How do we pay for America's roads?

Virginia is not alone in its stubborn refusal to face the fact that it is relying on a dwindling source of money to pay for road maintenance and construction.

The federal gas tax has been stuck at 18.4 cents per gallon for 17 years. During that time the money raised has lost more than a third of its purchasing power.

National studies have concluded that the United States needs an average of $60 billion to $87 billion annually in new revenues just to maintain current highway conditions.

But as cars and trucks continue to become more fuel efficient and miles driven continue to rise, the gap will only grow between what Washington has and what it needs to maintain and build American roads.

Congress has plunked down billions of dollars in stopgap funds each time the highway budget has teetered on insolvency. But leaders have failed to devise a permanent solution.

The quickest and simplest short-term fix is to retool the existing gas tax to one that will grow as prices rise. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials is asking Congress to do exactly that, starting with a revenue-neutral tax rate of 8.4 percent.

The issue is likely to surface during the lame-duck session of Congress after the midterm elections. Advocates hope the proposal will become a bargaining tool as lawmakers wrestle with a $50 billion transportation spending bill and proposals to extend the 2001 tax cuts.

Congress should take this opportunity to revise the gas tax, an action that would grease the skids for similar reforms at the state level. But fossil fuels are not the long-term solution for transportation financing.

A report by the University of Virginia's Miller Center of Public Affairs challenges national leaders to begin thinking now about new funding mechanisms. The report is the product of a conference organized by former Gov. Gerald Baliles and chaired by former U.S. transportation secretaries Norman Mineta and Samuel Skinner.

The report encourages research and testing of highway user fees based on vehicle-miles traveled.

Although such a system would preserve the spirit of a user fee, its adoption faces challenges. Transmitter add-ons to odometers raise concerns among privacy advocates, even though the devices can be designed to track only mileage, not details about a driver's traveling habits. Development of the infrastructure for tallying and recording mileage will itself take years and substantial financial investment.

By comparison, tolling infrastructure already exists and is expanding rapidly with the widespread acceptance of electronic E-ZPass technology. Tolls appear a more practical alternative but are not without their own shortcomings. They are less effective in capturing precise fees from drivers on rural roads. Also, greater dependence on tolls will require public acceptance of using them to pay for maintenance.

Fossil fuel taxes will not disappear in the near term, nor should they. They should be designed to create incentives for the development of cleaner technologies. But those environmental goals do not erase the need for greater investment in the nation's highway system.

As the Miller Center report notes, the recession has caused government officials to view transportation spending as a short-term fix for unemployment rather than an investment in the nation's long-term economic health. It's time to reassess the country's transportation goals and its system for financing them.