The Legislature will be returning to Augusta soon to discuss, among other things, a transportation bond to go to the voters in November. The governor proposed a $75 million transportation bond while legislators are looking at a bond in the $55 million to $60 million range. We hope that legislators will agree on a bond package that will provide the maximum investment to our statewide transportation system.

In the 1970s, 26 percent of state spending went to transportation and upwards of 200 miles of roads were reconstructed each year. By the 1990s, only 10 percent of state spending was going to transportation and the rate of road reconstruction had been cut by over 80 percent. During this same period, the Maine Department of Transportation repeatedly warned the public that one-third of Maine’s bridges were at or near the end of their useful life and that bridge needs had to be addressed more aggressively.

The good news is that in the last 12 years, MDOT has cut the backlog of deficient extraordinary bridge needs from $443 million to under $230 million and road reconstruction has now climbed to just over 100 miles per year. The bad news is that much more needs to be done and perhaps the current Waldo-Hancock Bridge crisis brings that point into focus.

The rate of transportation investment really does matter. Deferring such investment is just another form of debt but one that carries greater risk. Keeping this in mind, the public needs to consider three transportation policies presently being discussed.

First, the Legislature ended its session in June without sending a transportation bond to the voters. Unless this decision is reversed, Maine will lose $219 million in federal transportation funds and place the full-time equivalent of over 11,000 jobs at risk. Most road reconstruction will come to a halt as well as all airport, transit, marine and rail investment.

Second, this is the year that Congress reauthorizes the federal transportation program. We need to correct the situation that has Maine receiving about as much money as New Hampshire even though we have twice as many federal roads to maintain. In recent years, Maine has actually sent to Washington nearly $50 million more than it has received back. We cannot face the challenges we have without a stronger federal partner.

Third, we need to retain Maine’s version of motor fuel tax indexing. Contrary to claims by the Maine Oil Dealers and some legislators, there is nothing “automatic” about this law. In fact, every two years at budget time the Maine Legislature is required to vote whether or not to repeal this law. In contrast, no such vote occurs on the sales or income tax which each year yields inflation driven windfalls caused by rising paychecks or rising prices on the sale of goods.

Fortunately, the Maine Legislature realized that our current infrastructure deficit occurred in large part due to decades of near flat funding for transportation. With bipartisan support, they voted to retain indexing the motor fuel tax for two years – only until they revisit the issue again on whether to repeal it.

For those who say “but look at New Hampshire’s gas tax rate compared to Maine’s” remember my second point. Maine could be at par with New Hampshire’s gas tax if Maine received federal aid per mile like New Hampshire does. Not only are we sending to Washington more money than we are getting back, we are having to make up for that loss by taxing Maine drivers more.

There is no question that transportation must compete with other very worthwhile initiatives for scarce funding. But failing to invest in our infrastructure will cost more in the end. We need a strong set of transportation finance policies if we are to sustain an effort that reduces our current backlog of needed transportation investments.

Maria Fuentes is executive director of the Maine Better Transportation Association.