A2O-Lancaster Fanning, Saturday, May 30, 1998
State Program Targets Improving Dirt, Gravel Roads
VERNON ACHENBACH JR,
Lancaster Fanning Staff
INDIANTOWN GAP MILI
TARY RESERVATION (Leba
non Co.) There are more than
27,000 miles of dirt and gravel
roadways in Pennsylvania.
Most of them are located in the
rural areas of the state and its 3.6
million people.
It's a good bet that subscribers
of Lancaster Farming have
traveled on them, provided over
sight leadership concerning them,
or actually worked to maintain
them.
On Tuesday and Wednesday at a
Pa. National Guard facility at the
Indiantown Gap Military Reserva
tion located north of Harper’s Fer
ry in Lebanon County, a training
program was held for specific
municipal road managers so they
can do a better job of repairing,
building and maintaining dirt and
gravel roads.
It was part of a multi-agency,
statewide program to educate road
managers, or “roadmasters,” as to
better techniques for maintaining
and repairing dirt and gravel roads.
If the managers attend the
courses, their municipalities qual
ify for receiving state funds for
maintenance of those roads.
In the spring of last year, a state
transportation law was passed (Act
3) that, as part of its $4OO million
per year for bridge and highway
construction and better paved road
maintenance, included a provision
to annually allocate (non-lapsing)
$5 million for public dirt and
gravel roads.
The program applies only to
those dirt and gravel roads open to
public use at least for a portion of
the year. It doesn’t count the pri
vate dirt and gravel roadways or
long lanes to farms or through pri
vate woodlots and estates.
But, many of the concepts being
taught about dirt and gravel toad
construction and maintenance
could easily be applied to farm
ERRY rIPE
ryWOOL „=s
WATERLINE QUEST-PEX
RR 2 Box 345 Elhottsburg, PA 17024 (717) 582-2758
lanes, especially with bridges,
crown construction, side drainage
ditches, and the use of different
materials.
While the funding in the prog
ram is not for private use, the infor
mation should still be available to
those who request it
The program is essentially fund
ing for rural communities, many of
which are governed by councils
consisting of farmers or those
familiar with farming.
While most should be familiar
with the importance of major
paved highways and routes to the
state's economy, many may not be
aware that dirt and gravel roads are
also considered essential to the
state’s economy.
According to state transporta
tion and conservation officials, dirt
and gravel roads are very impor
tant to agriculture, as well as out
door sports tourism and other types
of tourism.
In a report from the state’s Task
Force on Dirt and Gravel Roads, it
states, “Although many people
perceive of dirt and gravel toads as
a nuisance relics of a slower
paced time in our history waiting
to be paved the facts show
these roads are important links in
Pennsylvania’s overall transporta
tion network.
“Coveting more than 27,000
miles throughout the common
wealth, dirt and gravel roads pro
vide vital access for Pennsylvani
a’s major industries
agriculture, mining, forestry, and
tourism while weaving the
fabric of rural community life for
over 3.6 million residents.”
(The Task Force report was
written by Kevin Abbey and
Woodrow Colbert. A transporta
tion consultant. Abbey has a back
ground in zoology and English and
literature, and became involved
with the Task Force while director
of the state Senate Transportation
Committee. Colbert has a bache
lor’s degree in agriculture and
:ount
E ! -
savins
iANIC \
•MICAL'
ILIZERS
I ORI
&CHEI
FERTII
UCTS TO
RSOIL
READING
AGGED
>r barndry
igged $74.00 per ton
;ged $167.00 per ton
biology from Penn State Universi
ty. An employee of PennDOT’s
Bureau of Environmental Quality,
he is on temporary loan to the State
Conservation Commission, and
has been hired to oversee
implementation of the state dirt
and gravel road maintenance
program.)
The Task Force report also
noted that more than 90 percent of
the dirt and gravel toads are owned
and maintained by municipal (loc
al) governments. They have lim
ited coffers and frequently limited
tax bases from which to draw
funds.
The Task Force position is that
local municipalities should not be
expected to pave their dirt roads
and maintain them.
First of all, the Task Force con
siders that dirt and gravel roads are
unique devices with extremely val
uable characteristics all of their
own, that road engineers find very
cost effective (and some perhaps
also find a welcome and different
challenge to construct well and
understand), and many people find
aesthically pleasing to travel and
maintain.
However, what the Task Force
did recognize is that local govern
ments and authorities with control
of dirt and gravel roads need to do
a better job of building, repairing
and maintaining the roads.
The attitude associated with the
state effort docs not appear to hav
ing any tone of chastisement
Instead, the program seems con
structed with an attitude that seeks
to establish a cooperative and
mutually beneficial working
relationship.
The rationale explaining the
benefits of such a relationship
seems to be this:
• Municipal governments own
some of the state’s most under
valued properties dirt and
— t ' '
0"M
gravel roads that can be
increased in value and made more
of an asset to the state and local
community.
• If tools for doing improving
those roads are provided to the
municipal governments by the
state, the locality and the state can
become enriched, while at the
same time addressing water pollu
tion concerns, since many of the
dirt and gravel roads are located in
the state’s forested and watershed
areas.
The roads get better, the water
gets cleaner.
The local economy has a better
shot at increasing local economic
opportunities. At the same time, it
has the opportunity to adopt some
best management practices that
can lower maintenance and repair
costs.
Many political leaders through
out the state have expressed strong
beliefs in the superiority of local
governmental control over local
affairs.
While the state has increased its
regulatory control over a number
of statewide businesses and
affairs, its political leadership has
been fairly consistent in attempt
ing to allow as much local interpre
tation and control over programs
,as possible, especially those con
cerned with environmental laws
and regulations.
Some of the earlier cases in
which the state attempted to pro
vide local control to ameliorate
environmental problems didn't
work well the state made no
provision to ensure local expertise
was up to the job of making good
interpretations.
As an example, when the state
saw fit to allow local interpretation
of its 1978 Flood Plain Control Act
and Stormwater Management Act,
problems quickly arose from so
much unmonitored local
interpretation.
Local interpretation can be read
ily challenged by residential deve
lopment groups, etc., which tend to
have greater legal resources that
local governments, and can some
times provide professional spokes
people who are skilled at intimi
dating local leadership.
In hindsight, many cited a lack
of local knowledge about flood
plains and stormwater manage
ment as the reason for some poor
decisions made at the local level.
Work is still being done on
stormwater management and the
control of development of flood
plains.
In the meantime, some lessons
apparently have been learned.
Now, many environmental
programs in the state rely heavily
upon continuing education
requirements to maintain at least a
minimumun level of local exper
tise, as well as some sort of local
monitoring through local agencies.
Some programs such as the
Nutrient Management Act, or the
Farmland Preservation Program,
have state oversight and local con
trol through Penn State Extension
Services, Pa. Department of Agri
culture, the county Conservation
District or formal review boards
consisting of “stakeholders.”
The dirt and gravel road prog
ram is such a program, and it is
being administered through the
county Conservation Districts.
(The bulk of the funds are to be
used for the projects, with a small
fraction allowed for local program
administration.)
The Act 3 program set up that
local municipalities be given funds
for dirt and gravel road mainte
nance, provided that their road
masters or road managers attend
educational classes.
(Turn to Pag* A2l)