US Sec transport Mary Peters hammers gas tax, urges tolls – important piece in Wash Post
Posted Thu, 2007-08-30 18:38
Mary Peters the US Secretary of Transportation had a strong column knocking proposals for higher gasoline taxes and a new US spending program in reaction to the collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis and the furore over deficient bridges.
In response to a pro-tax Washington Post editorial the secretary wrote (Wash Post 2007-08-25 pA15) under the headline "The folly of higher gas taxes" that the result of higher gas taxes would be "higher gas prices, more congestion and stagnating quality of life."
Centralized and political control bedevil gas tax funds
She continued: "Our system is failing because federal gasoline taxes are deposited into a centralized trust fund and
allocated based on political will. Major spending decisions often have nothing to do with underlying economics, engineering realities or consumer needs."
She hammered the political earmarking of road and rail grants:
"New programs and pet project earmarks have proliferated in recent years. The 2005 transportation funding bill, for example, included more than 6,000 politically driven earmarks reported to cost some $24 billion. That's a staggering figure. The true price however is unfortunately much higher because earmarks typically represent only a fraction of project costs."
Most transportation spending channeled through Washington DC, she said, does nothing to relieve congestion:
"In addition to breeding wasteful spending, the gas tax does virtually nothing to reduce the explosion in highway congestion occurring in the past 25 years. Gas taxes are levied regardless of when and where someone drives, creating a misperception that highways are 'free.' In turn, this encourages overuse and gridlock, often at precisely the times we need highways the most."
Direct charging for road use (tolls) essential as future basis for road funding
Peters wrote referred to the Government Accountability Office report in July arguing that gas taxes are "fundamentally incapable of balancing supply and demand" for roads during periods of congestion.
She said: "We agree. The GAO, along with almost every expert who has studied the issue, says that direct pricing of road use, similar to how people pay for other utilities, holds far more promise in addressing congestion than do traditional gas taxes. And thanks to new technologies that have eliminated the need for toll booths, the concept of road pricing is spreading rapidly around the world.
"Charging directly for road use holds enormous promise both to generate large amounts of revenue for reinvestment and to cut congestion. Ultimately, it will allow political leaders to reduce reliance on or even cut the inefficient array of fuel taxes, sales taxes and property taxes that are being funneled into transportation systems nationwide."
Peters called it "policy schizophrenia" to suggest increased reliance on gasoline taxes at a time when the whole thrust of national policy is to reduce reliance on oil and to promote alternative fuels. What sense would there be in basing road funding on a fuel you are trying to replace: "The success of one policy would by definition mean the failure of the other."
The secretary concluded: "Instead of raising ineffective taxes, we need a data-driven, performance-based approach to building and maintaining our transportation infrastructure. We also need an underlying financial model that is responsive to the challenges of today and tomorrow, not poorly considered policy reactions riding on the coattails of tragedy."
TOLLROADSnews 2007-08-30
Mary Peters the US Secretary of Transportation had a strong column knocking proposals for higher gasoline taxes and a new US spending program in reaction to the collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis and the furore over deficient bridges. In response to a pro-tax Washington Post editorial the secretary wrote (Wash Post 2007-08-25 pA15) under the headline "The folly of higher gas taxes" that the result of higher gas taxes would be "higher gas prices, more congestion and stagnating quality of life."
Centralized and political control bedevil gas tax funds
She continued: "Our system is failing because federal gasoline taxes are deposited into a centralized trust fund and
allocated based on political will. Major spending decisions often have nothing to do with underlying economics, engineering realities or consumer needs."She hammered the political earmarking of road and rail grants:
"New programs and pet project earmarks have proliferated in recent years. The 2005 transportation funding bill, for example, included more than 6,000 politically driven earmarks reported to cost some $24 billion. That's a staggering figure. The true price however is unfortunately much higher because earmarks typically represent only a fraction of project costs."
Most transportation spending channeled through Washington DC, she said, does nothing to relieve congestion:"In addition to breeding wasteful spending, the gas tax does virtually nothing to reduce the explosion in highway congestion occurring in the past 25 years. Gas taxes are levied regardless of when and where someone drives, creating a misperception that highways are 'free.' In turn, this encourages overuse and gridlock, often at precisely the times we need highways the most."
Direct charging for road use (tolls) essential as future basis for road funding
Peters wrote referred to the Government Accountability Office report in July arguing that gas taxes are "fundamentally incapable of balancing supply and demand" for roads during periods of congestion.
She said: "We agree. The GAO, along with almost every expert who has studied the issue, says that direct pricing of road use, similar to how people pay for other utilities, holds far more promise in addressing congestion than do traditional gas taxes. And thanks to new technologies that have eliminated the need for toll booths, the concept of road pricing is spreading rapidly around the world."Charging directly for road use holds enormous promise both to generate large amounts of revenue for reinvestment and to cut congestion. Ultimately, it will allow political leaders to reduce reliance on or even cut the inefficient array of fuel taxes, sales taxes and property taxes that are being funneled into transportation systems nationwide."
Peters called it "policy schizophrenia" to suggest increased reliance on gasoline taxes at a time when the whole thrust of national policy is to reduce reliance on oil and to promote alternative fuels. What sense would there be in basing road funding on a fuel you are trying to replace: "The success of one policy would by definition mean the failure of the other."
The secretary concluded: "Instead of raising ineffective taxes, we need a data-driven, performance-based approach to building and maintaining our transportation infrastructure. We also need an underlying financial model that is responsive to the challenges of today and tomorrow, not poorly considered policy reactions riding on the coattails of tragedy."
TOLLROADSnews 2007-08-30