FAIRFIELD-SUISUN, CALIFORNIA
walters column sig

State, national columnists

California’s substandard highway system needs fix

By From page A11 | December 01, 2013

Let’s start with the basics about California’s highway network, which a few decades ago was considered to be among the world’s best.

It was mostly constructed in the three decades that followed World War II, as California’s population boomed and vehicular travel exploded.

Eventually, however, just about when Jerry Brown began his first governorship, highway construction slowed dramatically for a wide variety of ideological (both left and right) and financial reasons.

Nevertheless, vehicular travel continued to expand, along with population and economic activity. It’s roughly twice what it was 30 years ago, even though California’s population has increased by about 50 percent.

The slowing of capacity-increasing construction and the steady growth of auto travel eventually resulted in California having the nation’s worst traffic congestion, according to the Federal Highway Administration.

Meanwhile, highways were taking a terrific pounding from that traffic, and as the system aged, it needed more maintenance and, in some cases, reconstruction. But that, too, lagged, leaving California with what the Federal Highway Administration says are the nation’s second-worst roadway pavement conditions.

Thus, what was a world-class system became something more like a Third World system – even though California’s motorists are paying the nation’s highest fuel taxes.

Seven years ago, at the urging of then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, voters approved a $20 billion bond issue to upgrade highways, but almost all of that money has been spent, and Brown, now back in the governorship, has insisted that servicing Schwarzenegger’s highway bonds should fall on the separate highway accounts, rather than the state’s general fund budget.

Brown is correct in that insistence – highway improvements should be financed by motorists – but with fuel taxes already sky-high and mounting unmet needs for construction and maintenance, how should it be done?

A ballot measure proposed by highway advocates and construction unions would double the annual “vehicle license fee” – a form of property tax that today is just a third of what it once was – to raise about $3 billion a year for highways.

It falls short of what’s needed and may not be the best way to raise highway money. Yet just raising the gas tax would largely exempt owners of hybrid and electric vehicles, whose numbers are increasing.

Ideally, we would devise a new levy that’s tied more closely to real-world highway use, not only by cars but heavy trucks as well, and that charges motorists more for driving during peak travel hours, since morning and afternoon commutes put the greatest strain on roadway capacity.

And, ideally, Brown and the Legislature would address this vital issue themselves, rather than shuffle it to the initiative process.

Dan Walters is a columnist for the Sacramento Bee. Reach him at [email protected]

Dan Walters

LEAVE A COMMENT

Discussion | 8 comments

The Daily Republic does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Please read our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy before commenting.

  • Legend1949December 01, 2013 - 6:40 am

    That's quite a wide open statement about highway advocates and construction unions are behind wanting to raise registration fees( yes they are still taxes) Charging a working set of parents triple the registration costs of their cars because they need large cars to carry the family just doesn't cut it I hope everyone remembers a couple of years ago when we were paying triple to get a car regestered

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895December 01, 2013 - 6:58 am

    How about on luxury cars?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Mr. PracticalDecember 01, 2013 - 8:09 am

    Why?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • CD BrooksDecember 01, 2013 - 7:18 am

    Caltrans, what the heck are you thinking about?! Last night on westbound I-80 near Alamo Dr, you have flashing lights and signs warning drivers to move to the left. But gee, there’s nobody there so you create a whole lot of confusion for what? People are braking for no reason, driving slowly through the area. Any accidents will be your fault. That is pathetic and st*pid! WISE UP people!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • CD BrooksDecember 01, 2013 - 8:27 am

    Street, so they created multiple hazards and compounded the problem with lights and signs? Brilliant!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • streetDecember 01, 2013 - 9:29 am

    One could assume it was done so that vehicles entering the short on ramp would merge into freeway traffic at relatively slow speeds and create more of a hazard than having thru traffic merge left. The real problem was the initial design of the on ramp, but that is a different story.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • CD BrooksDecember 01, 2013 - 10:04 am

    street, I agree with the possibility of your assumption and totally agree with your argument on the second point!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Recent Articles

  • Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  • Special Publications »

    Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service (updated 4/30/2015) and Privacy Policy (updated 4/7/2015).
    Copyright (c) 2015 McNaughton Newspapers, Inc., a family-owned local media company that proudly publishes the Daily Republic, Mountain Democrat, Davis Enterprise, Village Life and other community-driven publications.