Some project examples that have been studied at the University of Washington, for instance, include hot mix asphalt processes being replaced with warm mix asphalt and diesel-fueled trucks burning more bio fuel—strategies that reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) by an equivalent of two and a half households worth of electricity use on a single DOT infrastructure project. Icing on the cake for DOT: the GreenRoads third party rating system gives BIG sustainability points for implementing those kinds of programs.

But, what really got me thinking about looking at ways in which big ADOT projects can do their part for our state’s sustainability effort, at least during this conference, was the final day’s luncheon speaker, interim (and probably confirmed by now), ADOT Director John Halikowski’s very insightful presentation. While his focus and theme was mainly woven around the current budget woes and the legislature’s particular impact to his ADOT budget, he was decidedly upbeat and presented a number of ideas he and his staff had brainstormed for managing the tremendous list of projects his agency has scheduled for 2010 and beyond.

John was impressive, except when he got to the ideas he said weren’t worth considering, when he stated flat out that,

"…the tax on a gallon of fuel has been eighteen cents since 1991…and there’s no support at the legislature for raising it now." "But," he said further, "…(even) if we raised the tax by a penny, it would only amount to $35 Million, so it would have very little impact… (against the billion dollar deficit that needs to be fixed).

Of course, reading between the lines, what he meant was…’POLITICALLY,’ there’s no support…" for increasing gas taxes. But, I’m not so sure that’s true.

Ever since our ‘new’ governor first began to float her ideas that there might be a tax increase in future plans for addressing the 2010 shortfall, I’ve asked a few of my ‘sources’ in State government what the temperature of the legislature is regarding the possibility of raising the tax on fuels. The Republican mantra of ‘no new taxes’ might have made good campaign strategy a year or more ago when our State budgets looked like they might survive what was unraveling at the federal level.

But, as 2008 began to wind down—and, especially after the elections when the politicians found themselves looking at some really painful cost-cutting measures— crude was $140+ a barrel, close to $4.00+ a gallon at the pump—-it became obvious that we no longer had the luxury of worrying about what fuel costs were——we had to pay what ever the going rate was and all we could really do was take personal responsibility for our own conservation efforts. And, a lot of folks did just that.

But, who da thunk it? In January, partly due to the driving public’s successful efforts to drive less and conserve more, sweet crude began to drop like a rock, and in less than 5 months, BIG OIL (remember them?) started looking at supply-side constrictions while telling Uncle Sam their "profits" were going to cause their exploration programs to be severely curtailed.

Unfortunately, by early May, drivers had taken the drastic drop in prices at the pump as a signal to start driving more and conserving less—good for the economy; not so good for the environment.

My question is this: with prices at the pump now hovering around two bucks a gallon, why would anyone mind or even notice if we added a few pennies per gallon (tax) right now? ADOT Director Halikowski says a penny tax yields $35 Million, so multiplying that times five or ten, yields a hundred fifty to three hundred million dollars!

Most people will gladly pay a little more if they know it will save teacher’s jobs and other critical programs that are slated for the ax. But a dime a gallon is only an extra buck for a tank full of gas, and that won’t get people to start driving less again; it’s not enough.

So, here’s a better idea: if we want to really make a win-win out of this, let’s think really big: why stop at a penny, or even a dime? Why not put on a one-year, twenty cent per gallon tax—that would bring in $700 Million and go a long way toward that Billion dollar bogey. And, at the same time, it will jolt the driving public back into driving less and conserving more—a win-win for the environment AND for our children’s, children’s, children.