In the meanwhile, Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration went ahead with huge cuts to the infrastructure budget. According to the Los Angeles Times, “state transportation officials have announced plans to cut funding for road and transit projects by $754 million over the next five years, the greatest reduction in two decades.” The drop, cutting more than a third into last year’s sum, cleared the California Transportation Commission as Brown “used his State of the State address to call on the Legislature to end the gridlock in negotiations over new taxes and fees for transportation projects,” the Times noted.

While gas taxes raked in 18 cents on the gallon in the recent past, the Times added, last year receipts plunged to 12 cents a gallon — with analysts predicting another drop this summer to just 10 cents:

“Each penny reduction in the gas tax decreases funding for state transportation projects by some $140 million a year. Because of the funding cut, the state for the first time in a decade was asking counties to terminate some of the 200-plus projects previously offered funding, according to Susan Bransen, chief deputy director for the commission.”

Skittish Dems

Election-year politics, however, have cast serious doubt on prospects for a new deal that would somehow replace the disappearing outlays. “In fact,” the Sacramento Bee noted, relative to last year, “the timing appears less favorable. Enacting a tax increase would require the support of at least some legislative Republicans, always difficult but likely more so amid the rancor of an election year. Nor is it clear that every Democrat in the Legislature will vote for a tax.” Since breaking the Democrats’ supermajority in Sacramento, Republicans have gained the ability to block legislative tax increases. “Although Democrats control both houses of the Legislature, Republican votes are needed to enact any tax measures, giving them leverage on the issue. If all Democrats were supportive” of an infrastructure hike, “a deal would need two Republican votes in the Assembly and one in the Senate,” according to the Associated Press.

While some Democrats fear they’ll be thrown out in a populist election season if they make the wrong move on taxes, Republicans have reiterated their concern that largesse elsewhere in the budget has put Californians in an untenable situation when it comes to government’s basic roads-and-repairs function. State Sen. Bob Huff, R-San Dimas, said Brown “did nothing except create an extraordinary session where he says you’ve got to raise taxes” last year, as the AP reported. “Here we are again with another $10-plus billion of revenue and once again, it’s ‘We need to bite the bullet and raise taxes to cover this,'” Huff said.

In California, a commission to study road usage charges and establish a pilot program for mileage charges has begun meeting. It’s called the California Road Charge Pilot Program Technical Advisory Committee.

Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, has revealed her quest for non-specific fees to pay for road maintenance.

Fuel taxes have been used as the prime method to fund roads since Oregon implemented a gas tax in 1919. Because fuel taxes are charged per gallon, the tax revenue has dropped proportionately with the advent of electric, hybrid and fuel-efficient vehicles.

Taxpayer advocates have complained that money for the roads has been used for other purposes, especially during the recession. Meanwhile, some electric car users say the gas tax should be increased as if there is no cost to the roads from electric vehicles, even though electric car manufacturers and purchasers have received subsidies from the state.

Perhaps surprising to some, the idea of a mileage user fee is supported by the small government, libertarian Reason Foundation and one of its founders, transportation expert Robert Poole. Along with Adrian Moore, Poole last year produced a report supporting mileage based user fees for highways, “Ten Reasons Why Per-Mile Tolling Is a Better Highway User Fee than Fuel Taxes.”

While the study expressly deals with federal highways, the discussion over mileage-based fees also could apply to state roads.

Reason’s 10 reasons

As Poole summarized the 10 reasons reasons:

• Reason 1: Per-mile tolling is a direct, rather than indirect, user fee. Motorists would pay for the amount of service they received; they would pay providers directly for providing that service; and they would know exactly how much they were paying and what they were getting for it.
• Reason 2: Per-mile tolling is a sustainable long-term funding source for long-term infrastructure, which does not depend on the energy source used to propel the vehicles. Its transparency should help rebuild trust in the highway funding system.
• Reason 3: Per-mile tolls can be tailored to the cost of each road and bridge, rather than being averaged across all types of roads, from neighborhood streets to massive Interstates; this ensures adequate funding for major highway projects like Interstate reconstruction and modernization.
• Reason 4: Per-mile tolling reflects greater fairness, since those who drive mostly on Interstates will pay higher rates than those who drive mostly on local streets.
• Reason 5: If per-mile tolling is implemented as a true user fee, it will be self-limiting, dedicated solely to the purpose for which it was implemented (and enforceable via bond covenants with those who buy toll revenue bonds).
• Reason 6: Per-mile tolling will guarantee proper ongoing maintenance of the tolled corridors, since bond-buyers and other investors legally require this as a condition of providing the funds.
• Reason 7: Per-mile tolling also provides a ready source of funding for future improvements to the tolled corridor.
• Reason 8: Toll financing means needed projects, such as reconstruction and widening, can be done when they are needed, and paid for over several decades as highway users enjoy the benefits of the improved facilities.
• Reason 9: A per-mile tolling system using all-electronic tolling can easily implement variable pricing on urban expressways to reduce and manage traffic congestion.
• Reason 10: Per-mile tolling would be the first big step toward replacing fuel taxes with mileage-based user fees — something that most of the transportation research and policy community has concluded should eventually happen.

Direct charge

Concluded Poole:

“As this policy brief makes clear, the fuel tax was never an ‘ideal user fee.’ It should be replaced with a direct charge for highway services that is sustainable, fair, efficient and — for major highways and bridges — tailored to the capital and operating cost of individual facilities. This system should not create privacy concerns by enabling governments to track where and when people travel, and should give motorists choices in how to pay for their miles traveled.”

Others have argued that money for the roads should come from state surpluses or from re-directing revenues dedicated to the high-speed rail project.

The debate over road maintenance costs has begun in earnest.