America is in a transportation policy crisis. The federal Highway Trust Fund regularly flirts with insolvency. Our transportation infrastructure is aging, requiring increasingly expensive repair and reconstruction. Demand for other transportation options–notably passenger rail, public transportation, bicycling, and pedestrian opportunities–is on the rise, with limited available funding to serve those growing needs. Our transportation policy crisis is rooted, in part, in a fundamental misunderstanding: the idea that when it comes to the roads, drivers pay for what they get through gasoline taxes and other drivingrelated fees, and that they get what they pay for by having those taxes and fees dedicated fully to highway construction, operation and maintenance. The “pay for what you get, get what you pay for” framework casts highway spending as tantamount to an off-budget and self-financing government expense. It treats roads as infrastructure built by and for the benefit of motorists, marginalizing the interests of other users. And it treats gas taxes as “user fees” that are often put off-limits for public purposes other than roads–even purposes that might deliver greater public benefits. In practice, however, motorists have never fully paid the costs of the roads they use, and not all taxes assessed to drivers have ever gone toward roads. The “users pay” concept in road transportation has been as much myth as reality. The reality of highway finance is moving farther away from the myth of “users pay” with each passing year, as the value of gasoline tax revenue stagnates amid slowing growth in vehicle travel, improved vehicle fuel efficiency and inflation. In recent years, the nation has increasingly relied on general tax dollars–provided by all taxpayers–to pay for transportation. Policy-makers have two options for how to respond. The first option is to fully embrace the “pay for what you get, get what you pay for” model–either by dramatically increasing the gas tax or dramatically cutting highway spending. Both options appear unlikely. Raising the gasoline tax to the level needed to recoup the full costs imposed by driving would be far outside the current boundaries of political debate, while smaller increases would likely only forestall a day of fiscal reckoning while simultaneously reinforcing the erroneous belief that drivers “pay for what they get”–a belief that distorts transportation debates and decision-making. Cutting transportation spending dramatically to close the gap between spending and user revenues, at a time of rising repair and reconstruction needs, is equally difficult to imagine. The second option is to continue to increase our reliance on general tax revenue to fund transportation. Doing so would necessitate a major shift in how we think about transportation policy. Recognizing that the “users pay” concept no longer reflects reality could free policy-makers to make transportation investments that deliver the biggest benefits, rather than feeling compelled to divvy up dollars based on criteria that have little to do with actual transportation needs. Recognizing that their general taxpayer dollars are at stake could also embolden all Americans to demand greater transparency, accountability and efficiency in transportation spending. This white paper explores the limitations of each of these options, and suggests a way out of the impasse. To move forward with a transportation system for the 21st century, America must rethink both the way it raises money for transportation and the way it spends it, while using the fees and taxes assessed to transportation system users to maximize the efficiency and fairness of the transportation system. There are solutions to America’s transportation policy crisis, but they are unlikely to be found by reverting to the failed strategies of the past. A new way forward is needed. Let the discussion begin. (Author/publisher)
Samenvatting