Roger Pyle is a retired forester, Canes fan, PA native but NC resident for 50 years.
Roger submitted the following for publication:
Why I’d vote NO on Raleigh’s $101.5 million transportation bond
My decision isn’t based on opposing road improvements or believing Raleigh should never invest in transportation. It’s based on the City’s record, the proposed spending priorities, and the lack of accountability I believe taxpayers deserve before approving another bond.
1. Raleigh needs to demonstrate it can deliver the projects it has already promised.
Voters approved a $206.7 million transportation bond in 2017. Nine years later, several projects have experienced lengthy delays, redesigns, or cost increases. The Six Forks Road project is a particularly troubling example: costs escalated dramatically, and the original project was ultimately abandoned in favor of smaller improvements.
Some projects have been completed, and others are moving forward. But the overall record raises legitimate questions about cost estimates, scheduling, and project management.
2. Why approve another $101.5 million without a clear accounting of the previous bond?
Before asking taxpayers for more money, Raleigh should publish a straightforward accounting showing:
- How much of the 2017 bond authorization has actually been spent.
- Which projects were completed and their final costs.
- Which projects were delayed, reduced, or canceled.
- Where the money from canceled or modified projects was reallocated.
- How much remains available or committed.
That is basic financial accountability, not opposition to infrastructure.
3. The proposed spending priorities deserve more scrutiny.
Of the proposed $101.5 million, $51.5 million is designated for three road projects, $40 million for transportation plans and programs, and $10 million for neighborhood traffic management.
The $40 million category includes the City’s Big Jump initiative, which proposes more than five miles of sidewalks and 50 miles of bikeways, along with other safety and transportation-plan projects.
Sidewalks and bicycle facilities can have legitimate benefits. My concern is that the City has not made a sufficiently clear, public case for the amount being requested: how much will go to each type of project, how heavily the proposed facilities are expected to be used, and what measurable benefits taxpayers should expect.
4. The City needs to demonstrate results, not just present plans.
Raleigh’s transportation surveys are not representative public-opinion polls, and the City has not provided a clear, comprehensive comparison of bicycle use, projected additional users, and infrastructure costs that would allow taxpayers to evaluate the return on this investment.
Nor should taxpayers have to assume that building 50 miles of bikeways will automatically produce the demand needed to justify the expenditure.
5. No increase in the property-tax rate doesn’t mean the bond is free.
The City says the bond can be financed without an additional property-tax-rate increase. But borrowing still has a cost, and money committed to debt service limits the City’s future financial flexibility.
We should evaluate whether the proposed spending is the best use of those resources—not simply whether the City can fit the debt into its existing financing plan.
My conclusion: NO.
Raleigh has legitimate transportation needs, and I support responsible investment in roads, sidewalks, and safety. But the City should first provide a transparent accounting of the 2017 bond, demonstrate better project-cost and schedule management, and explain the expected benefits of the proposed spending.
I’m not against transportation improvements. I am against approving another $101.5 million before the City has made a sufficiently convincing case for how it will spend the money and deliver the promised results.
If you appreciate the kind of reporting we bring to you
|
Please donate $10 or $20, Thanks for supporting |
 |