CHANGE MY LOCATION
$3.1 million shortfall projected for District’s road construction fund
SEE THE LATEST ON THIS STORY
Related Topics: WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON (Map, News) - The D.C. Department of Transportation’s road construction coffers will be drained within two years, a new report shows, and critical projects may need to be put off unless new revenue sources are found.
The department’s Highway Trust Fund is expected to run a $3.1 million deficit in fiscal 2010 and a $180,000 deficit in fiscal 2011, according to an annual forecast conducted by the Office of the Inspector General.
The gap, a result of DDOT’s plan to spend more than it collects, would occur despite projected increases in local gas and parking tax revenues and right of way rental fees — the main sources of revenue dedicated to the trust fund.
“If no new funding sources are available, DDOT will modify the spending plan by postponing the start of projects,” auditors wrote in the report.
In fiscal 2010, the balance of the fund is projected at $68.2 million, while DDOT is looking to spend $71.3 million, according to the inspector general. In 2011, the fund balance is projected to drop to $62.3 million, while spending is forecast at $62.5 million. By law, expenditures cannot exceed appropriations.
DDOT spokeswoman Karyn LeBlanc said the shortfall threatens investments in transportation infrastructure, including bridges and tunnels, reconstruction of streets, traffic signals, lighting, safety initiatives and other capital projects. She declined to say what specific projects might be at risk.
“We are aware of the impact should the trust fund be depleted and we are discussing ways in which to provide for the shortfall,” LeBlanc said in an e-mail.
Ward 1 D.C. Councilman Jim Graham, who has oversight of transportation matters, said the shortfall was “news to me.” That said, a gap of only a few million dollars can be easily covered just by moving dollars around.
“A shortfall of $3 million ought to be something we can take of within the confines of the existing commitment,” he said. “If there was a great deal more than that, it would be a matter of great concern.”
Jim Segar, a senior auditor with the inspector general’s office, said the forecast is a planning “tool” for DDOT to “decide whether they need additional revenue sources, or else scale back on the projects that are not immediately necessary.”
mneibauer@dcexaminer.com
Comments from Examiner Readers
10:23 AM MST on Thu., Jul. 3, 2008 re: "DDOT halts plan to restrict loading sites"
Report as inappropriate
7:45 PM MST on Tue., Jun. 10, 2008
re: "$3.1 million shortfall projected for District’s road construction fund"
Report as inappropriate
8:20 PM MST on Fri., May. 9, 2008
re: "Top priorities for DDOT don’t top everyone’s list"
Report as inappropriate
10:44 AM MST on Thu., May. 8, 2008
re: "Top priorities for DDOT don’t top everyone’s list"
Report as inappropriate
Anonymous reader said:
2? Really!! I hate DDOT.
2 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Scott said:
This is a COMPLETE non-story. Honestly, by fiscal 2010, the city's revenues will increase dramatically because the tax base will be so much higher. All the rich people and businesses moving in will ensure that... And $3.9 million is chump change in a 5.4 BILLION annual budget.
2 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Brian said:
The top priority of DDOT should involve plans to convert 16th Street into an expressway that moves east just north of Mt. Pleasant to eventually connect with 295. Plans to construct a major highway running east to west in the city should also be in their plans. Major urban areas comparable to this region have major freeways running through them. Why can't this area have them?
2 agree | 9 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
david said:
am i alone in being wholly tired of old washingtonians feigning offense when no one consults them ("no one consulted me!") half the squawk over schools and repairs and any number of issues come down to people who are a little too full of themselves taking offense to someone whose job it is to make decisions, making decisions. i would rather a system based on number of complaints and length of time in the system than one based on patronage to city counsel ANY DAY. squeaky wheels get grease. there's nothing sinister in that. and don't harass the city on minor issues--only major ones. and if you can fix it faster than them (like tightening the loose bolt on a street sign), do it yourself.
2 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree