Tough test for gas tax

September 6, 2007

By Chris Casteel, Washington Bureau / The Oklahoman

WASHINGTON — U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters voiced strong objections Wednesday to raising the federal gas tax to fix bridges. She told a House committee that a better system of setting priorities is needed. "Increasing federal taxes and spending would do little, if anything, to address either the quality or performance of our roads,” Peters told the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Peters said spending on roads and bridges is now determined by "political compromise” and that more money than ever is being designated through legislative "earmarks.”

Peters was responding to a proposal by Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., chairman of the committee, to raise the federal gas tax by 5 cents per gallon for three years and dedicate the money to fixing structurally deficient bridges. The federal gasoline tax is currently stands at 18.4 cents.

Oberstar made the proposal after the Interstate 35W bridge in his state collapsed Aug. 1.

Oberstar and other Democrats on the committee chided Peters and the Bush administration for not offering proposals to pay for the backlog of maintenance and repairs on the nation's transportation system.

"We know what the problem is,” Oberstar said. "It's hanging over our heads.”

The money is not going to be raised, he said, by holding a bake sale.

Rep. Mary Fallin, R-Oklahoma City, and some other Republicans on the committee sided with Peters, arguing for an assessment of how transportation money is spent before taxes are raised.

She said Oklahoma voters two years ago soundly rejected a ballot initiative to raise the state gas tax to fund road improvements. And she said "donor” states like Oklahoma, which have historically paid more in gas taxes than they receive for road projects, are skeptical about paying even more. Fallin also noted, however, that Oklahoma has the highest percentage of structurally deficient bridges. She said the state Legislature recently committed more money.

Peters said she didn't disagree with the need to set priorities for bridge repair. The disagreement, she said, was over funding.

Peters sought to assure people that bridges deemed structurally deficient aren't necessarily dangerous. She said the term does cause concern but that it could mean simply that a bridge is showing signs of wear.