Transportation funds are constitutionally required to be spent on transportation, including the breakout seen in this bill. So it isn't diverted to the General Fund as you assert, and never has been, that I can recall in my career. But, other than that factual problem, you do make some good points.

The current level of gas tax has never been sufficient, since the first energy crisis of 1974 cut gas tax revenues, to either build out the original planned freeway network, and left, after inflation, not even enough of a long term revenue stream to maintain what we've built. That is because we don't adjust the fuel taxes in small increments, as mileage improves, reducing revenues, while allowing increased vehicle use, resulting in more congestion and more wear and tear. In addition, we also passed restrictions in property taxes that had largely funded local road maintenance, back in the 70's, and never really replaced that with any use related funding source. So these "local" streets and roads too, now depend on this gas tax for a large part of that "unpaid" maintenance bill we've been "putting off" for a generation, or so, now.

This 12 cent increase, represents a smaller percentage increase than the last major state increase in gas taxes, back in the early 90's, in the compromise agreed to by Katz and Deukmejian, 25 years ago. At today's price this is about a 4% increase in the price of fuel. Compare that to when Eisenhower raised the price of gasoline by nearly 30% to fund building those interstates, in the first place, most of which are now almost as old and dilapidated, as we both are..........

It is a shame that the trucking industry does get the "free ride" it does, on the rest of us. But, of course they'd argue that we also pay some to the lowest transportation costs, for the goods we consume, of any country in the world, which is true, but irrelevant. Since you are absolutely right that it does create a distorted market, favoring trucks, over competition like RR's. And the bill we all pay this "cheap" shipping, for avoidable depreciation from excessive vehicle wear, repairs, and this transfer of our incomes to pay this subsidy to this particular special interest, even to a cost in excess of the benefit we may derive from that so-called "cheap" shipping, while also depriving us of any "free market" choice as consumers, in the matter.

I agree with you on the fixed and valuation related fees on vehicles, vehicle charges should be based on use, not necessarily valuation, since that actually relates to the "public" road space being "consumed" by the "user", and would thus constitute an actual "user" fee on resultant wear and tear on those roads.

Trucks should pay way more for the damage they do to our roads, on a use based ton mile per axle tax, with a progressive scale, that charges the most to the heaviest axle loads, and highest mileage trucks, and truly reflects the actual progressive rate of damage they do to our roads, based on those heavier and heavier axle loading we've continued to permit, as that causes much of the most severe degradation and damage to our roads. But, of course, they have a very effective lobby that manages to maintain their side subsidy from the rest of us.

So exactly how many members of the State Assembly or Senate did you contact to demand that trucks pay more for the road damage they do, or to argue that auto fees be based on use......not an arbitrary fee for ownership, or on vehicle valuation?