🚘 Headlines About California Highways – January 2026

[cahwyguy]

It's that time again. The end of a month. This means, of course, its time for Highway Headlines (plus a few related ones that I found interesting, such as a report on the congestion pricing experiment in New York, because that's plausible to come to LA or San Francisco, and a report on the death of the one-way couplets).

Happy 25th Birthday to Gribblenation (and happy 30th or 40th, depending on how you count things, to California Highways). Wikipedia is not the answer to highway sites, nor (IMHO) is the AAWiki. Websites done by authors that love the subject need to remain. Please remember to make arrangements to archive and preserve all highway sites, as we are all getting older.

That said, here are the headlines:
https://cahighways.org/wordpress/?p=17498

As always, ready, set, discuss.

[gonealookin]

There are several pieces there about the "SR 49 Grass Valley wildfire evacuation project".  Wildfire evacuation is a major driver of road improvement projects in the Sierra, and was a big consideration in the construction of the new SR 89 bridge across the Truckee River at Tahoe City.  Formerly the old Fanny Bridge was the only river crossing there, and it created a bad bottleneck in normal traffic conditions; you can imagine what that could have turned into in a panic situation with a fire raging.

Sidenote:  the new Fanny Bridge was supposed to be opened to traffic in November, but there have been various delays.  https://www.sierrasun.com/news/fanny-bridge-construction-project-experiencing-a-delay-before-opening-to-the-public/  I saw something that it was going to open this past week, but I've seen no confirmation of the opening (and that's halfway around the lake from me, not a place I ordinarily go in the winter).

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm honestly surprised nobody has brought up AB 1421 passing a third assembly reading this week:

https://www.yourcentralvalley.com/news/local-news/california-assembly-advances-bill-to-research-taxing-drivers-per-mile/

Essentially this approves research into how to tax and bill drivers for how much they drive.  The study has a due date to be presented on 1/1/27.  Not "quite" the story some media outlets is reporting on but another step in the direction of a mileage tax.

Then there was the 59-vehicle pileup on CA 99 in southern Tulare County this morning:

https://www.yourcentralvalley.com/news/local-news/highway-99-closed-after-59-vehicle-crash-near-avenue-24/

[cahwyguy]

I'm honestly surprised nobody has brought up AB 1421 passing a third assembly reading this week:

https://www.yourcentralvalley.com/news/local-news/california-assembly-advances-bill-to-research-taxing-drivers-per-mile/

Essentially this approves research into how to tax and bill drivers for how much they drive.  The study has a due date to be presented on 1/1/27.  Not "quite" the story some media outlets is reporting on but another step in the direction of a mileage tax.

Oh, I"m seeing enough about that bill over on Nextdoor, where folks are up in arms thinking it is a road usage tax. It isn't. It is adding reports and recommendations to an already existing pilot project. How do these folks on Nextdoor think road maintenance will be paid for when cars use less or no gasoline?

I haven't seen a lot of articles on that bill, primarily because (a) it is in the really early stages of a bill -- just being assigned to some committees, and (b) it really only is a report and dealing with funding, not specific highways. I'll add it to my list of bills I monitor in the legislature, but there really won't be any action on it for a few months.

Of course, the folks over on Nextdoor are clueless about how the state works, and get their information from X and similar sources, as opposed to actually going to the Legislature's page.

Oh, and the study due date is simply the end date for the pilot program. Read the legislative summary:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1421

Existing law requires the Chair of the California Transportation Commission to create a Road Usage Charge Technical Advisory Committee in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation to guide the development and evaluation of a pilot program assessing the potential for mileage-based revenue collection as an alternative to the gas tax system. Existing law additionally requires the Transportation Agency, in consultation with the commission, to implement the pilot program, as specified. Existing law repeals these provisions on January 1, 2027.

This bill would require the commission, in consultation with the Transportation Agency, to consolidate and prepare research and recommendations related to a road user charge or a mileage-based fee system. The bill would require the commission to submit a report, as specified, on the research and recommendations described above to the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature by no later than January 1, 2027. The bill would require the commission to consult with appropriate state agencies and other stakeholders, as specified, in preparing the research and recommendations and report described above.

[SeriesE]

How many people are actually living near the two interchanges in Fresno that's currently being studied for upgrades?

[Max Rockatansky]

How many people are actually living near the two interchanges in Fresno that's currently being studied for upgrades?

Not many.

