given for special rural needs.
23. In general the relationship is very good. Because there are not enough funds
for the many needed projects, everyone must wait their turn to be prioritized.
24. We collect all gas taxes and remit them to the local governments by formula
and thereby obtain a fair distribution of these funds to the various geographic
areas.
25. Legislation passed earlier this year places the governor in total control of state
highway activities; it's too early to tell the effect, but optimism reigns.
26. Future road plans can change when a new governor comes in every four years
with his own political priorities-which might jeopardize plans unless a legislator
can save the project. However, legislators and local officials work closely
together to achieve local road priorities.
27. Some monies are earmarked for local use on matching basis. Local governments
are strapped for operational funds and find it difficult to come up with
matching funds.
28. Strong points: state helps cities, towns and counties get their priorities in construction
and repair. Local communities feel state does .not provide enough
funding for their local needs.
29. Conflict over state/local division of funds.
30. Major problem: identifying alternative routes during road work.
31. Rural vs. urban highway needs is a weak point.
32. Highway planning is too centralized in the central office; too little respect for
regional offices, local governments.
33. We have a "C" Fund Account (2.66 cents of total 15-cent tax) which is handled
by legislative delegation and funds city and county projects. Weakest point is
that our highway commission, which is composed of representatives of the 16
judicial districts (elected by local delegations of the general assembly) is very
provincial and does not consider overall needs of the state.
34. All roads are funded by the state and fall under the state's jurisdiction. There
are very few municipal streets and private streets in the state. Municipal
streets are funded by the state on a formula basis.
35. One of the strong points is the state funding for local roads and bridges with
the communities havingthe authority to determine their own priorities forthe
use of funds. Weak point is that bureaucratic process is necessary to accomplish
projects.
36. Too much finger-pointing about whose responsibility is whose. Poor public relations
at both local and state levels.
37. There is constant disagreement over the distribution percentage of road use
tax dollars.
38. Let the states toll the Interstate.
39. Close cooperation among all agencies pertaining to state and local relations
and state highway agencies.
40. The state formula for aid to local government is a good program, but there is
some rivalry and disagreement between municipalities on the amount of aid.
41. The state Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) process enables local
governments and interest groups to have a substantial impact on the final
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. State-local highway consultation and cooperation : the perspective of state legislators, book, May 1988; Washington, D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1061/m1/52/: accessed April 19, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.