Nathan Benefield: Infrastructure fix requires break from past |
Featured Commentary

Nathan Benefield: Infrastructure fix requires break from past

Nathan Benefield

Pennsylvania’s infrastructure woes are impossible to ignore. From structurally deficient bridges to mounting debt to rising turnpike tolls that chase away motorists, residents would be forgiven for wondering what they are getting in return for paying the highest gas tax in the nation.

Auditor General Eugene DePasquale has been one of the loudest voices sounding the alarm about state transportation funding, bemoaning unsustainable turnpike debt and the diversion of gas tax money to fund state police. While these are legitimate criticisms, DePasquale himself voted for both policies, including turnpike borrowing and unlimited toll increases.

For his part, Gov. Tom Wolf has proposed “Restore Pa” — a $4.5 billion spending plan to fund pork-barrel projects during his term in office. Conveniently glossed over is the fact that it will cost families nearly $9 billion over 30 years when interest payments are accounted for. Predictably, the plan is funded by an additional tax on natural gas.

Unfortunately, this tax, borrow and spend approach repeats the mistakes that have failed to restore Pennsylvania’s infrastructure.

In 2007, lawmakers passed a scheme crafted by the Turnpike Commission and contract lobbyists to increase turnpike borrowing and tolls to fund other roads, bridges and mass transit systems. This plan won out over Gov. Ed Rendell’s far superior proposal to lease the turnpike, which would have yielded $12 billion in upfront payments.

A few years later, in 2013, lawmakers raised the gasoline tax to its current rate of 58.7 cents per gallon, the nation’s highest. This tax hike was sold as a means to fund the repair of structurally deficient bridges, though the law actually diverted $1 billion from driver charges to fund mass transit systems.

Today, the turnpike utilizes borrowing and tolls to make its required $450 million payment to the state — all of which funds mass transit. Additionally, more than $500 million in vehicle registration fees, driver fines, rental and tire fees, and even some of the gas tax is also diverted to fund transit systems.

That’s backwards. Good transportation policy would have motorists pay for the cost of the roads they use, not force drivers to subsidize mass transit systems they aren’t using.

How do we end this cycle of mistakes and truly address deficient infrastructure?

For starters, we should stop making drivers pay for mass transit. Pennsylvania transit systems have declining ridership, are horribly mismanaged and receive less revenue from riders and local government than most agencies. State aid should be dedicated to helping low-income riders, not propping up failing systems, and transit agencies should allow competition and privatize services to become more efficient.

To ensure our highest-in-the-nation gas tax actually improves our infrastructure, lawmakers should eliminate prevailing wage mandates. These mandates make every project cost more than it needs to.

Pennsylvania also needs to be more aggressive in using public-private partnerships in transportation, including re-evaluating a turnpike lease, tolling for new highway construction and utilizing managed lanes. Transitioning from gas taxes to mileage-based user fees, as vehicles become more fuel-efficient or don’t use gas at all, will soon be a necessity.

Our transportation infrastructure is in crisis not because drivers aren’t paying enough in taxes, fees and tolls, but because politicians are misusing driver dollars and diverting them to other causes.

Avoiding the past mistakes and adopting funding models proven in other states and internationally can fix our roads — without making taxpayers pay more.

Nathan Benefield is vice president and chief operating officer of the Commonwealth Foundation.

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.