I will say that I do cross over both the Central and North interchanges with 99 fairly regularly.  A lot of the land between 41 and 99 doesn't really have "neighborhoods" in the traditional sense but rather homes along former farm lots.  The area is being rapidly developed for commercial interests (especially logistics) given it has easy access to two freeways.  Blocking the interchanges being developed isn't going to stop the commercial growth but certainly will make it getting around more difficult than it already.

Me personally I tend to stick to Manning, South and Adams to get east of 41 to Clovis Avenue and 99.  All three of those roads are outside the city by a fairly good margin and Clovis Avenue is a four lane expressway with a 65 MPH speed limit.

[Quillz]

At work yesterday, someone came up to me and asked what I thought about the new "driving tax" that "just got passed and is being protested over." I said, "do you mean a variable mileage tax? That's something that might be done for electric cars since they don't contribute to the gas tax." They told me no, it was for all cars. Then they went off to do something else.

Good example of "I'll believe it when it happens" and "trust but verify." I knew right away it wasn't that simple, and far more likely they were talking about a bill (not a law). I also started thinking about how such things would be enforced, I guess it would come down to seeing how much total mileage is on your car each passing year?

Indeed, these are instances where one needs to just be calm, not have knee-jerk reactions, and let things play out. Any kind of mileage tax is years away, will be heavily compromised and discussed, and the reality of whatever we will end up getting is probably not going to be the Mad Max situation that some were trying to get me to believe it to be.

[Max Rockatansky]

My opinion a mileage tax is largely going to be predicated on what it looks like.  For example, is a mileage tax going to be applicable to EVs/PHEVs or is it something that just flat out replaces the Gas Excise Tax?  I certainly would be more agreeable if it is something like those if it was accompanied with a reasonable rate per mile.  Is this mileage tax revenue going to be shared with the counties or are they going to have their own taxes as well?

The way SANDAG handled a mileage tax certainly is enough to give me pause on how the state might handle things.  I can't say that I'm exactly thrilled with potentially sharing more information with a governing body (or bodies) than I already am.  VMT reduction stuff also makes me worry and I can't help but think that it will be get baked in somehow.

But yeah, a mileage tax is pretty much the inevitable outcome with how much gas tax revenue is likely to fall short over time.  Even still I would expect full implementation to be a pretty decent number of years down the road.   

[cahwyguy]

Just a note for those discussing the pilot program: They do have a website: https://caroadcharge.com/

[Max Rockatansky]

Right, but the hook is right there on that webpage:

"Rates are hypothetical and would be set by the California Legislature."


The result I got for my base four weeks of commute mileage (1,650 miles) a month in the mileage tax calculator was:

$33 at a mileage tax rate $0.02 per mile, $49.50 at $0.03 per mile and $66 at $0.4 per mile

Versus the current $0.612 per a gallon of gas:

$20


The insinuation by the site seems to be that the gas tax would be eliminated with a mileage tax was implemented.  If that was the case in the worst case, I'm taking an extra $46 dollar hit monthly (likely more with all recreational driving a do).  Again, all of this is as the site says, "hypothetical and up to the legislature."

IT isn't like an extra $46 a month is going to put me off of commuting in my own car (not much choice anyways).  Then again, I'm not likely the analog for the average person who would probably lose their shit a lot more easily over $46 a month.

[pderocco]

Just a note for those discussing the pilot program: They do have a website: https://caroadcharge.com/

That's a pretty crappy site, with childish videos that condescend to our intelligence. They advertise "road charge" as a new, innovative concept, when those words are really a synonym for "toll", which is not exactly what they intend.

They give no indication, as far as I could see, of how they would measure road use. Could they base it on monthly or yearly odometer readings? If I drive 30000 miles in a year, but 20000 miles are out-of-state, it certainly wouldn't be fair to base my California charge on 30000 miles, nor would it be fair to exempt out-of-staters who drive a lot in California. Fuel taxes don't have this problem because anyone who drives extensively in a particular state will mostly be buying fuel in that state.

Actual tolling would be fairer, but you can only do that on a limited number of major roads, not every road that people might favor over the major roads if they were untolled.

One video even implies that motorcycles, pickup trucks, etc., would all pay the same tax, which is of course nonsense. The rates would certainly be based on the type of vehicle, but since they would be set by the legislature, they would be used to favor certain vehicles over others based on factors other than energy usage or likely road wear.

Fuel taxes also have an advantage that heavier vehicles that wear out the roads more tend to use more fuel, and therefore pay a higher tax.

