The state’s affiliate of the American Society of Civil Engineers pointed out recently what many Maine residents already know: The state’s infrastructure has been neglected, and a long-term and sustainable funding source is needed to make improvements. The question then becomes: What can be done to increase investment in transportation infrastructure at a time of slowing revenue from gasoline taxes?
Maine and the country have largely come to expect high-quality roads, ports and bridges but have not devoted the needed resources to keep up with expansion and maintenance. Highway spending per mile traveled has fallen nearly 50 percent since the federal Highway Trust Fund was established in the late 1950s, according to a National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission report.
And, because the federal gas tax — 18.4 cents a gallon — is not adjusted for inflation, it has experienced a total loss in purchasing power of more than 33 percent since 1993, which is the last time the tax was increased. Couple this with people driving more fuel-efficient cars, and the funding problem becomes clear. Investment has been deferred even though, between 1980 and 2006, the total number of miles traveled by cars and trucks doubled, adding strain to existing physical structures.
In Maine, 38 percent of major roads are in “fair to unacceptable” condition, according to the civil engineers group, resulting in Maine motorists spending an average of $299 per year in extra vehicle costs. Improving roads and other infrastructure systems aids productivity. Completing maintenance on a timely schedule prevents costly replacements at later dates. State and federal officials know this.
What they haven’t agreed on is how to maintain funding levels. One proposal would have the gas tax automatically increase with the rate of inflation.
Another idea, which warrants more study, is to switch over time to a user charge system, so drivers pay tax based not on the amount of fuel they consume but on miles driven (and possibly time of day, type of road, vehicle weight or fuel economy). The purpose would be to allow targeted prices to incentivize more efficient use of roads. And, mileage devices installed in vehicles could track just distance traveled, not where they were traveled, to ensure privacy.
Maine must do its part, which includes issuing bond money approved by voters. Using bond money to pay for transportation projects isn’t an ideal option because it’s not a regular funding stream. But that’s not a reason to delay issuing bonds, as Gov. Paul LePage has done, especially when there are few other options to pay for transformational infrastructure improvements.
The necessary factors have aligned to make issuing voter-approved bonds the right choice: Voters recognize the need; improvements have the ability to spur development and put contractors to work; interest rates are low; and the state has the borrowing capacity.
The state can also do its part to employ creative financing methods. One way to accelerate construction, for example, is to use Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicles, where the state is advanced upfront funding in anticipation of future, expected federal funds. The state can also complete projects faster and more efficiently by having project designers and builders work together when appropriate — instead of the traditional routine where designers lay out the project, and it’s subsequently put out to bid.
Maine has had some recent transportation successes — including the expansion of Amtrak passenger rail service to Brunswick — but more must be done. Innovative answers will come from both the federal and state government, as they both contribute to the building and maintenance of infrastructure. Solutions should focus on ease of travel, making operations more efficient and filling funding gaps in a sustainable and fair way.
A key sentence from above article:
“And, because the federal gas tax — 18.4 cents a gallon — is not adjusted for inflation, it has experienced a total loss in purchasing power of more than 33 percent since 1993, which is the last time the tax was increased.”
If Social Security did not have a cost of living increase attached, seniors would be in greater poverty than many are already. Why are we impoverishing our road system?
We need to tax gasoline much higher–yes, you read that right, HIGHER, maybe so it reaches $5 or 6 a gallon. This will have several effects:
– cause anyone with a gas-guzzler to upgrade, even to a used, but better MPG vehicle, and the oldest and worst would get junked.
– reduce unnecessary driving, as in “sunday drives” or teen cruising, quick trips to store for milk/cigs, instead of planning one’s daily route, and lead to more carpooling.
– increased voter pressure for public transport solutions as feasible: rail, tram, bus.
– less wear and tear on our roads, and safer conditions for all with proper maintenance on schedule.
– less pollution the fewer miles are driven.
– less reliance on fossil fuels, whether foreign or domestic.
Will this hurt? You bet!
How can we afford it? You are already paying it on damages to your vehicle, and thru costs to towns in First Responding to crashes, not to mention time/pain/lives lost due to crashes.
Think of this tax increase (say it proud–I certainly did not take Norquist’s pledge–Taxes buy me Civilization!!) as an investment in our future, just as our parents and grandparents did when building things like the Turnpike. Bring the increase on board slowly, but no slower than five years. Dedicate the funds to road maintenance only, not open to raiding. Write the legislation/bond/whatever so that future pols cannot renege upon nor block it (thanks for nothing, Paulie…).
