You may recall two years ago Gov. Angus King, noting that Maine’s highway budget fell short by some $56 million and noting further that a gas tax, paid partly by tourists and free of interest payments, was a far less expensive way to raise revenue than to issue bonds, proposed a 5-cent increase on fuels. You may also recall that legislators found in this sensible idea an opportunity to pummel the governor for the audacity of proposing that motorists pay for the maintenance of roads.

Eventually, lawmakers, finding no other way out, agreed to a 3-cent increase, producing about the same amount of enmity from taxpayers without actually solving the problem, which will be worse in the next biennium because the Department of Transportation will lose approximately $45 million in one-time funding sources from its $270 million annual budget. But that’s not the end of it. The fuel tax and the motor-vehicle fees no longer supply nearly enough to the Highway Fund, which has demands that are expected to grow at 2.5 percent to 3 percent but revenue sources at a measly 1 percent. Even worse, its bonded debt is at more than twice the level the King administration and lawmakers said they wanted.

In the choice between being pummeled again or not, Gov. King has understandably chosen not. There’s no fuel-tax increase in his new budget, but there is new debt: $41 million in General Fund debt for Maine’s highways. Given the lack of understanding that highway improvement can lead to economic development, the governor had little alternative but to pursue this second-best choice. Lawmakers, unless they find a better alternative, should support him for several reasons.

The most obvious of these is Maine’s highway network itself. While not deplorable, it is certainly in need of repair and improvement. Every driver has an unloved state road; many can name three or four major roads that aren’t worthy of the name. The Highway crew has 157 miles of upgrades planned for the next biennium. The funding for these improvements won’t come in through charity.

Indebtedness in General Fund bonds is at a rock bottom 3 percent of revenues. By using it for the $41 million (plus another $17 million for other modes of transportation) instead of new Highway Fund debt, the department will be able to reduce its annual debt payments by some $20 million by 2004, pushing it closer to a pay-as-you-go system. Taxpayers, of course, would be on the hook for the General Fund debt.

Nevertheless, bringing Transportation under general funding is inevitable. Long term, the number of new hybrid automobiles that get 60 to 75 miles per gallon is going to continue to grow in Maine, as elsewhere, making the current funding through charges on gasoline unsustainable. (Transportation Commission John Melrose recently referred to the fossil-fuel tax as a dinosaur, which as a pun is not bad and as policy is probably accurate.)

In the last session, lawmakers demanded that Maine taxpayers take on the entire highway shortfall instead of letting tourists pay a portion. Having closed off this possibility, their choices are to let Maine roads fall into worse condition, find more than $40 million under their mattresses or agree with the governor to bond for these highway projects. They might also begin thinking about highway funding as a regular part of the General Fund and begin preparing for the next biennium.