Division of Road Funds Should Not Be Punitive

For the past 32 years, the county’s innovative Arterial Highway Financing Program has been running smoothly and getting the best possible mileage out of the state gasoline taxes that come back into the county each year. It is a good plan that has stood the test of time.

But the program hit a rough spot in the road when the County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday voted not to give Irvine and Laguna Beach a portion of the $9.8 million allocated to the 1989-90 fiscal year program starting July 1.

Irvine was denied the road funds because the county is miffed over the city’s failure to bring its road improvement plans on two major thoroughfares into conformance with the county’s master plan for arterial highways. Laguna Beach and the county have reached a compromise.

It is understandable for the county board, which has the final say over which cities receive money under the program, to reject requests that do not conform to coordinated master planning.

In 1957, when the highway financing program was created, public officials had the same problem that faces the community today: how to develop a regional road network that would move traffic most efficiently with the inadequate amount of money available to toss at the problem. The county began putting its state gas tax money into a pool that would be allocated to approved city road projects on a 50-50 matching fund basis.

The key to the program has always been the master plan of arterial highways. Coordination and continuity is essential and cities must recognize--and accept--their regional responsibilities to help develop a countywide highway network. Major thoroughfares should be compatible.

But decisions on which projects to fund should also be made on an individual project basis, and requests should not be rejected because the county board wants to punish a city over a planning disagreement.

The county and Irvine are at odds over the city’s reluctance to extend Culver Drive and widen Trabuco Road. But the city’s road plan has differed with the county’s plan for about a decade, and funds were never withheld before. And other cities reportedly have some streets that don’t comply with the county’s master plan. But they are getting money this year.

Just because a city disagrees with the county’s master plan on some thoroughfares should not automatically exclude other projects it submits from AHFP approval. That introduces punitive and political elements that can weaken an outstanding program that relies on coordination for its success.