Toll roads are the way to go

Toll roads are the way to go

EDITOR:

The column by the Washington Post’s Fred Hiatt (Vindicator, Jan. 23) on transportation reveals some basic and prevalent misunderstandings about how surface transportation systems work, how they are currently performing, how they are funded, and how past policies have contributed to the failures we are all experiencing today.

There is no disputing that the country will need more surface transportation infrastructure investment in the future to sustain our economic pre-eminence. The critical question, however, is what is the best way to ask Americans to pay for the costs associated with the improvement, maintenance and use of our highways and transit systems.

We can either choose a policy path of substantially higher taxes, more lost time, greater unreliability, more pollution, and more wasteful spending, or we can choose to establish payment policies that reduce congestion, cut pollution, improve reliability and constrain the opportunity for political leaders to waste money.

Experts who have looked hard at this issue from both sides of the political aisle believe that increasing our reliance on fossil-based fuel taxes for transportation infrastructure will only cause more financial insecurity. Even worse, because the gas tax is not a direct user fee, it has proven to be ineffective at reducing traffic congestion. Drivers pay the same tax regardless of when, where, or how they use the underlying infrastructure.

I believe — along with the many economists who have studied the issue — that fostering more use of direct pricing is the best way to meet the demands placed on our transportation infrastructure. Under this method, drivers would be charged based on their use of a road — similar to the way other utilities such as phone and electric are now charged. And, perhaps most importantly, this method allows cities and states to leverage their transportation assets and reinvest in transportation — something the gas-tax system has little potential to do.

Although Mr. Hiatt appears to concede that we should promote direct pricing, he also simultaneously argues that we should massively increase indirect taxes on fuel and public transportation trips — including endorsing a plan that would triple the federal gas tax-per-gallon in five years. Doing both, as Mr. Hiatt seems to prefer, makes little economic sense, and would provide a disincentive for states and localities to take advantage of other — and more promising — funding methods.

Furthermore, the transportation financing report that Mr. Hiatt cites in his article actually proposes more restrictions on the ability of states to directly price road use and utilize private investment than under current law. Only in a world of blind reliance on fuel tax increases and more federal spending would such recommendations be considered improvements.

Around the world and in the United States, political leaders are breaking ground on effective new transportation financing and management strategies.

In New York City, Mayor Bloomberg’s sweeping congestion pricing initiative has the strong support of economists, urban planners, environmental groups, low income advocates, transit proponents, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. It is estimated to bring huge financial benefits to the region and stop the drag of congestion on the New York economy. Meanwhile, many transportation leaders in Congress oppose the idea.

Perhaps these Beltway leaders recognize that the more states and local leaders are able to finance and manage their own transportation systems the less ability Washington will have to raise taxes and control spending decisions.

Mr. Hiatt is correct that ideology is playing a large role in today’s transportation debate. He’s just wrong about which side of the debate.

MARY E. PETERS

U.S. Secretary of Transportation

Washington, D.C.