Perpetual Pothole: Anderson County's Long Road to Repair
Greg Wilson/Anderson Observer
The Perpetual Pothole: Anderson County's Long Road to Repair
Long-time denizens of Anderson County, and indeed, devoted readers of The Anderson Observer, will recall a recurring civic lament: the seemingly Sisyphean task of mending the county's sprawling 1,554 miles of roads and its accompanying 162 bridges. It’s a saga that predates even the days of "Home Rule" and the county council, stretching back to an era when road commissioners, with a certain provincial discretion, were wont to pave rural byways perhaps more for political expediency than structural necessity.
The vexing truth, it seems, is that Anderson County has never quite stumbled upon a consistent fount of revenue for the ceaseless, unglamorous work of road and bridge upkeep. Indeed, the frustration is not new. One might recall Supervisor Ed Poore, circa 1981, throwing up his hands in a moment of candid despair: "I run this roads program from day to day," he declared, "Ain't no plan, no schedule." A poignant admission, particularly when one considers the county's subsequent pivot to a council-administrator form of government in 1982—a move, mind you, approved by popular referendum—which, in the grand scheme of asphalt and steel, proved largely inconsequential to the matter at hand.
For the better part of four decades, the headlines have maintained a dreary, monotonous chorus: Anderson County's arteries are crumbling, and the coffers are bare. In 2016, a vehicle fee was briefly considered, then summarily dismissed, deemed both overly intrusive and woefully inadequate for the monumental task at hand. Council, ever deliberative, then embarked on a multi-year odyssey, consulting with neighboring counties before arriving at a rather singular conclusion: a one-penny sales tax, it was determined, offered the most equitable and robust engine for the necessary repairs.
The path, however, was not without its bumps. A referendum last November, arguably hampered by a rather opaque marketing strategy and the rather bewildering inclusion of two distinct ballot questions, narrowly failed, losing by a mere 5,919 votes out of 92,395 cast. Curiously, the second question, which sought approval for a bond issue to jumpstart road work should new funding materialize, somehow managed to pass. And so, the potholes deepen, the bridges creak, and a reliable funding source remains stubbornly elusive, with current repair estimates beginning at a rather sobering one million dollars per mile. Last year's hurricane, a rather rude guest, did little to improve matters.
Presently, the county finds itself in a perpetual "patch-and-save" mode, a fiscal triage necessitated by limited resources. Alas, a truly sustainable funding mechanism for this critical infrastructure remains conspicuously absent, facing a daunting $350 million backlog of necessary work. The $.28 South Carolina Gasoline Tax, for all its statewide benefits, funnels a modest $8 million annually to the county, a quarter of which is earmarked for state roads. Of that, a scant 3.99 cents per gallon—the "C" Fund—translates to approximately $8.9 million for the county in 2023-24, enough, one might calculate, to pave roughly nine miles of road. A drop, one might say, in an ever-expanding bucket.
Yet, a flicker of hope remains. In June of 2023, Anderson County Council, demonstrating a renewed sense of purpose, allocated $337,000 for a meticulous assessment of its 1,534 miles of roads. A specially modified vehicle, dispatched by the Roadway Asset Services (RAS) group, diligently traversed every county-maintained mile, meticulously logging pavement conditions and determining which stretches might benefit from minor interventions versus those requiring a complete overhaul. The findings were, perhaps, unsurprising: more than a third of the county's thoroughfares are already in "poor or failing condition," carrying a formidable price tag of one million dollars per mile to rectify. Even more disquieting, a third of the county's bridges are now off-limits to firetrucks and school buses, their aging structures deemed unsafe.
Safety, it bears repeating, is not a minor footnote in this ongoing saga. Substandard roads contribute to an unacceptable number of injuries and fatalities in vehicle accidents each year. Indeed, according to council members and the county administrator, roads remain the preeminent concern among citizens. Thus, if the proposed referendum—and its passage, in some form, seems increasingly probable—receives council's imprimatur, voters will once again be invited to weigh in on the matter.
The county and municipalities put together a commission to prioritize transportation projects and make them part of the November referendum. That list is here, and has been sent to county council for final approval before going to voters, a task with a Aug. 15 deadline.
National studies, for those who appreciate data, suggest that the economic benefits of well-maintained roads more than offset the modest cost of vehicle fees, with the average driver potentially saving $591 annually on tires, alignments, and other mechanical woes directly attributable to neglected pavement. Beyond individual savings, robust infrastructure is undeniably crucial for the county's economic vitality—companies, after all, do consider road conditions when scouting potential locations—and, more fundamentally, for the safety and well-being of its residents.
The argument that a one-penny sales tax constitutes an undue financial burden, it must be said, rings rather hollow. Such a levy, proponents argue, imposes negligible strain on any individual citizen, and those who suggest otherwise might be accused of a certain disingenuousness. Should the November measure fail to garner sufficient support, one fears Anderson County will revert, perhaps indefinitely, to the long-lamented "Ain't no plan, no schedule" approach, condemning its roads to further disrepair and its bridges to continued peril.
