Back in April I wrote about
the challenge we face to pay
for Gov. Malloy’s $100 billion transportation plan. And I expressed sympathy for his bipartisan,
blue-ribbon panel tasked with coming up with funding alternatives, the
Transportation Finance Panel.
To be honest, I think that
panel may be on a fool’s errand. They’re
trying to pay for a
wish list of projects not of their making and many of which may not be necessary
let alone affordable. Maybe we only need
$50 billion. But it’s not their mandate
to question our “transportation Governor”.
Someone else will have to do the “vetting.”
But even as the Finance
Panel does its work, exploring all manner of funding options, they are being
second-guessed by politicians and public alike.
How about tolls? Too expensive… they’ll slow traffic… and
don’t forget those flaming truck
crashes at toll barriers! (Not true… no they won’t… and there won’t be
toll barriers).
 | |
| Hi speed toll collection... NO booths! |
Gas tax? Unfair… out-of-state motorists won’t pay…
improved gas mileage means dwindling revenue.
(Totally fair… maybe so… and absolutely correct).
Which brings us to what
would seem to be the fairest, most equitable fund raising mechanism for paying
for our roads, but which brought a bipartisan
crap-storm of response when suggested: a mileage tax, or VMT (vehicle miles
traveled) tax.
The concept is simple: have each motorist pay a tax for the number
of miles he/she drives each year. The
data could be collected electronically by GPS or with an odometer check when
you get your annual emissions inspection.
You drive more, you pay more… whether you drive on I-95 or back-country
roads. Take mass transit, you’d drive
less and pay less.
The VMT idea was discussed
at the Finance Panel’s July 29th meeting, and the public and
political reaction was immediate and universally negative.
Senate Majority Leader Bob
Duff (D-Norwalk) called it “unproven”, despite successful trials in the Netherlands and
Oregon and VMT’s endorsement
by the US Government Accountability Office.
Republican St Senator Toni
Boucher calls VMT nonsensical
and an invasion of privacy, though testimony proved both claims
wrong.
Face it: nobody likes a tax that they have to
pay. Tax the other guy… the trucker, the
out-of-state driver, the real estate transferor… but don’t tax me!
Driving a car is not
free. Paying for gasoline is only part
of the cost and even Connecticut’s relatively high gas tax comes nowhere near
to paying for upkeep of our roads. Our deteriorating roads are a
hidden toll as we pay for car repairs.
The Transportation Finance
Panel will find there is no easy or popular solution to paying for the
Governor’s $100 billion untested and unattainable wish list of projects. Whatever they recommend, citizens will scream
bloody murder and their lawmakers will vote it down.
But shame on reactionaries
in Hartford for calling the VMT, or any funding alternative, “dead on
arrival”. Let’s at least let the Finance
Panel do its diligence before saying they have wasted their time.
1 comment:
Your boy Malloy, or "asphalt man" has a plan; add highway and bus highway lanes everywhere in a state with 0.23% population growth (or 5,000 people per year) as well as a multi-use trail along the Merritt Parkway. It's not a question of how to fund Malloy's road building mania, it's a question of how to deal a death blow to Malloy's 1960's style highway plan.
Post a Comment