Tom Casperson remembers well the road funding debates that raged through the state legislature just a few years ago.

"It was a bloodbath," the Senate Transportation Committee chair recalled in March.

Casperson, a Republican from Northern Michigan, came into the legislature bent on avoiding pouring more money into the Michigan Department of Transportation, unless the department become more efficient.

But his position shifted over the years as he learned more about Michigan's road conditions, and eventually he voted in favor of a funding plan that included raising fuel taxes -- a stance he believes cost him the 2016 primary for a Congressional seat.

"I paid a price," he said. "It was used heavily against me in the primary. I'm OK with that. That's the impact of those type of votes."

Such is the current climate of finding money for road funding in Michigan, where a seemingly bipartisan issue quickly becomes political. It's easy for candidates and lawmakers to express support for fixing the roads, but when estimated costs for a long-term fix range in the billions of dollars per year, no solution is ever easy.

Do you raise taxes? If so, how much? Can any money be reallocated? Is there any way to make them cheaper? How do you deal with changing technologies? What's the right balance for funding a patchwork of more than 120,000 miles controlled by more than 600 separate road agencies?

Too often, these important questions are overwhelmed by the political process.

According to the Michigan Transportation Asset Management Council, 40 percent of Michigan's federal aid eligible roads were in poor condition - that's more than 35,000 lane miles statewide. Between 2014 and 2017, the council found 16.6 percent of the roads' conditions improved while 19.9 percent declined, meaning more roads are getting worse than are getting better.

And a 2015 package to generate $1.2 billion per year through fuel tax and registration fee increases, among other revenue, took four years and a failed statewide ballot proposal to get through the state legislature.

In 2018, Michigan voters will be choosing a new governor and selecting a whole slate of state and federal lawmakers who upon their election must grapple with the fact that Michigan roads are on track to get steadily worse without a massive overhaul. But striking the right balance of appeasing voters and enacting good government policy is more difficult than it seems.

'Your life is in jeopardy'

Three years ago, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder was carting chunks of concrete throughout the state as he tried to convince residents that a yes vote on road funding was critical.

In March of 2015, Snyder and several local government officials kicked off the campaign for the ill-fated "Safe Roads Yes" proposal, better remembered as Proposal 1. His pitch to voters? Pay for upgrades to your roads and bridges, or they could fall apart before your eyes.

"Can you imagine one of these coming through your windshield?" the governor said at the time. "Your life is in jeopardy."

The idea was to raise the sales tax by one percent but exempt fuel, and also trigger a series of changes supporters said would not only fund the roads, but also boost schools, mass transit and the state's general fund.

Proposal 1 went to the ballot in May 2015, and it failed. Miserably. With 80 percent of voters rejecting the plan, it took the worst beating to a proposed constitutional amendment in state history. Critics said it was trying to do too much and didn't do enough to get at the heart of the issue - fixing the roads.

"That was an affront to the voters," said Paul Mitchell, a Republican who led the charge against Proposal 1 and is now representing Michigan's 10th Congressional district.

Lawmakers went back to the drawing board after Proposal 1's failure, with the final plan ultimately squeaking through the legislature. Democrats criticized the plan for not going far enough, while some Republicans grappled with approving a tax increase.

In 2016, a Snyder-formed commission tasked with laying out a plan for Michigan's infrastructure said the state needed an additional annual investment of $1 billion in state funds for Interstate and U.S. freeways and bridges, $600 million for other state highways and bridges and $600 million annually for highly used roads and bridges under local jurisdiction.

Looking back over his work as governor on road funding, Snyder was adamant that the state had made "positive progress" under his watch. That said, he doesn't think the conversation is over.

"Nothing had gotten done for 20 years. We got something done," he said. "Does it solve everything overnight? No. That's why we have to be diligent about saying we've made positive progress - we need to keep making progress."

How the money is split

Any state funding that goes into transportation must first go through a formula devised decades ago to determine how agencies split the money. The system, enacted under Public Act 51, divvies up the money available by level of government - 39 percent to the state, 39 percent to county road commissions and 22 percent to municipalities - and then further divides those shares to individual units of government.

