ShareThis Page

Let states and private businesses build roads and toll users: The feds & roads don't mix

| Saturday, Sept. 6, 2014, 9:00 p.m.

There are good reasons for financing roads through tolls instead of federal fuel taxes. But there is no case for the federal government to collect such tolls. This just adds to the overall cost and places planning and management decisions — regarding expansion, maintenance and replacement — in the hands of remote federal bureaucrats with little or no firsthand knowledge of (or interest in) local needs and conditions.

A better way would be to get the federal government out of the road business altogether. Then, road users could pay directly for roads and bridges using an efficient electronic system similar to E-ZPass. There would be no need for federal involvement. But the government's record in this area is not good. And its priorities are often politicized.

In Northern Virginia, for example, just outside Washington, D.C., car drivers on the Dulles Toll Road are paying an average of 460 percent more in tolls than they previously were paying, to help finance a rapid transit rail connection to the airport. This illustrates the federal government's obsession with resurrecting 19th-century rail systems, to the detriment of road users.

There is no reason for continuing the federal government's financing of road construction, a policy introduced in 1956 to finance the Interstate Highway System. The idea, which is still valid, is that road users should pay for the roads. The legislation authorizing the Interstate Highway System required it ­­— designating the federal fuel taxes we continue to pay to finance it.

But that legislation also mandated that the tax would end when the highway system was completed. For all practical purposes, the system was completed 20 years ago, so it's long past time to devolve responsibility for highway financing back to the states.

The use of electronic tolling to finance roads involves more than just levying tolls. Whatever system is selected needs to enable payment for all roads, in all states, at prices that can vary from road to road to meet different circumstances, with security to assure the privacy of road users, and at low administrative and collection costs.

The development of such systems is best left to interested states, probably working with commercial firms.

Much of what we spend today on roads is wasted because of a host of federal regulations. Davis-Bacon Act rules alone can increase road costs by as much as a third or more by forcing contractors to use highly paid union labor. Having both federal and state governments administer road projects adds even more to the costs.

Ken Orski, editor of Innovation NewsBriefs, reports that Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and Wyoming are all increasing state fuel taxes. If they could assume full responsibility, new toll options could be considered.

Instead of introducing new electronic methods for charging road users, the federal government should step aside, phase out federal fuel taxes and allow the states to develop new road pricing systems consistent with the principle that those who use the roads should pay for them.

Gabriel Roth is a research fellow with The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif., ( and editor of the book “Street Smart: Competition, Entrepreneurship, and the Future of Roads.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.