Audit shows
By Stan Welch – The picture of the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) painted by the executive summary of a recent state ordered audit of that organization is one of politics over policy, and a general lack of organization. The results leave the public perception of the department as being poised somewhere between gross mismanagement and outright corruption.
One of the biggest problems the department has is its proclivity for projects that add new roads, or expand existing ones, as opposed to programs designed to maintain the state’s bridges and roads.
A major factor in that tendency toward new construction is the DOT’s allocation of funds to metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), Councils of Government (COGs) and county transportation committees (CTCs), whose predisposition in terms of road construction is towards economic development benefits.
As a result, the majority of such projects involve new roads or the widening of existing roads. In 2015, according to the audit, the DOT allocated five times the amount required by federal regulations to those various organizations. The impact of those decisions is further magnified by the fact that the new miles of road constructed will begin requiring maintenance sooner or later. In addition, the audit found various examples of COG and MOP projects that ranked very low on the statewide list of priorities.
Exacerbating the problems of prioritization is the often informal and undocumented manner in which those priorities are set. The statewide transportation improvement program (STIP) is a prime example, according to the audit documents. The STIP is a six year plan for projects receiving federal funding. Projects are frequently transferred from state project priority lists to the STIP program, with little or no documented justification.
For example,the audit states that such information as the individual project’s position on the state list, the actual source of the federal funding, and the purpose and degree of need for the project is often omitted. The issue of public access to the information, as well as the decision making process, is also addressed by the study. The decisions are generally made at DOT staff meetings and are neither clear nor public in nature.
Since federal funding is such a major source of revenue to the DOT maximum efficiency in utilizing those funds is essential; the audit found several shortcomings in that regard. For example, many of the restrictions on the routine use of federal funds for maintenance are based not on the activities themselves, but on the types of roads on which the activities can be performed.
Under certain circumstances, the state could transfer up to fifty per cent of funds available through the National Highway Performance Program to the much more flexible Surface Transportation Program.
The study also suggests that the department analyze and document its performance in coming into compliance with ideal industry cycle times for resurfacing roads. This would serve to prevent roads from deteriorating to the next lower standard, which results in an enormous increase in the cost of repair and restoration.
According to the audit documents, that information should be disseminated to the General Assembly, the public and other stakeholders on an annual basis.
(Other articles on the SCDOT will appear in The Journal, concerning such issues as possible revenue sources and the reorganization of the SCDOT)