Some believe it's time to rethink this funding structure. A report from the Citizens Research Council concluded it's "nearly impossible to address the funding needs of heavily traveled roads or roads in greater need of repair without significantly increasing the allocation of revenues to those roads with less traffic or that have relatively lesser needs."

But discussions about revamping how local governments get their money have been nonstarters in the legislature. Switching up the system based on need or road condition would mean communities with less-traveled roads would get less money - a tough sell for state lawmakers in more rural areas of the state.

When funding from other government resources falls short, local governments have had to find ways to foot the bills for mounting costs of paying for roads. Across Michigan, 28 counties have adopted millages related to roads, according to the County Road Association of Michigan.

See if there's a road-related millage in your community using the database below:

Sorry, but your browser does not support frames.

In 2013, Sterling Heights voters authorized their government to levy 2.5 mills annually as part of a "Safe Streets" package - 1.7 mills for police and fire and .8 mills for roads. That additional funding, coupled with money from the city, means Sterling Heights has spent about $150 million on roadway improvements, said City Manager Mark Vanderpool. And he expects that total to grow even more in the next five years.

The extra money has helped fill the funding gaps, Vanderpool said, but local governments can't solve the problem on their own. He said he'd like to see a multifaceted solution come out of the state legislature, with funding distributions reexamined, looking at potential revenues and other issues such as weight limit enforcement for trucks.

"What good is it when roads are good in Sterling Heights, and when you leave Sterling Heights you risk a few thousand dollars' damage to your vehicle?" Vanderpool said.

Failure to have comprehensive solutions at the state level with buy-in from local governments "will mean that cities and communities across the state will have to address these needs on their own in a hodgepodge fashion that results in some communities having good roads, and other ones having deplorable roads, depending on whether or not they can come up with increased funding," he continued.

Michigan Municipal League Executive Director and CEO Dan Gilmartin said throughout the state, he's seen local units of government stretching their wallets to put their own general fund money or raising local millages to support road and infrastructure improvement. Without some additional support, Michigan cities will soon have nowhere else to go, he said.

"They're tapped out, and we need real leadership at the state level, real leadership at the federal level, to truly step up and be a partner in infrastructure," Gilmartin said.

Party disagreements

Michigan Democrats are eager to make road funding an issue in the 2018 elections. Last month, Party Chair Brandon Dillon towed a Chevrolet Malibu throughout the state in an attempt to connect costly vehicle repairs from bad road conditions to Republican inaction.

"We'll be back at this problem next year - they're just kicking the can down the road," House Democratic Leader Sam Singh said.

But Republican leaders say they've done a lot already, and residents needs to be patient while improvements are put in place.

"Putting our kids' future in debt, literally in debt, and paying interest on roads that will long be reconstructed is not good public policy," said Senate Majority Leader Arlan Meekhof, R-West Olive. "Unfortunately, we don't get instant gratification in this state - we're going to work within the money that we have."

Transportation isn't just a Michigan problem. In 2017, the American Society of Civil Engineers rated the nation's roads a D average overall, estimating the U.S. has an $836 billion backlog of unfunded highway and bridge projects alone. The bulk of that, $420 billion, is in repairing existing highways across the country.

President Donald Trump has pushed an infrastructure plan his administration says would leverage $1.5 trillion in spending overall using $200 billion in federal funding and resources from states, municipalities and private entities. But Congress is not expected to act on that prior to the 2018 elections.

And Michigan's Congressional representatives say even with a boost in federal funding, it isn't enough to trickle down to state and local roads.

"The funds aren't there to be able to fund the kind of infrastructure plan that Michigan needs, as well as the country," said U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Michigan.

Mitchell, the Republican congressman from Dryden, said the nation is facing an infrastructure crisis and every level of government should be reassessing its available resources -- and suggests the state looks at using its "rainy day fund," to bolster road funding.

"The federal government can't go out and solve every road and bridge problem," he said.

MLive reporter Emily Lawler contributed to this report.

Over the last several months, MLive has explored issues of economy, education and infrastructure, and what Michigan leaders need to do to create a better future. We'd love to hear from you, about your struggles and your wins, as you navigate life in Michigan. We want to use your voice and your questions to frame the conversation with candidates as we head into midterm elections. Have a story to share, send us an email to michiganbeyond@mlive.com.