Guest opinion by Paul Sudmeier
Paul Sudmeier is the president and chief executive officer of the Idaho Trucking Association.
It is unfortunate that someone, in an attempt to explain how GARVEE bonds work, has introduced the term, "pay as you go" as if it were the only other alternative to pay for road construction. The reason this is not helpful is that it creates the inference that highway users have traditionally paid for the cost of the infrastructure they need in order to live and do business here. With one exception, nothing could be further from the truth.
There are several kinds of highway users who pay nowhere near what they need to in order to fund necessary highway building. The most notable class of vehicle in this category is the automobile and pickup truck. This undercharge has everything to do with why Idaho's total user fees for this type of vehicle are in the 10 lowest in the United States.
The one class of vehicle that the Legislature has relied on to fund highway work and to make up the difference for other vehicles' underpayment is heavy trucks (18-wheelers) whether based in Idaho or operating through here on an interstate basis. This fact was made known widely as a finding in the Idaho Cost Allocation Study that was published in 1994. The role of being the cash cow has not changed in the intervening period. The fees that Idaho imposes on this class of vehicle are in the top 10 in the country.
But here is where the rubber meets the road in the deliberation of incurring debt or not: Idaho would have already raised more than the $1.6 billion in proposed bonds if user fees for cars had been imposed in Idaho at the median of fees charged in the 48 continental United States for the last 10 years.
Sure, borrowing today will make up for some number of years of past undercharging. But what do you in 2015 after 10 more years of undercharging? Borrow again is the most likely answer, isn't it? Does the term "slippery slope" mean anything to anybody reading this?
It does not cost half as much to provide right of way, roads, bridges, interchanges, signage, striping, and snow plowing for cars in Idaho than it does in many other states (including the nearby states of Utah, Montana and Washington) that charge more than twice as much. The significant difference between Idaho and those other states is that they have confronted the reality of matching fees with cost and Idaho has not. The roads that Idaho needs will never be provided on a sound fiscal basis until the Legislature develops a set of user fees that, unlike the current scheme, does not exclude certain users from a share of the burden.
The best course for the Legislature this year may well be to give the state the authority to issue bonds. After all, there are many positive aspects of the Governor's plan and we cannot oppose needed construction just because prior decision-makers failed to do their job. But it is time to begin the long overdue process of balancing the fees among the interests who ultimately put the money into the Idaho Highway Distribution Account. Long term, most Idahoans would like to see all the funds go to build roads instead of interest payments. Only then could our situation be described as pay as you go.
