We recommend that Rhode Island voters give an affirmative vote to Question #1 on the Nov. 4 ballot.

This would not seem a year for taking on more debt, whatever the federal government is doing! But some expenses are unavoidable, such as those covered by Question #1, under which the state would borrow $87.2 million to pay to meet transportation needs essential for the state’s economic well-being. (Bear in mind that with interest, the real total cost of this issue with interest would be $152 million over 20 years.)

If the bond issue is rejected, Rhode Island would have to return federal transportation dollars totaling $436 million to Washington. Those dollars would then be redistributed to other states. Rhode Island would then get nothing from Washington for its highways and bridges for the next two fiscal years.

This bond issue would provide funds to the state Transportation Department to match federal funds for roads and bridges, to buy new buses and repair existing ones for the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority and to help maintain Rhode Island’s commuter-rail link between Providence and Boston. Here’s the breakdown: $80 million for roads and bridges; $3.6 million to buy and/or repair buses; and $3.6 million for funding for commuter rail.

Such spending involves basic public services, without which the state would be hurt economically, and they should be funded in spite of the national financial emergency.

As it is, Rhode Island’s roads are not famous for their good condition. Many must be repaired. And the mass transit encompassed in the funds for RIPTA and commuter rail is important in our national economic and energy crises, especially in an urban-suburban state where mass transit is far more cost-effective than in more sparsely settled places. (And we wonder if many more people will soon not be able to afford a car.) Maintaining this basic infrastructure, much of whose cost is covered by federal matching funds, is crucial.

Then there is Question #2, a $2.5 million bond issue for open space and recreational development. The total cost over 20 years would be $4.4 million. We all want to protect open space but in these difficult times taking on debt to pay for nonessentials must be put off by a state that has been in fiscal crisis for a year already. Further, the real-estate crash and credit crunch make it likely that development pressures will decline over the next couple of years.

Thus, we recommend a no vote on Question #2.