PD Editorial: Curing the epidemic of decaying roads

When it comes to bone-jarring roads, Sonoma County isn’t alone.

California’s deferred maintenance tab is approaching $60 billion, and it’s climbing at a rate of nearly $6 billion a year as gas tax revenue covers barely 25 percent of the state’s highway repair needs. Restoring local roads around the state to safe and reliable condition would cost $7.3 billion a year, according to a 2014 report compiled by cities and counties.

The pavement isn’t much better around the country, either. In its latest biennial report card, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave the nation’s roads a D, citing poor pavement and increasing congestion. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that $170 billion would be needed annually to significantly improve conditions.

With the federal highway trust fund nearly broke, and California lawmakers facing myriad pleas for a share of the state’s growing budget surplus, Sonoma County can’t count on getting help anytime soon from Washington or Sacramento.

So if local residents want smoother roads, the best route is Measure A.

In case there’s anyone who isn’t steeped in the debate playing out across these pages for the past several weeks, Measure A is a quarter-cent sales tax increase, and it’s the only item on Tuesday’s ballot in Sonoma County.

If it’s approved, the levy would last for five years, adding 10 cents to a $40 purchase and generating an estimated $20 million a year, with the revenue to be divided among Sonoma County and its nine cities, based on population and road miles.

With the county’s share, about $8.7 million a year, public works officials say they could repair or resurface 160 miles of roads in unincorporated areas.

Sonoma County’s two largest cities - Santa Rosa and Petaluma - also pledged to use the new revenue for road work. Most of the smaller cities are expected to do the same.

No one credibly questions the need for road repairs.

The most common opposition arguments involve trust and equity.

Sonoma County supervisors crafted Measure A as a general tax to avoid a two-thirds majority threshold for earmarking taxes for special purposes such as roads.

The difficulty of attaining two-thirds, even for popular projects, is demonstrated by the multiplicity of failures before voters approved tax funding to widen Highway 101. Special taxes also can have unintended consequences, as evidenced by Santa Rosa’s Measure O, which resulted in a steady diversion of funding to public safety at the expense of all other services.

We see little risk of the public’s intentions being undermined because of the magnitude of the problem, the pressure on elected officials to address it and an easy barometer of their progress: Are county roads improving?

As for equity, Sonoma County is indeed short-changed by the state formula for dispersing gas tax dollars, and that should be rectified. Good luck persuading legislators representing other counties to give Sonoma more money at their expense.

And, as noted above, the state isn’t keeping up with its highway needs, and neither are most other communities. Legislation is pending to raise the gas tax, but the growing number of fuel-efficient, hybrid and electric cars on the road is eroding that traditional source of funding for road maintenance and repairs. Congress, meanwhile, has managed only a short-term extension of the highway trust fund, which will avoid an abrupt halt of summer construction but won’t end a protracted dispute over long-term funding.

Still undecided about Measure A? Take a drive around Sonoma County. Think about the prospects of getting help from Sacramento or Washington. Ask yourself if an extra penny on a $4 coffee is too much to invest in restoring the health of our local infrastructure. And look out for potholes.