Avoiding the right decision at all costs: tolls vs. other taxes

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that Rep. Joe Sestak, a candidate for Senate, suggests taxing natural gas drillers instead of imposing tolls on I-80. From the article:

U.S. Rep. (and would-be Sen.) Joe Sestak (D., Pa.) fielded a call the other day from U.S. Rep. Tim Holden (D., Pa.), deep in anti-toll country. Holden's aide asked, Sestak said, "Where do I sit on tolling I-80?"

That's a federal government decision, where a congressman's opinion could matter. Sestak thought about it, and suggested: Instead of charging more to drive Pennsylvania, why not soak the state's emergent natural gas industry?

He dusted off data Gov. Rendell used in arguing unsuccessfully for a gas tax earlier this year, and calculated that a tax comparable to what West Virginia and other gas states charge would, by 2014, raise more than what the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission told the Federal Highway Administration it would collect if allowed to toll I-80. Sestak says upstate Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D., Pa.) also is interested.

I love this. Rather than do the hard and right choice, the suggestion is to tax producers in another field entirely, natural gas production--where the tax would be paid for ultimately by end users of natural gas products in many states, to subsidize driving within Pennsylvania.

This is nonsensical. And a classic definition of "rent seeking" behavior.

Like most everybody, when I drive I'd rather not pay more to do so. But I do recognize a subsidy when I see one, and I refuse to lie to myself about it.

Also see the Inquirer op-ed "Pa. must toll I-80 or face a transportation crisis." From the article:

Why toll I-80? Because driving in Pennsylvania is too cheap. Taxes and fees don't cover the real costs of roads and fuel, which are heavily subsidized. Take away the subsidies and many people would have to cut back on driving or give it up. Take away the subsidies, and the costs of goods and services delivered by trucks would increase dramatically.

Can we do nothing? No, that's expensive, too. Our roads and bridges are deteriorating. Transit facilities need upgrading. Energy demand is trending upward worldwide, outstripping supplies. Gasoline prices are rising. Traffic congestion is getting worse.

Cheap driving is just too expensive. The solution comes in two parts:

Start charging realistically for the use of highways.

Promote cheaper alternatives such as rail freight, public transportation, car sharing, transit-oriented development, walking, and biking.

New toll revenues won't end our transportation funding problems, but without those funds Pennsylvania cannot avoid a statewide transportation crisis. With no tolling of I-80, by July 2010 the state will see a drop of $466 million in funding for highways and transit. We will see further deterioration in what we have - plus more expensive repair and operating bills. Like the old Fram oil filter ads used to say, you can pay now, or you can pay later.

On the other hand, Joseph Kelly pens a letter in response stating that tolling should be considered more widely, writing:

Peter Javsicas stated that the road must be tolled, "Because driving in Pennsylvania is too cheap." That may or may not be true, but his argument does not explain why I-80 should be singled out. Wouldn't it make better sense to toll all limited-access highways in Pennsylvania?

The number of vehicles that use I-95 in Pennsylvania would generate tremendous revenue that could be used to solve the transportation woes he writes about. The same is true of I-81, especially south of Harrisburg, and I-78.

Perhaps the reason that those highways are not included in the tolling proposals is that a much larger portion of the commonwealth's population would be incited to protest those fees. I-80 passes through sparsely populated areas, so tolling there carries less political risk.

In fact, the fairest way to raise the revenue that is supposedly needed would be to uniformly raise gasoline and fuel taxes throughout the state. That way, the burden would be shared equally. Of course, all legislators would equally share their constituents' displeasure on Election Day, so that solution will never see the light of day.