If Pols Won’t Raise the Gas Tax, How Else Will They Fund Transportation?

This year, we’ve seen a range of new transportation revenue-raising proposals from Massachusetts, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, where governors are all pursuing options other than raising the gas tax. Welcome to the new paradigm in transportation funding, says David Goldberg at Transportation for America:

What's next? Image: ##http://science.howstuffworks.com/gasoline.htm##How Stuff Works##

At bottom, the recent move away from gas taxes as the go-to source of transportation funds is a nod to new realities: Their earning power is shrinking every year, and car-dependent voters will not stomach increases commensurate with their desire for a robust transportation network.

The highway lobby has spent years and millions making the case that gas taxes are “user fees” and are rightly devoted to roads. But with experts like DOT Secretary Ray LaHood predicting that nearly every vehicle will be a hybrid or electric a decade from now, most motorists will be paying little or no such “user fee” absent a major change.

That, of course, says nothing about meeting the needs of the vast majority of Americans who will be living in metro regions too crowded for one-person-per-car travel. State gas taxes certainly can’t meet those needs: 22 states have a constitutional prohibition against spending gas tax revenue on anything but roads, and eight states have similar statutory restrictions.

The gasoline tax has its merits, but given the lack of political will to raise it significantly, and the wide range of needs, it’s time to begin thinking of  infrastructure as a basic government function that can, and should be, funded the full range of available revenue sources. Our global competitors, after all, have recognized this for quite some time, and are moving ahead of us in building a 21st century infrastructure.

Some of the non-gas-tax options, though, are clearly better than others. Virginia’s proposal to transfer the costs of roadbuilding from drivers to everyone else would be a big step backwards, while institutionalizing the use of value capture to fund transit expansions, as Strong Towns’ Chuck Marohn recently recommended, would be major progress.

Elsewhere on the Network today: Better Institutions considers the pros and cons of using income taxes to fund infrastructure. Charm City Streets reflects on the fact that America seems to be unwilling to ban cell phone use by drivers, even as the death toll reaches staggering heights. And Systemic Failure says the Federal Railroad Administration continues to operate as if blissfully unaware that many of its safety regulations have unintended negative consequences.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

It’s Time to Stop Pretending That Roads Pay for Themselves

|
If nothing else, the current round of federal transportation legislating should end the myth that highways are a uniquely self-sufficient form of infrastructure paid for by “user fees,” a.k.a. gas taxes and tolls. With all the general tax revenue that goes toward roads in America, car infrastructure has benefited from hefty subsidies for many years. […]

Eno: Stop Obsessing Over the Gas Tax and Change How We Fund Transpo

|
Twenty years ago, Japan’s electoral reform redistributed power, giving urban constituencies a greater voice. One result: Japan eliminated its version of the Highway Trust Fund, which urban voters saw as satisfying the interests of the construction lobby, not their own. If city-dwellers had a greater voice in the United States, would the same thing happen? […]

Is Raising the Gas Tax Really the Answer?

|
Cross-posted from the Frontier Group … In the 1920s, Great Britain debated the future of its Road Fund – a pot of money raised from vehicle excise taxes and devoted exclusively to road repair. Then-Chancellor of the Exchequer Winston Churchill opposed the fund, arguing that, if drivers paid taxes dedicated solely to roads, “It will be only […]