If the only issue is the fact that electric cars aren't paying the tax, the saner approach would be to require that all electric vehicles would have to be charged from a separately metered electrical source, which could add a "fuel" tax. I think this would be doable as long as charging uses a special connector. Some would find a way to make bootleg adapters that would allow charging cars from normal outlets, but criminalizing that would keep it down to a manageable level. So, yes, electricity that's used to charge your car should be more expensive than electricity that runs your house, and the difference should go to road maintenance.

[cahwyguy]

If the only issue is the fact that electric cars aren't paying the tax, the saner approach would be to require that all electric vehicles would have to be charged from a separately metered electrical source, which could add a "fuel" tax. I think this would be doable as long as charging uses a special connector. Some would find a way to make bootleg adapters that would allow charging cars from normal outlets, but criminalizing that would keep it down to a manageable level. So, yes, electricity that's used to charge your car should be more expensive than electricity that runs your house, and the difference should go to road maintenance.

Of course, that's why this is a "pilot" -- to see if the idea would work. I though about your suggestion. The problem is all the chargers already in the field. You would have a hell of a time changing all of those, especially those that can use a regular plug. That was the advantage of the gas taxes: You didn't have home dispensers, and so you could tax at the dispensation point.

They are going to need to figure out something, and whatever they figure out will be some form of compromise. They might figure out the charging rate based on the registered VIN, which would give the rate and the estimated MPG for comparison, and charge the lower of fuel-based or milage-based. There are all sorts of things. That, of course, is why this assembly bill is asking for a report and recommendations, based on what was uncovered during the pilot project.

All we can be sure of is that whatever the solution is, the folks that hate taxes won't like it, and whatever it is, it won't raise enough funds to maintain the road system, and improve the road system, as it should be maintained.

[Quillz]

Are there folks that like taxes?

[pderocco]

Are there folks that like taxes?

Lots of people like taxes on other people. I'm perfectly happy with taxes on electric car owners.

[cahwyguy]

Are there folks that like taxes?

Do I *like* them? No, but I don't like many things I have to do (getting cavities filled, having regular health procedures, having to eat healthy). But they are things I need to do.

I recognize that taxes are a price we need to pay for living in society, and that they fund services that can't be provided in other ways. So as long as we make sure our taxes are such that all are paying their fair share according to means, being spent responsibly, with accountability, and in accordance with the people's desires (i.e., legislative directives), I can tolerate them.

[kurumi]

Are there folks that like taxes?

I might not like cleaning the house, but I really like a clean house.

More to the point, there are even indirect benefits that I'm happy we pay for (we don't have kids in school, but I want our city to have good schools, etc.)

Here's a counterargument, though: https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertarian-police-department

[Plutonic Panda]

Are there folks that like taxes?

OK, I may be a weirdo here, but I'm absolutely happy to pay my fair share into a pool with other people to pay for cool stuff like infrastructure such as roads and trains and the maintenance in schools and education and what not. But obviously there needs to be a limit because I don't have unlimited money. In fact, I'm pretty poor at the moment. I do think the rich should be paying a little more, but we need to be careful about how much they are taxed as well.

My biggest problem is transparency and accountability. I didn't mind raising the gas tax in California last time if that meant we were going to get much better roads. I wasn't thrilled about it going to anything else other than roads, but I thought you know why not throw other systems like passenger rail a bone to help subsidize some of it.

And as Max said there's the VMT thing. I want them to keep widening freeways. They're not doing that. If anything, especially in LA, they are removing car infrastructure and making it harder to drive. On top of that we still have some insane scenarios like Sunset Drive through the Holmby Hills having potholes so big that they bent my rim. Absolutely insane given the fact that there's houses on each side of the road that can easily go for around $100 million. That just boggles my mind.

I don't wanna get political, but I get a little whatthefucky sometimes about how much taxes were paying in California and then seeing all of these proposals or reports that show our infrastructure needs more and more funding. On top of that, Californians also pay a lot of taxes that go to subsidize other states too.

[cahwyguy]

Are there folks that like taxes?

OK, I may be a weirdo here, but I'm absolutely happy to pay my fair share into a pool with other people to pay for cool stuff like infrastructure such as roads and trains and the maintenance in schools and education and what not. But obviously there needs to be a limit because I don't have unlimited money. In fact, I'm pretty poor at the moment. I do think the rich should be paying a little more, but we need to be careful about how much they are taxed as well.

My biggest problem is transparency and accountability. I didn't mind raising the gas tax in California last time if that meant we were going to get much better roads. I wasn't thrilled about it going to anything else other than roads, but I thought you know why not throw other systems like passenger rail a bone to help subsidize some of it.

