Topeka ? Plenty of state and local officials are ready to talk about embarking on a new transportation program, but it’s not clear whether legislators will be ready next year to approve one.

The state’s existing program – worth about $13 billion over 10 years – ends next summer.

And last month, Transportation Secretary Deb Miller formed a 30-member task force to examine transportation issues, including how the state chooses projects, how the state will finance new ones. Last week, legislative leaders established a 16-member study committee on such issues.

But legislative leaders haven’t committed to passing a new program next year. One of the study committee’s jobs is determining whether it’s realistic to try or better to build support for a plan in 2010.

“The sticking point is how to pay for it,” said Senate Majority Leader Derek Schmidt, an Independence Republican. “I think a major focus of these discussions has to be trying to get some kind of consensus on what we can afford and how we can do it.”

The current program, enacted in 1999, is the successor to the state’s first comprehensive highway program, started in 1989. Since then, Kansas officials have touted the state’s highway system as one of the best in the nation and have delighted in comparing it with pothole-riddled systems in other states – particularly Missouri.

The state has relied on bonds, gasoline and diesel fuel tax increases, sales tax revenues, vehicle registration fees and federal funds to finance new projects. In 1989 and 1999, the lure of new bridges, bypasses and stretches of road and the promise of construction jobs pushed legislators into action, despite resistance to increasing taxes or issuing debt.

Tough decisions

For several years, legislators and other officials have anticipated another debate on transportation, as the end of the current program has come more into view.

“Everybody wants to talk about roads,” House Speaker Melvin Neufeld, an Ingalls Republican, acknowledged.

But Miller already has pointed out that drafting and passing a new program is likely to be much tougher than it was in 1999.

“I think there is strong interest all across the state in a new transportation plan,” she said. “The issue we’re going to have to confront is how one funds it – and that is not going to be an easy issue.”

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius already has ruled out increasing motor fuels taxes. In July, she said with gas prices hovering close to $4 a gallon, the idea wasn’t viable – and nothing seems to have changed that assessment.

Last month, Miller noted that transportation officials want to move away from such taxes anyway.

There’s some irony in that fact. State and federal fuels taxes exist because of officials’ desire to build better highway systems. Voters amended the Kansas Constitution in 1928 to give the state the power to levy such taxes and impose vehicle registration fees “for road and highway purposes.”

Annual growth in fuel tax revenues doesn’t keep up with inflation. And concerns about global warming and the U.S. dependence on foreign oil are pushing Americans to use less gasoline, which translates to less tax revenue.

That’s illustrated by problems facing the federal highway trust fund. Last week, Congress approved legislation to infuse $8 billion in general revenues into it, so that it wouldn’t run out of money before the end of this month.

New revenue sources

The Department of Transportation gave the task force a “white paper” on potential financing sources that included higher vehicle registration fees and traffic fines, as well as sales and income tax revenues.

Miller also believes technology exists to allow the federal government to monitor how many miles motorists travel each month and bill them.

And there’s always the possibility of having more toll roads outside the Kansas Turnpike.

“I don’t think there’s a sense there’s a revenue approach that everyone would be comfortable with,” Miller said. “Do we find some more conventional tax approaches to use for the next program, or is it time to really get creative?”

The next program’s scope also is an issue.

In 1999, legislators assumed they’d be approving another big program lasting eight to 10 years. Schmidt said with the state facing budget problems, legislators may have to consider a shorter life span and a program that’s not designed to cover most everyone’s projects.

Of course, the promise of having a local project or two built lured enough legislators to vote for the past two programs.

“The last two plans have won support in the Legislature in part by having something for everybody,” Schmidt said. “It’s going to be very difficult to have enough money to do the things necessary to win the support to pass a plan.

He added, “It’s going to take a lot of work, laying the groundwork for this.”

And that makes approving a transportation program next year an iffy proposition.