While attending the Sacramento Transportation Authority meeting last Thursday, and hearing the long painful discussion about how there isn’t, and never will be, enough money to fix our roads to the level that the public desires, a thought occurred to me. Keeping roads in good shape is often called ‘fix-it-first’ or ‘state of good repair’.
What about a sales tax of a quarter cent, JUST for maintaining roads? It would have a short term, perhaps 10 years, with language included that it could not be extended. It would only be for fixing pavement. It would not includes complete streets or sidewalks. It could include the addition of regular bike lanes as the street is re-striped after paving, but would not include high quality bike facilities. It would include language to ensure that it is not used to expand roadway capacity or to build new roads.
I know that many of my transportation advocacy friends are cringing. What about all the other things that need to be fixed? What about missing sidewalks? What about complete streets? What about traffic calming? Yes, all of those are important, and must be funded in some way. But useable streets are the base of everything else we do for mobility and access. Sacramento area streets are certainly not the worst in California. I know that Los Angeles, and San Francisco, and parts of Oakland, are much worse.
There would also be a tremendous question of fairness. The tax would be collected from all citizens of the county, but most of it would be spent in unincorporated Sacramento County. The county has a long, long history of underinvesting in its roads, building new but not maintaining. That keeps taxes lower, which is in part why there are so many anti-tax people in unincorporated county, but it does not create useable roads. Should the rest of the county be responsible for fixing the county’s underinvestment? Its a fair question.
Getting Around Sacramento 
Kevin asked that this comment be posted on his behalf:
I think a 10-year approach would be very smart. Perhaps saying it could only be extended by the voters would be better. If the voters like what they see, then they will see the value in extending it. I would call it Measure F for Fix-it First
I think we would also want to consider rules about leveraging. For example, if an agency was able to leverage the fix it first funds with federal and state funds, we would want them to do that. Perhaps the amount of Measure F funds they could use is limited to the cost of the road repair. Often times the significant cost of a complete streets project is the road repair. For a project like the Stockton Boulevard BRT and Complete Streets Project, the road repair cost is considerable.
The distribution of the funds would need to be fair and transparent. Perhaps you could set-aside some incentive funding for agencies that are contributing general fund to their pavement management program. This would allow agencies like the County and Citrus Heights to catch up quicker. It would also incentivize agencies putting in additional not transportation funding.
Taxpayer Safeguards are Important as well. Your example of limitations on using these funds for roadway expansion or new roads would fit well here. I think you could also consider maintenance of effort requirements to maintain the current level of spending on road repair, as well as reporting requirements.
Kevin M. Bewsey, PE Executive Director
Sacramento Transportation Authority
LikeLike
So we have been there done that! Remember Senate bill #1. 2017… Road tax improvement bill.
LikeLike
SB 1 was largely about Caltrans fixing state highways. It did little for local roads.
LikeLike