A worthwhile idea? Probably. An awkward process? Absolutely.

That sums up a proposal that has popped up in the legislative session's last days. It would let regional transportation agencies seek voter approval to levy new surcharges on gas and diesel fuel to fund plans to reduce traffic congestion. It would allow a corresponding registration charge on electric vehicles.

Under Senate Bill 791, introduced by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg of Sacramento, the money could be used to buy buses and light-rail cars, repair roads and bridges and add bicycle and pedestrian lanes. Money could also be used to run transit systems, including subsidizing fares.

The fee could be imposed for as long as 30 years. While there is no limit on the surcharge, supporters say it would likely be a few cents per gallon of fuel since a majority of voters would be unwilling to support anything more.

Travel in most places in California, and it's obvious that traffic congestion is bad and there's a growing backlog of needed road repairs. Transit agencies could use more cash; since 2000, more than $4 billion in state transit funding has been slashed. Last year, Regional Transit in Sacramento made its deepest service cuts ever, ending bus routes and cutting off light-rail service after 9 p.m.

While the need is clear, some of the specifics in the bill are murky.

One provision would allow proceeds to be used to convert carpool lanes into toll express lanes. The theory is that would push motorists off some very congested highways and into mass transit, but giving more affluent commuters a faster ride on public roads is a controversial idea that deserves full debate on its own.

Another obvious concern is the old bait-and-switch – that once the fees are in place around the state, the Legislature, in a perennial budget crunch, will divert existing transit funding. Steinberg's office says while that's not the intent, there's no way to bind what future legislatures do.

Supporters say the bill has been crafted to comply with Proposition 26, the ballot measure approved last November that requires a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to approve many more fees. Because the bill only authorizes a fee but does not require one, its backers say only a simple majority vote in the Legislature is needed.

That's disputed by the California Taxpayers Association, which says the measure is clearly an attempt to skirt Proposition 26. No matter how supporters try to dress it up, the association says, since motorists would pay higher taxes at the pump, this bill requires a two-thirds vote of legislators.

These are all issues that need to be fully vetted, not glossed over in a rush to pass the bill before adjournment.

Politically, if not logistically, regional transportation authorities in the Sacramento area and elsewhere aren't ready to go to the ballot next year anyway.

Another problem is that this measure was done as a "gut-and-amend" – the noxious legislative maneuver of taking a completely unrelated bill introduced earlier in the session (this one on the California Transportation Commission's annual report) and putting the proposal inside it.

Supporters would be better served to push the bill first thing next session, when there's more time to build support and answer criticism.

The last thing California needs is another complicated revenue measure that hasn't been thoroughly examined and that has to be overhauled later.

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.