The Trib's “analysis” of gasoline prices in its editorial “Gas pains” omitted several key facts that could have helped to provide a more reasonable perspective on the issue.
According to GasBuddy.com , prices in late January were approximately 4 cents per gallon higher than they were on Dec. 31, before the gas tax increase went into effect. Moreover, a three-year review shows that in May 2011, Pittsburgh gas prices averaged $4.05 per gallon; the late-January average was 55 cents less than that. Since May 2011, the average price has been as high as $3.95 (twice) and as low as $3.31 (twice).
Removing the artificial cap on the Oil Company Franchise Tax assures that those who use up more of our transportation assets pay a greater portion of the cost for building and maintaining them. New Jersey, often cited for having lower gas taxes than Pennsylvania, subsidizes its highway system with tax revenue from its general fund and by incurring enormous debt.
If the Trib believes we should have a sound highway system — and honestly, as a supporter of the business community, how could it not? — how exactly would the Trib propose to pay for it? Funding it with user fees from fuel consumption and license and registration fees, which go into a constitutionally protected fund and cannot be used for nonhighway purposes, sounds like a reasonable solution to me.
The writer is a civil engineer who has done highway work locally for 46 years.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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.
- Reverse red-kettle ban I
- Not taxpayers’ responsibility
- Reverse red-kettle ban II
- Good riddance
- Stop electing judges
- Punishment pushback I
- Leaders unaccountable
- Lawsuit: Publicity stunt
- Incomprehensible? That’s Obama
- Help for Tina
- Don’t blame bus drivers I