And as Max said there's the VMT thing. I want them to keep widening freeways. They're not doing that. If anything, especially in LA, they are removing car infrastructure and making it harder to drive. On top of that we still have some insane scenarios like Sunset Drive through the Holmby Hills having potholes so big that they bent my rim. Absolutely insane given the fact that there's houses on each side of the road that can easily go for around $100 million. That just boggles my mind.

I don't wanna get political, but I get a little whatthefucky sometimes about how much taxes were paying in California and then seeing all of these proposals or reports that show our infrastructure needs more and more funding. On top of that, Californians also pay a lot of taxes that go to subsidize other states too.

You're mixing apples and oranges here. Sunset Blvd maintenance is not paid for via gas tax, that comes out of Property Tax and other city taxes, as it is multiple cities (Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood) (and possibly a little county). There, you need to blame the cities and the civic priorities, not the state or Caltrans.

Additionally, as for "On top of that, Californians also pay a lot of taxes that go to subsidize other states too.". Those are Federal Taxes, completely independent of the state gas tax or any proposed road usage tax. I agree that California doesn't get its share of the funds it pays into the Feds, but that's a different issue.

As for transparency and accountability: At least for the SB1 funds, there is a whole accountability website: https://build.ca.gov/ . So you can see where the funds are going.

[Quillz]

My dad was kind of like that. If there was a pothole on our local street, he'd always blame "the senators" and insist it was because he didn't vote for them, they were punishing him. No matter how many times I explained to him that our local street was maintained by the neighborhood and it was on them to do it, it didn't matter. He decided it was a huge conspiracy so it was.

But this stuff is very complicated, largely by design. I doubt most people, including myself, can look at any given road and know who maintains it. (The only ones I can say for sure are the state routes because of the spades).

[Max Rockatansky]

The variance between California counties in terms of maintenance quality swings wildly.  San Benito County probably is the worst by a considerable margin.  The hard surfacing quality there is often worse than what I see in rural Jalisco. 

But that kind of goes back to something I mentioned already up thread.  What is stopping a county or city from deciding that their own mileage tax is a good idea?  SANDAG thought it was a great idea until they got a bunch of backlash.

[pderocco]

Are there folks that like taxes?

OK, I may be a weirdo here, but I'm absolutely happy to pay my fair share into a pool with other people to pay for cool stuff like infrastructure such as roads and trains and the maintenance in schools and education and what not. But obviously there needs to be a limit because I don't have unlimited money. In fact, I'm pretty poor at the moment. I do think the rich should be paying a little more, but we need to be careful about how much they are taxed as well.

My biggest problem is transparency and accountability. I didn't mind raising the gas tax in California last time if that meant we were going to get much better roads. I wasn't thrilled about it going to anything else other than roads, but I thought you know why not throw other systems like passenger rail a bone to help subsidize some of it.

And as Max said there's the VMT thing. I want them to keep widening freeways. They're not doing that. If anything, especially in LA, they are removing car infrastructure and making it harder to drive. On top of that we still have some insane scenarios like Sunset Drive through the Holmby Hills having potholes so big that they bent my rim. Absolutely insane given the fact that there's houses on each side of the road that can easily go for around $100 million. That just boggles my mind.

I don't wanna get political, but I get a little whatthefucky sometimes about how much taxes were paying in California and then seeing all of these proposals or reports that show our infrastructure needs more and more funding. On top of that, Californians also pay a lot of taxes that go to subsidize other states too.

You're mixing apples and oranges here. Sunset Blvd maintenance is not paid for via gas tax, that comes out of Property Tax and other city taxes, as it is multiple cities (Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood) (and possibly a little county). There, you need to blame the cities and the civic priorities, not the state or Caltrans.

Additionally, as for "On top of that, Californians also pay a lot of taxes that go to subsidize other states too.". Those are Federal Taxes, completely independent of the state gas tax or any proposed road usage tax. I agree that California doesn't get its share of the funds it pays into the Feds, but that's a different issue.

As for transparency and accountability: At least for the SB1 funds, there is a whole accountability website: https://build.ca.gov/ . So you can see where the funds are going.

That's another problem. California has the highest gas tax in the nation, its neighbors have much lower taxes, but I don't any significant difference in the qualities of state highways inside and outside California. So they must be spending a big chunk of that money on other things. But that weakens the argument that California needs to find ways to tax electric car use in proportion to mileage, because what does distance traveled on the roads have to do with whatever else they're using the money for?

