California Commission for tolls

The Calfornia state government’s Commission on Transportation Investment (CTI) came down in favor of road tolls. The commission was set up following a recommendation by the California Transportation Plan. Its repot suggests a number of major changes:

• relinquishment of state highways to local authorities where they serve mainly as local arterials

• constitutional amendment to facilitate and encourage private sector trnasportation projects

• that the federal government devolve gasoline tax to the states and return to the states their accumulated Highway Trust Funds

• legislation to allow more private sector investment in transportation

• an end to diversion of gas taxes to the state’s general fund

Rejection of bond issues for new rail projects and for the strengthening of state bridges in 1992 and 1994 make clear, says the Commission, that people don’t want to rely on traditional financing methods. Yet even the state’s modest current transportation plan cannot be funded. It provides so little for highway capacity enhancement that Level of Service F (F for failure) conditions on major state highways are expected to double from 22 percent (5,438 ml) to 43 percent (11,142 ml) in 2012. (p9) The commission report is highly pessimistic about the ability of transit to take over the work of overcrowded highways, noting the continued decline in transit usage, and the fact that transit users pay only 33% of operating costs without making any contribution to capital. They state bluntly: “Fixed route transit services do not adequately meet the multi-destination requirements of suburban environments.” And they say that labor contracts often prevent efficient use of transit labor, making transit service ineffient and expensive. They urge “privatized subscription, demand-response, an jitney van services” as a cost-effective alternative in California (p12).

Gas taxes have limited usefulness for raising money for roads, the Commission report states, because more fuel-efficient and non-gasoline vehicles are reducing its ability to raise needed money (p20). Meanwhile sales taxes to fund trnasportation are made more difficult by a state superme court decision (the socalled Guardino decision) that state tax referenda require a 2/3 majority to be valid. Many existing California local transportation taxes have sunset provisions and their renewal is now in serious doubt. There are 18 local taxes in place following majority approval, but of these only 2 gainsed the 2/3rd support that will be required under the Guardino ruling.

The report lambasts the elaborate and expensive rules, regulations and procedures that face any new project, which do everything except ask the basic question: do the future discounted benefits of this project match its costs. The report is pro-highway in saying: “Evaluation of hihway projects would probably be more favorable than mass transit porjects, because of the high capital cost and low ridership of most suh projects.” (p36) Rail Freight and port projects, they suggest, could score well too. Of great interest is the Commission’s suggestion that “true market priing” of roads be introduced:

“The advantages of direct pricing (variable tolls) are that the charge is directly related to the choice of the user 9in time and mode of travel. It is therefore most likely to be acceptable to impsoe the charge in areas where alternatives are available, such as public transit or alternative orutes. In addition collection technology such as ellectronic toll collection being built on the SR-91 tollway in Orange County, already exist for simplified collection of fees. Changing the method of collecting transportation revenue as radially as this would have to be implemented gradually, perhaps over 10 to 20 years before major components of the system come under some form of direct charge. The way to start may be with new facilities constructed as congestion relievers, and with new lanes built to carry HOVs... Direct road pricing offers the opportunity of attracting privazte investment to the state highway system...” (p41) The report urges that haps in teh current freway system and new facilities needed in growh areas be financed with private investment. (p44) (“Final Report: Commission on Transportation Investment,” December 1995, obtained from the office of Assistant Director of Transportation, Carl Williams, Sacramento CA, tel 916 654 4852 fax 916 654 6608.)