You hit a pothole on the way to work. The next day, it’s still there—you dodge it. Over the next few weeks, you learn to drive in the next lane over to avoid it, and you cringe for the drivers who see it too late. You assume someone has reported it and imagine that somewhere, a city employee shrugged and moved on. You may even join the chorus of people who wonder why the government is unable—or unwilling—to fix the roads.
But the story behind that pothole is less about apathy and more about a fragmented legal and financial system that many argue has been running out of road, so to speak, for decades.
Who’s Actually Responsible?
The first challenge is jurisdictional. In Colorado, road maintenance responsibility is divided up among the state, counties and municipalities.[1] The entity responsible for ensuring your smooth commute depends entirely on which road you’re driving.[2] The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is responsible for the state highway system, while everything else (including your neighborhood street and county road) is likely maintained by a city or county.[3] If a pothole is reported to the wrong entity that lacks authority to make repairs, expect the waiting game to continue.
Colorado law vests cities and counties with the power and duty to maintain their road systems,[4] and they must adopt a road and bridge budget annually.[5] But having legal authority and having money to exercise that authority are two different things.
The Alphabet Soup of Transportation Funding
The primary transportation funding mechanism in Colorado is the Highway Users Tax Fund (HUTF), which is distributed to both the state and local governments.[6] The fund is primarily sourced from the gas tax and vehicle registration fees.[7] Any money distributed from the fund is restricted to transportation purposes, meaning road construction, maintenance, and administration.[8] Accordingly, it cannot be redirected to other state priorities. The funds are allocated between CDOT, a few additional state departments, counties, and municipalities, following a formula set by state.[9]
Of particular importance is the gas tax, which serves as a primary driver of HUTF money but has not changed since 1991, when it was set at 22 cents per gallon.[10] Since then, Colorado’s population and vehicle miles traveled have increased, the transportation system has expanded, and the cost of maintaining and constructing roads has risen substantially, reducing the purchasing power of the gas tax and associated HUTF money.[11] Despite the legislature’s efforts to maintain some level of stability in funding—by, for example, requiring a road use equalization fee for electric vehicle drivers who otherwise pay nothing in fuel taxes at all[12]—the revenue stream has effectively been eroding relative to the costs of maintenance.[13]
The legislature has made supplemental efforts to close the gap. For example, FASTER added vehicle registration surcharges dedicated to bridge repair and roadway safety.[14] In 2021, the legislature created a new set of fees promising wide-ranging transportation investment over ten years.[15] The legislature has also allocated general funds to transportation issues over the years, though the specific amount has fluctuated.[16] These are all valuable dollars, but many fear they are not enough. Moreover, recent budget shortfalls have resulted in millions being cut back from transportation funding (as well as various other priorities).[17]
Roads v. Everything Else
The American Society of Civil Engineers gave Colorado’s infrastructure a C- in 2025.[18] And CDOT estimates the state needs up to $350 million annually simply to keep up with maintenance and construction needs.[19] But increasing funding to road infrastructure requires state and local policymakers to make difficult budgetary trade-offs, weighing whether to spend those limited public dollars on competing priorities like healthcare, human services, housing, and education.[20] Moreover, because the Colorado Constitution requires voter approval of any tax increase,[21] raising additional revenue is contingent on whether voters will accept higher taxes in a state currently grappling with housing affordability and cost-of-living pressures.[22]
Behind these trade-offs lies a prioritization question that is partly statutory. Counties, for example, are required to designate a “primary system” of roads of greatest general importance and a “secondary system” of all other roads; these systems determine HUTF maintenance prioritization.[23] A pothole on a quiet residential street may lawfully wait years behind a deteriorating bridge on a high-volume corridor (though it is not necessarily likely to do so given competing costs). If a recurring pothole reflects a deeper problem with aging substrate or concrete, the real fix may require multi-year planning and funding cycles that require recurring temporary fixes in the meantime.[24] But for drivers who simply see the same pothole year after year, even temporary fixes might look like bureaucratic negligence.
The Road Ahead
The pothole is not just a pothole. It’s the physical manifestation of a complex, interconnected system involving a funding stream built on a deteriorating gas tax, misconceptions about jurisdictional responsibility, and the political vulnerability of roadwork—unglamorous, expensive, and politically unrewarding—in budget fights with other critical priorities.
