Do Play Catch-Up; Don’t Play Politics

In between predictable partisan spats about gay marriage and partial-birth abortion, Washington state’s Legislature has made some progress with an issue of real-world importance to our daily lives.

Namely, roads funding. Washington’s city, county and state roads are in bad shape, as every commuter knows. The congestion, the potholes and the ruts are more than a safety hazard. They threaten, business leaders warn, to drive jobs and international trade to other states that are smart enough to maintain transportation.

Four weeks into the session, legislators seem well on the way to settling half the issue: Where will money to fix roads come from?

But they haven’t provided a satisfactory answer to the second, equally important, question: Where will the money go?

On the revenue side of the dispute, the Republican majority clearly will not pass Gov. Gary Locke’s proposal for a gasoline tax increase. Instead, the House has passed and the Senate is considering a plan to fund road improvements from the existing motor vehicle excise tax (MVET).

MVET does have advantages. The rising fuel efficiency of cars has made the gas tax a weak revenue source. But a tax on the value of every car responds to both inflation and population growth. Plus, MVET is progressive, taking more from those who can afford more expensive cars. And as a matter of policy, a tax on cars should indeed go to roads - although it doesn’t now.

Senate Ways & Means Chairman Jim West argues the new money should focus on pavement, where it’s needed, rather than on mass transit, already cash-rich but not so heavily used. GOP leaders are criticizing Locke’s proposal for its emphasis on non-highway items like the far-off dreams for a commuter train from Canada to Oregon.

Beyond this general and appropriate commitment to roads, however, the MVET proposal does not specify where the revenue would go. That will be the subject of separate legislation.

This crucial spending legislation must address two issues: How much should go to cities and counties? How much, if any, should be earmarked for specific highway projects?

Sen. Gene Prince, R-Thornton, wisely argues that legislators should leave the ranking of road needs to the nonpartisan state transportation commission. The alternative is an ugly, back room swapping of legislators’ votes for a few pet projects.

Above all, legislators ought to commit a generous stream of any new revenue to local road maintenance. Cities and counties maintain many of Washington’s worst and busiest roads, and any package that leaves them unassisted is simply unacceptable.

, DataTimes The following fields overflowed: CREDIT = John Webster/For the editorial board