PD Editorial: State heading the wrong way on road repairs

News item: California will cut spending on road improvements by $750 million over the next five years.

Sorry, this isn’t April Fools’ Day.

It’s a cold dose of reality, delivered by the California Transportation Commission.

The commission, which allocates money for highway, bridge and transit projects, announced last month that, because of declining revenue from fuel taxes, no funding is available for new projects in its five-year transportation improvement plan. For the same reason, the commission stripped funding from about 200 previously authorized projects, and it warned that more draconian cuts may be coming.

Sonoma County got lucky - for now. There are no local projects on the hit list.

Mendocino, Lake and Napa counties weren’t so fortunate.

In Mendocino County, cancellations include $6.9 million for Highway 101 improvements, $1.4 million for improved bicycle and pedestrian access on Highway 1 in Fort Bragg, $3.1 million for rehabilitation of Potter Valley Road and $1.1 million for downtown streetscaping in Ukiah.

Lake County’s losses include $24 million for widening Highway 29 and $4.3 million to widen Highway 175 and add bike lanes through Lakeport.

Among other projects, Napa County loses $475,000 for improving the intersection of Highway 128 and Petrified Forest Road.

In California and across the country, taxes on fuel - gasoline and diesel - pay for transportation infrastructure. Unfortunately, the revenue generated by fuel taxes is no longer enough to take care of aging transportation networks. That’s true at the state and federal levels.

The primary reasons are no secret: vehicles are more efficient, so they use less fuel; electric vehicles contribute nothing (except wear-and-tear on the roads); and inflation has driven up the cost of repair projects.

Here in California, some analysts say too much money has been dedicated to politically popular projects such as new and expanded highways while maintenance of the highway system has been shortchanged. They’re probably right.

Budget gymnastics in Sacramento have exacerbated the problem.

In 2010, state lawmakers and then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger rolled the state sales tax on fuel into the excise tax, with a promise that the swap wouldn’t result in a higher overall tax rate. To keep that promise as gasoline prices have fallen, the state Board of Equalization reduced the tax rate from 18 cents a gallon to 12 cents. The board is likely to cut the rate to 10 cents this summer, which will mean even less money for road repairs.

Let’s deflate a couple of myths about gas tax money.

First, the state isn’t siphoning money from gas taxes to pay for general fund programs. The state does take $1 billion a year in vehicle weight fees to pay off a $20 billion transportation bond approved by voters in 2006.

Second, mass transit doesn’t get a higher priority than roads. The state allocates 90 percent of its transportation funding for streets and highways, with 10 percent going to transit.

Now let’s talk reality. The deferred maintenance backlog for state highways is about $59 billion, and it is $78 billion for local streets and roads. As projects are delayed and canceled because there isn’t enough gas tax revenue to do the work, these already gigantic figures will grow even larger.

Fixing roads requires more revenue from the state’s user fee: fuel taxes. But with Sacramento tied up in a typical partisan dispute, California is headed the wrong way.