That tension nearly played out in this year's election. Initiative 175—certified for the November 2026 ballot—would have amended the state constitution to require that all vehicle-related taxes be spent exclusively on transportation, redirecting an estimated $539 million annually away from the fund.[25] Proponents pointed to deterioration and congestion of Colorado roads and argued that taxes related to transportation should be put back into transportation.[26] Opponents warned that constitutionally locking in road funding at the proposed scale would force devastating cuts to Medicaid, education, and other critical programs in a state already facing recurring shortfalls.[27] In response, the legislature passed HB 26-1430, which would offset Initiative 175’s mandated increase by cutting the state gas tax—freeing up room under Colorado’s spending cap to keep other programs whole.[28]The initiative was withdrawn at the end of August, after state legislators and initiative proponents reached an agreement to increase road funding through the legislature in the next legislative session.[29]
The standoff captures the fundamental tension: roads are underfunded, but many feel other priorities are as well. There is no clean answer, and the right balance is an important debate. But in the meantime . . .
Report the Pothole
CDOT maintains an online portal for hazards on state highways,[30] and cities and counties typically maintain their own reporting tools. Reports are logged, and logged complaints do inform maintenance decisions. Even where a pothole persists longer than we would prefer, its persistence is not necessarily evidence that someone failed to care. More often, it reflects the difficult reality of maintaining thousands of miles of aging infrastructure within a system where every dollar spent on one priority is a dollar unavailable for another.
Addressing Colorado’s transportation funding challenges will require more than frustration with (and reporting of) the pothole in front of us. It will require a broader understanding among policymakers and the public of the complex system and difficult tradeoffs behind those decisions. Some are already having those conversations—but meaningful solutions require more of us to participate in an honest accounting of the choices and tradeoffs before us. In a time when political division often dominates public discourse, that kind of engagement may be one small step toward more constructive engagement about the challenges we face in our communities and country.
[3] COLO. REV. STAT. § 30-11-107 (2024) (granting counties authority to plan, alter, maintain, and perform other duties related to roads in the county).
[11] GIULIA BOVA, JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE, STAFF BUDGET BRIEFING FY 2026-27 B-3 (2025), https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/fy2026-27_TRAbrf.pdf (“The Department notes that the purchasing power of Colorado’s fuel tax revenue has decreased due to a combination of increased fuel efficiency, which results in lower tax revenue per vehicle mile, and increased construction costs. According to CDOT, increases in construction costs, as measured by the Department’s Construction Cost Index, have outpaced both the Department’s revenues and general inflation.”).
[12] H.R. 21-1205, 73d Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Colo. 2021).
[13]See Transportation Funding, supra note 1 (explaining that, in part because Colorado’s gas tax does not increase with inflation, CDOT could spend $125 per person on transportation in the 1990s but only $69 per person today); Statewide survey highlights budget challenges for Colorado municipalities, COLO. MUN. LEAGUE 1 (2026), https://www.cml.org/docs/default-source/news-releases/2026-news-releases/20260122_nr_statewide-survey-highlights-budget-challenges-for-colorado-municipalities.pdf?sfvrsn=40ddfd15_2 (“Unfunded street and road maintenance and improvements were the most common challenges reported, followed closely by lack of affordable housing, increased health and liability insurance costs and state-mandated expenditures.”).
[14] S.B. 09-108, 67th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Colo. 2009) (establishing vehicle registration surcharges and enterprises directed to roadway safety, bridge repair, and transit expansion).
[27]See id.; Jesse Paul, Colorado’s state budget shortfall grows to more than $1.5 billion, forcing legislature to make much deeper cuts, COLO. SUN (Mar. 19, 2026), https://coloradosun.com/2026/03/19/colorado-budget-shortfall-grows-2026/ (describing a $1.5 billion budget shortfall in the 2026 legislative session); DENVER7, Colorado lawmakers face daunting $1 billion budget shortfall as new legislative session begins (YouTube, Jan. 8, 2025), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy-yMGKW0VU (describing a $1 billion budget shortfall entering the 2025 legislative session).
[28] H.R. 26-1430, 75th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Colo. 2026); Road Funding Fight, supra note 9 (explaining HB 1430 would reduce the state gas tax by 8 cents to make room under Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights spending cap, effectively neutralizing Initiative 175's mandated General Fund shift).
Comments