[stevashe]

Right, but the hook is right there on that webpage:

"Rates are hypothetical and would be set by the California Legislature."


The result I got for my base four weeks of commute mileage (1,650 miles) a month in the mileage tax calculator was:

$33 at a mileage tax rate $0.02 per mile, $49.50 at $0.03 per mile and $66 at $0.4 per mile

Versus the current $0.612 per a gallon of gas:

$20


The insinuation by the site seems to be that the gas tax would be eliminated with a mileage tax was implemented.  If that was the case in the worst case, I'm taking an extra $46 dollar hit monthly (likely more with all recreational driving a do).  Again, all of this is as the site says, "hypothetical and up to the legislature."

IT isn't like an extra $46 a month is going to put me off of commuting in my own car (not much choice anyways).  Then again, I'm not likely the analog for the average person who would probably lose their shit a lot more easily over $46 a month.

If I do the math, $20 of gas tax at $0.612 to go 1650 miles means your car must get about 50 MPG. If that's the case, then any increase in your taxes is the exact point of the road usage charge: to make up for lost revenue from increasing fuel efficiency 

(And if it's not the case, then you overstated your tax increase)

At any rate, most cars are not that efficient. At 40 MPG, the current cost of gas tax to go the same 1650 miles is $25; at 30 MPG, it's $33; and at 20 MPG, it's $50. So depending on a car's gas mileage and the rate that is ultimately chosen, some people could end up paying less!

[Max Rockatansky]

Right, but the hook is right there on that webpage:

"Rates are hypothetical and would be set by the California Legislature."


The result I got for my base four weeks of commute mileage (1,650 miles) a month in the mileage tax calculator was:

$33 at a mileage tax rate $0.02 per mile, $49.50 at $0.03 per mile and $66 at $0.4 per mile

Versus the current $0.612 per a gallon of gas:

$20


The insinuation by the site seems to be that the gas tax would be eliminated with a mileage tax was implemented.  If that was the case in the worst case, I'm taking an extra $46 dollar hit monthly (likely more with all recreational driving a do).  Again, all of this is as the site says, "hypothetical and up to the legislature."

IT isn't like an extra $46 a month is going to put me off of commuting in my own car (not much choice anyways).  Then again, I'm not likely the analog for the average person who would probably lose their shit a lot more easily over $46 a month.

If I do the math, $20 of gas tax at $0.612 to go 1650 miles means your car must get about 50 MPG. If that's the case, then any increase in your taxes is the exact point of the road usage charge: to make up for lost revenue from increasing fuel efficiency 

(And if it's not the case, then you overstated your tax increase)

At any rate, most cars are not that efficient. At 40 MPG, the current cost of gas tax to go the same 1650 miles is $25; at 30 MPG, it's $33; and at 20 MPG, it's $50. So depending on a car's gas mileage and the rate that is ultimately chosen, some people could end up paying less!

Correct, my daily driver (a 2024 Corolla Hybrid) is getting about 50 MPG.  Your calculations for less fuel efficient vehicles wasn't lost on me.  I thought about what my 2016 Scat Pack Challenger (averages about 14 MPG) but I didn't run the calculations.  You "could" look at the calculations as deemphasizing buyers opting for fuel efficient vehicles.  That probably is a vestige on the site which assumed the 2035 PHEV mandate wouldn't be challenged (or is optimistic about it being restored during a Federal administration change).

[Quillz]

I've always felt various laws that claim to do something "by 2035" is just the political way of not actually doing anything, but making it seem like things are happening. You'll notice how various goals were "by 2030," then "by 2035," then "by 2050," and so on. The one thing I can say for sure is whatever goal is supposed get happen by 2035 will probably not, and whatever law set that up will be ignored and/or heavily amended. To me, it always seems more about PR. "Hey guys, I'm doing something, please re-elect me!"

I remember RealID was supposed to happen in 2020, then 2022, then 2023, finally 2025. Kept getting delayed. Or that ban on plastic straws. All the places near me complied for a couple months, then forgot about it. Because while it was well-intended in theory, it was just something impossible to enforce in practice.

[Max Rockatansky]

I never really saw the 2035 PHEV mandate as realistic.  The infrastructure in California isn't/wasn't there to support a huge increase in automobile charging.  The automakers were largely reliant upon selling pure EVs with tax credits.  The PHEV mandate struck me as something that got implemented likely with the full knowledge that a Republican headed EPA was going to revoke the waivers.  Had it been 2050 or later it might have been more feasible.