I know that swearing is a bad thing. But when I hit a pothole and my green Camry shutters in shock, I grip the wheel even tighter and listen for the telltale hissing sound of a flat tire. At that point, my stoic demeanor momentarily fades and I blurt out a few choice words that I probably learned in Kindergarten or the Navy. If the heavens have spared me this time the hassle of pulling over to the side of the road, getting the jack out of the trunk, and fixing the flat tire, I immediately regret my earlier lapse in word choice and start to think about why many of our roads are in bad condition and what we can do to create a more efficient and environmentally-friendly transportation system.
The jalopy I drove in college is in better shape than many of our roads and highways. According to the December 2001 report "The High Cost of Bad Roads," by the consulting firm Transportation California, our state has dropped from third-worst to worst in the country in the percentage of major locally and state-mandated road miles in need of repair or improvement. More than 37% of California's major local and state road miles are rated in poor condition and 6840 bridges and overpasses are classified as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Each of California's 21 million licensed drivers is estimated to pay an average of $558 in extra vehicle operating costs annually as a result of driving on roads in poor, mediocre, or fair condition.
It's not hard to figure out why we are in this situation. We are becoming increasingly reliant on our highways for both short and long trips, as well as commercial use. At the same time, we have not made adequate investments to maintain our highways, nor have we sufficiently integrated forward-looking land use planning with mass transit alternatives. While the vehicle miles of travel in California jumped 97% during 1980-2000 to 307 billion miles, our state ranks LAST in the country in state highway capital investment by spending only $87 per resident. Many are rightly concerned about what has become an all too frequently deadly mix of commercial trucking and passenger cars on our clogged roads. In spite of these growing problems on our roads, we are not making enough progress in providing Californians and commercial operators with mass transit alternatives.
According to a survey conducted for the federal Department of Transportation, for trips longer that 100 miles in our state, 86% were in cars or trucks, 12% by air, and only 2% were by bus or rail. It's no small wonder why six California urban regions - Los Angeles, San Francisco-Oakland, San Diego, San Jose, Sacramento, and San Bernardino-Riverside- rank in the top 20 nationally in traffic congestion.
Closer to home, we need to address significant transportation and land-use challenges. Over the next twenty years, the number of residents and jobs in Placer County is expected to increase by over 70%, primarily in the Lincoln and Rocklin areas. And the numbers of interstate travelers and trucks traversing our county via Route 80 are only expected to keep growing. How are we going to accommodate the future transportation needs of the residents of Placer County? Will our leaders address the issue wisely now so that congested roads do not become a drain on local business and quality of life?
After reading a draft copy of the "2022 Regional Transportation Plan," by the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency, it is clear to me that we are not yet ready to meet the challenge of creating a more efficient and environmentally friendly transportation system. According to the agency's report, while hundreds of millions of dollars in transportation funds will likely be used in the next few years to build the Lincoln Bypass and the Placer Parkway (linking Highway 65 to Highway 99), very few dollars will be available to purchase increasingly expensive rights of way for future transit needs. I don't think we will be able to meet the challenge unless we, through better planning by our cities and county, as well as greater funding, connect our major residential, commercial, and employment centers via clean, reliable, and rapid mass transit. If we are smart and plan ahead, we can create a more livable community in Placer County rather than becoming another paved-over Los Angeles or San Jose.
On March 5, voters will have an opportunity to take a step forward. Proposition 42 would permanently dedicate the revenues from the sales tax on gasoline to state and local agencies for transportation purposes. Right now, the sales tax on gasoline disappears into the state's General Fund and is appropriated by the California Legislature for a variety of non-transportation purposes. Proposition 42, based on the "pay-as-you-go" principle, would guarantee that approximately $1.4 billion would be spent statewide every year on highways, roads, and mass transit projects. Local officials have endorsed this measure.
But Proposition 42 by itself will not provide enough money to ensure that we can create a more efficient and environmentally friendly transportation system for the Placer County residents. Nor does Proposition 42 give us much guidance on how we can create an efficient transportation system while maintaining our county's rural character. That's up to us. We need our congressman, state legislators, county supervisors, city council members, and other dedicated citizens to first develop a vision of how we want our community to look in twenty years, then develop a consensus on additional transportation funding sources, and implement forward-looking land use policies. The time for a more collaborative approach is now. There is no time to waste. As Samuel Johnson, the 18th Century English literary critic, once said, "the future is purchased by the present."
Copyright 2002 The Auburn Sentinel