News
Local roads, streets in sorry shape
California motorists in a traffic jam. (Photo: Shutterstock)California’s 143,000 miles of local streets and roads are deteriorating rapidly, and the average local thoroughfare across the state is rated “at risk” because of its poor physical condition, according to a study commissioned by a coalition of local governments and their allies.
A mix of state, local and federal funds – about $1.98 billion annually – is provided for California’s streets and roads, but the minimal amount needed to maintain the existing quality is $3.5 billion, according to the study. To fix the roads to an optimum level of repair and maintenance would cost about $70 billion or more over the next 10 years, the report says.
Complaints about the poor state of California’s streets and roads have bedeviled state lawmakers for years.
The biennial report, released by a group called Save California Streets, is the latest in a series of studies that have tracked infrastructure conditions since 2008.
The study came out just weeks before the deadline for a special legislative session on providing money for road maintenance and construction. Gov. Brown called for the session on July 16, 2015, but lawmakers never convened. At the time, the governor noted that fuel excise taxes provided about $2.3 billion annually in funding, but that a shortfall for repairs of about $5.7 billion a year. The special session deadline is Nov. 30.
Save California Streets is led by the California State Association of Counties and the League of California Cities, and an array of regional planning groups and engineers. The coalition has long urged for more money for streets and roads. Cities and counties are responsible for more than 80 percent of California’s road and street system. About 75 percent of all paved streets are in urban areas.
Complaints about the poor state of California’s streets and roads have bedeviled state lawmakers for years.
“Failure to invest would be disastrous – not only for local streets and roads but for California’s entire interrelated transportation system,” the report noted, calling for a stable and dedicated revenue stream for cost-effective maintenance of the local system in order to reverse this crisis.”
If investment is adequate, “only $2.5 billion a year will be needed to maintain the pavements after they reach a level at which they can be maintained with best management practices,” the report noted.
On a scale of 0 to 100, the condition of pavement had deteriorated to an average of 65, which the study described as “at risk.” Fifty-two of California’s 58 counties are either at risk or have poor pavements.
—
Ed’s Note: Corrects special session call in 3rd graf to July 16, 2015, instead of July 16 this year.
Want to see more stories like this? Sign up for The Roundup, the free daily newsletter about California politics from the editors of Capitol Weekly. Stay up to date on the news you need to know.
Sign up below, then look for a confirmation email in your inbox.
John,
You wrote, “Gov. Brown called for the [special] session on July 16,….
However, I believe that was July 16, 2015.
Right you are. We fixed. Cheers …
A summary of this article can be found on the urban planning site, Planetizen.com:
http://www.planetizen.com/node/89370/study-underfunded-local-roads-california-places-them-risk
The report doesn’t appear to be much different from the 2014 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment also posted on Planetizen.
http://www.planetizen.com/node/71917
I am a graduate student in a public administration program. I am currently doing my capstone (thesis) on streets. Our group project is a lit review of why we are having these street problems and my portion of the review involves economics. I was explaining the problem to my boss, who said that the problem with local building projects is that the project will bring more traffic. So I explained the problem of traffic using a steak and chicken metaphor:
Choice of transportation is extremely elastic. It is like buying dinner at the grocery store. You want a steak, but at the grocery store the steak that last week cost you $5, now costs you $30. So instead you reach for chicken which is under $5 and tell yourself maybe next time, chicken is fine. That means steak is highly elastic and chicken is a complimentary to steak. Researchers (and I’d point to Lipton here who has done great academic research into transportation economics on things like elasticity and induced demand) have shown the elasticity of car driving and when people see that that the cost of driving has gone up, they will, like the steak example, chose something else. The problem here is that people are picking up the steak, which is costing ‘someone” $30, but the consumer is only paying the $5. Meaning- the driver is only paying a portion of their vehicle miles driven, so they will naturally over consume on driving because someone else is paying the tab. Would you grab a $5 chicken if you could get a $30 prime cut of steak for only $5? No, you’d reach for the steak.
In other words, living 40 miles away from a job is ok for the consumer because they pay less for housing (not really, but the economics are so fuzzy they think they are saving a lot but only saving a fraction, like 25%) but since that person driving the 40 miles doesn’t cover the cost of those negative externalities that the driver creates on society, other than the gas tax (which as the article states, does not cover the true costs). The true costs includes things like the damage to the road, the pollution, the need to rip out streets that could be generating tax revenue for more car lanes, the wasted time in traffic for others, etc. etc. In the end the fact that people don’t pay their fair share of the true costs of driving means they are the source of sprawl creation, which is another layer of unpaid externalities on top of the ones directly created by the driver.
There was some research recently that said a school bus causes about $4 of damage to the street per mile driven. A cyclist I think caused $0.0003 per mile (something insignificant). All we have to do is figure out the cost, and every year when you get a smog check take down the miles driven. Or do something more official if that’s too open for corruption. If you drive a beast and causing $1/mile damage, and you drive 40,000 miles a year- then you should pay for driving a beast 40,000 miles a year. Going back to the chicken/steak metaphor: when drivers pay the true cost, like the consumer having to contemplate paying the $30 for the steak, options start looking much more realistic: like not driving suddenly become reality, taking the bus, walking or biking. But for those rich people who don’t mind, then fine…. you pay for your damage.
I rarely drive, and typically I get a ride from my significant other who drops me off at a bus stop to complete my commute. But that $4 billion… will paid by the general fund- meaning me. And that’s not fair at all. Consumers should pay the cost of their consumption. I recognize that my amazon order will go up in cost because they will charge me the fee to get it to me, but then again, if I had to pay a surcharge to deliver it to me personally, maybe walking to the nearby mall instead (again, steak or chicken) suddenly becomes an option. And when I do that, maybe I’ll stop for a snack, buy something else, meet someone there, get closer to my community members… I dunno, start spending money in my community that can improve the tax base that goes towards education, law enforcement, parks… instead of some faceless corporation with off-shore bank accounts where the money just disappears and little taxes are paid? This problem of street maintenance is not just about fixing streets- it is about an economic imbalance where we have subsidized the car which in turn is wrecking havoc on the rest of economic system because of a market failure where public goods are being incredibly over-consumed.
The shortage is about $4 billion- with 38.8 million Californians, we each will need to contribute $100 to cover this $4 billion. Or, there are 28.8 million registered cars could pay $128 dollars. But what about the hybrid driver or the electric driver who doesn’t pay gas taxes at all? Why are they off the hook? Why should I contribute more if I don’t drive? What about the guy making minimum wage who travels by bicycle (his yearly damage is $1)? Should I have to pay another $100 to cover the cost of some rich person driving an expensive car that is literally destroying the street pavement? Should a person driving 40 miles a day pay the same as someone who doesn’t drive? No, not if we are going to be equitable. The only way we fix it is by having people pay a cost per mile that considers the weight and size of the vehicle and the actual damage they create (and a higher cost of a bigger vehicle will help get us back into smaller cars again). And they should cover the cost of having to collect that fee as well.
I know that a lot of people will not like this and will have a million and one excuses. I say to them: Take the bus to my house: we are having chicken tonight.