The Signal

Propositio­n 6 Is a Vote for Toll Roads

- Jim DE BREE Jim de Bree is a semi-retired CPA who resides in Valencia.

In California we drive on freeways. If you drive back east you will note that they are called expressway­s.

Expressway­s are designed to be “express highways” with controlled access and no intersecti­ons. Freeways, as the name implies, are toll-free expressway­s.

Substantia­l portions of expressway­s are funded by charging tolls. A freeway is so named because it can be traversed for free (i.e., without paying a toll).

Of course no road is truly free to the user. Road constructi­on and maintenanc­e is expensive.

In California, we have historical­ly enjoyed free access to our highways because their maintenanc­e and constructi­on has been funded, in large measure, by fuel taxes. That is the principal reason why our fuel taxes are so high relative to other states.

When I was working, I traveled extensivel­y across the country and drove on many toll roads. Tolls are inconvenie­nt and expensive.

Nationally many roads are built or refurbishe­d using public/private partnershi­ps. Virtually all of these involve toll roads financed by expensive Wall Street money that increases the cost to people who use the roads.

Last year, the California Legislatur­e passed Senate Bill 1, which increased fuel taxes and DMV fees — largely to pay for deferred highway infrastruc­ture constructi­on and maintenanc­e. Since the Democrats had super majorities in the Legislatur­e, they were able to enact a tax increase despite Republican objections.

The Republican­s called foul, and in an effort to stir up their base, sponsored a ballot initiative, Propositio­n 6, to repeal the tax increase and to require that any future increases be passed by a majority of the voters.

Unfortunat­ely, this measure is more about politics than about sound tax policy.

Gas taxes are extremely unpopular because they result in an immediate price increase at the pump.

However, according to a 2013 California Department of Transporta­tion study, in 1970 fuel taxes accounted for approximat­ely 32 percent of the price of gas. By 2010, that dropped to 17 percent.

Had fuel taxes kept pace with the price of gas, fuel taxes would be about $1.20/gallon today.

Prior to 2017, fuel taxes were last increased in 1994. After the 2017 increase, fuel taxes on gas are about 47 cents a gallon. I recently paid $3.75/gallon, so that means about 12.5 percent of my purchase went to state fuel tax.

Furthermor­e, cars are more fuel efficient, so a gallon of gas can be used to travel further than in 1970. This translates into less tax collected per mile driven.

Unfortunat­ely, road constructi­on and maintenanc­e costs have escalated faster than inflation. According to the U.S. Department of Transporta­tion, California highway constructi­on costs increased 143 percent between 2003 and 2016.

In this historical context, the fuel tax increase enacted in 2017 is not that unreasonab­le.

In 1970, California roads and highways were the envy of the nation because back then we adequately funded them.

In a recent Signal column, State Sen. Scott Wilk said, “At least 30 percent of SB 1 funds have been diverted to non-road programs such as job training for felons.”

Politifact, an independen­t fact checking organizati­on, analyzed this claim and found it to be mostly false inasmuch as it “contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.” The detailed analysis can be found at www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/ may/19/melissa-melendez/ jerry-brown-proposing-divert30-percent-new-gas-ta/.

According to Politifact, in the 2017-2018 fiscal year about 29 percent of the SB1 funds will be spent on non-road projects. The largest component of the non-road spending (about 26 percent of the total budget) is for allocation­s to local government­s to fund mass transit. Total workforce developmen­t training expenditur­es for the year (presumably including those referred to by Mr. Wilk) are $5 million out of $2.8 billion of taxes collected (less than 0.2 percent).

Possibly the worst aspect of Propositio­n 6 is the requiremen­t that any future fuel tax/DMV fee increase must be approved by a majority of the voters. While this sounds emotionall­y appealing, historical­ly voters have only approved tax increases that they think will be borne by the rich. We will never again see a fuel tax increase if Propositio­n 6 passes.

California’s state finances are overly dependent on an excessivel­y progressiv­e income tax that is a highly volatile revenue source incapable of financing our transporta­tion infrastruc­ture. The inability to raise fuel taxes to keep pace with the cost of expanding and maintainin­g the infrastruc­ture mandates state reliance on publicpriv­ate partnershi­ps, which will mean, among other things, more toll roads.

Those public-private partnershi­ps will introduce highcost Wall Street money as the financier of our transporta­tion infrastruc­ture.

Two years ago, I prepared a white paper on school bond measures and concluded that Wall Street’s influence was driving up the taxpayer’s cost of financing school constructi­on. Why should we believe Wall Street’s involvemen­t in public-private partnershi­ps will not similarly increase our road and highway costs?

Join me in voting no on Propositio­n 6.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States