Although no one saw it coming until a few months ago, Missouri has a major problem involving an ambitious but badly needed highway improvement program that is so inadequately underfunded that completion under the original proposal is fiscally impossible.

The trick now facing the state and its 5.4 million residents is to salvage the intent of the so-called 15-Year Road Plan and accomplish it in such a manner so as not to disrupt other state operations and not create heavy tax burdens on everyone. David Copperfield, where are you when we need you?

By now most Missourians who try to keep informed about events in the state know that a road improvement plan shortfall of some $14 billion was the catalyst for a study group created by Gov. Mel Carnahan, with a goal of extricating the Department of Transportation from a plan that proposed to build divided highways into every town and city with at least 5,000 population.

When the 15-Year Plan was proposed by an incumbent Highway Commission and Chief Engineer, it called for, among other things, a 6-cent increase in the state's fuel tax. The plan also suggested that an expected era of generosity would bloom in the nation's capital, where federal fuel taxes were being held captive by congressional politicians who were desperately seeking money to balance a very unbalanced U.S. budget. These were not the only codicils of the plan, nor were -- these the only errors of judgment; perhaps the most devastating of all was agency failure to make any allowance for the growth of construction inflation and project changes and diversions. Indeed, a report just issued by the financial experts in the State Budget Division says this failure to provide for any inflation/project growth is the "single most significant factor" in the inability of the DOT to complete its 15-Year Plan.

We can rehash these egregious errors until the Mississippi River freezes over and still be no closer to a satisfactory remedy, so there's nothing to be gained by searching out scapegoats or capriciously pointing fingers at presumed guilty parties. So, first, let's forget all the boo-boos that have gone before and address how we're going to get beyond them.

Secondly, let's not rush into any solutions that are characterized as "quick and easy" because these two adjectives cannot realistically be used with a program that is billions and billions of dollars short of its mark. Let us try to recognize that no solution, regardless of how it is pictured, is both rapid and painless. There aren't any such animals.

Although most readers know the Carnahan-appointed ad hoc group, called the Total Transportation Commission, has suggested that a 1 percent increase in the state sales tax is the only satisfactory, expedient solution to the shortage, let's adopt an attitude of quiet, respectful skepticism. Let's ask ourselves, before the General Assembly rushes back into some special session or some other emergency solution-finding method is adopted whether another increase in the sales tax is really the preferable method of resolving this serious dilemma.

Since highways are public projects and are funded as public improvements by the highest level of government within our state, the best solution to be offered should take into consideration the wishes, needs and equities of the public in general. Although Missouri's first highway system was financed by a statewide bond issue, this means has generally been avoided since then because of the inherent fairness of requiring those who use the system to assume most, if not all, of its financing.

The 1 percent sales tax increase would mandate that every Missouri consumer would be required to fund a plan that will be of direct benefit to a considerably smaller number of citizens. As tidy as the logic of a sales tax hike might seem to persons desperate for a rapid solution, it is hardly equitable for those whose use of public roads is minimal or nonexistent.

There are other solutions that offer fairer remedies, and one of them is funding the projected deficit through a series of initiatives. First, the gasoline tax should be increased to provide a portion of the amount required. If motorists, including those who operate the growing number of semi-trailers on public roads, will be the principal beneficiaries of improved highways, then this group should bear the greatest cost.

Secondly, the fuel taxes collected are currently going for other purposes, with more than a million dollars a year going to fund the Highway Patrol and nearly half that amount going to the Department of Revenue to collect the gas levy. These are functions of government which could just as properly come from the state's general revenue fund rather than the gasoline tax. Auto and truck license fees could also be hiked to help compensate for an improved statewide highway network.

Thirdly, officials should reassess Missouri's priorities. The state is spending millions of dollars for programs that have a lower impact on the lives of its citizens: computer programs that Missourians can live without, special subsidies to civic improvement programs such as athletic stadiums and convention centers and local projects that were initiated by communities with more pride than common sense.

There are other savings. For example, 5 percent of the shortfall has been earmarked to pay the operating deficits of transit systems in the state; more than 15 percent will go for capital and operating expenses of these systems. Can't these costs be assumed by those who are directly served and not be assumed by millions of other unserved Missourians?

Despite the quick-and-easy answers supplied by the Carnahan panel, there are other answers and they should be looked at closely. To act with hurried response is exactly how the state got into the mess it must now resolve. Those who advocate a quick rush to judgment obviously have other fish to fry.

~Jack Stapleton of Kennett is the editor of Missouri News and Editorial Service.