Hey, did anyone say jobs?
Completely agree with raising the gas tax. A “user charge” system is also necessary. But the funds SHOULD be open to raiding. One example why: how much of our (property) tax dollars go to police, fire, and ambulance services? A lot. How much of their time and resources are exhausted responding to road emergencies? A lot. Until funding for our roads covers all highway-related expenses to the general public, which is an unfathomably astronomical figure, the now-bankrupt highway fund at the state and federal levels should be open to raiding.
A small portion of the state fuel tax revenues go to the State Police, recognizing that the State Police have a role in highway safety. Otherwise, the funds are dedicated to transportation uses.
Do you know that some town an cities are now charging the person that causes accidents for the time that the police an fire dept are at an accident plus the cost of any equipment like brooms, shovels, pads ect that is used at an accident seen
I’ve been thinking about it. And though it might be good long term thinking, I think it would absolutely crush the working poor in the short term.
It will not work though. Government fails at a lot of things, but it succeeds very well at one thing, efficiency. I would think now most people would wake up to the fact that just throwing money at something is never the solution. Increasing taxes may mean more money for funding the maintenance, repair, and creation of infrastructure, but it does not mean it will be used for that. It never is.
Plus, the whole cash for clunkers program was a success on one hand and a failure in another–used cars are now insanely expensive. I was recently looking for a car, and when you are only a few thousand between a used model and a new one, interest rates are significantly lower on a new car, and you aren’t buying someone else’s problem, its foolish to go used in most cases. And, not everyone can jump into a little car. Many people rely on pickup trucks to do their job. To just make a blanket statement that we should drop these vehicles is foolish and shows no understanding of what some people do for a living.
You want less reliance on fossil fuels? This is where government needs to step in and really make a difference. We have the technology to make all cars and trucks get much more mpg than we do now. There is a non-existent small diesel engine market that exists everywhere else in the world. These small diesels are highly efficient, allowing smaller trucks and cars to achieve fantastic mileage, yet they are non-existent here. We have hybrid technology, but make it so much more expensive and only in the smallest of cars that its also a more luxury technology than anything as the increased cost of a hybrid isn’t savings at all in the long run when you could just buy a very fuel efficient, small engine gasoline car. There are areas we could save a lot of fuel here if the government would actually require a change.
This is the second or third time a photo with a date and time stamp has appeared in recent weeks. It’s amateurish. Yes, this is a courtesy photo, but it could have easily been cropped.
The long term infrastructure plan for Maine roads can be summed up in two words. Cold patch. It is the only plan we can afford at this point. Maybe we should send some more jobs and money over seas and lower the wages some more on the ones that are left here. That should help.
You for got to mention lowering the speed limit too on bad roads
The State of Maine should explore the practices of European nations as well as the Province of New Brunswick. The bid for road construction or reconstruction comes with the agreement that the company that wins the bid will also be maintaining (to include winter plowing/sanding) that road for x number of years with no additional payment. This will of course add considerably to the cost of construction, but what might the savings to the State be over the life of the contract?
Using bond money to pay for transportation projects isn’t an ideal
option because it’s not a regular funding stream. But that’s not a
reason to delay issuing bonds, as Gov. Paul LePage has done….
And in fact, that’s not the reason LePage did delay.
One way to accelerate construction, for example, is to use Grant
Anticipation Revenue Vehicles, where the state is advanced upfront
funding in anticipation of future, expected federal funds.
Yep, spending the money once you know the check’s in the mail is a foolproof move.
Maine has had some recent transportation successes — including the expansion of Amtrak passenger rail service to Brunswick —
A triumph of cost-effective spending.
Why not just use the General Fund to pay for roads? After all, even a non-driver derives benefit from the road system: he may walk to the grocery store, but the groceries don’t.
While I agree infrastructure has to be a priority, I wish there was more competition in the large scale construction business, which could help bring project costs down. 5-10 (or more!) dudes standing around “supervising” one guy while he works isn’t an uncommon scene at all.
My advice to Landslide LePage surrounding his refusal to honor the electorate regarding the issuance of bonds for transportation improvement is, “Hit the road, Jack”.
Why not do as in the past, borrow from the roads and bridges( fenced )funding in order to balance the budget.