Reverse road-funding course

The state highway commission has a last-gasp chance at its next meeting to reverse its profligate, irresponsible course by jettisoning a $344 million plan for mostly non-essential highway projects. It should seize the opportunity.

Fourth District Commissioner Johnny Edwards will ask that the commission rescind the bond issue, which would consume most of the remaining borrowing capacity of the state Department of Transportation.

"After seeing the financial problems, I think common sense will prevail," Mr. Edwards says. "If we'd had a crystal ball to see what was coming, we would never have approved it."

He's right about the need to reverse course. South Carolina doesn't need to get axle-deep in speculative road projects when it doesn't have enough money to take care of its basic repaving needs -- or its priority construction projects. Or in some instances, even to pay its contractors on time.

The DOT recently delayed $24 million in projects, mainly for road resurfacing, because of cash flow problems.

The bond issue would pay for five projects, only one of which is a state priority.

The largest project would be a $105 million interchange for I-73, an interstate that would serve the Grand Strand. Total cost would be $2.3 billion, though funds have yet to be allocated.

Nevertheless, powerful political interests in the Grand Strand and the Pee Dee continue to push the I-73 project, while ignoring fiscal reality.

The bond proposal was initially approved in April, with only Fifth District Commissioner Sarah Nuckles opposed. But two months ago, the commission voted 3-3 to rescind the plan. Unfortunately, commission chairman Danny Isaac broke the tie in favor of the plan's proponents.

Maybe this time, common sense will prevail.

The DOT should limit itself to projects that are essential to ease existing traffic and safety problems. Failure to do so should bring a quick response from the Senate Transportation Committee, as it considers DOT's recent financial difficulties, and the commission's failure to follow the Legislature's 2007 reform mandates.

The commission's initial support of the bond plan -- taken with no apparent public review or input -- showed the extent to which it has reverted to the bad old way of doing business.

It's important for the commission to change course. Unless it does so, the DOT can expect only the most limited support for more agency funding, despite the backlog of priority construction and maintenance work.

The commission must show responsibility to the taxpayers and to the motoring public.

Its members must demonstrate that they are accountable to the many and not merely the politically powerful few.