A gas tax increase is not a new idea; state legislators proposed similar remedies last spring. The old plan included an 8-cent per-gallon gas-tax increase, as well as a proposal to terminate the 6-cent discount on diesel fuel for commercial truckers - primary state road abusers. The proposed gas-tax increase would generate millions of dollars and the cost to drivers - especially in the day of ride-sharing and carpooling - would be minimal.
State Sen. James Barrymore (D-Adrian), who proposed the 8-cent increase last spring, claimed that Michigan drivers would pay about another 77 cents per gallon under his original proposal - literally pennies compared to the cost of new tires, re-alignment, or other road-related vehicle damage. Additional per gallon costs under the newer proposal would amount to even less.
Those who oppose the gas tax believe that the Legislature should test other alternatives first. Engler says state road-building projects should receive a greater percentage of gas tax revenue than they do now. Engler also maintains that before fuel taxes increase, lawmakers should exhaust every alternative.
However, Engler's reasoning is not completely clear. He has also proposed building projects that will have a hefty price tag - and that some legislators consider "frivolous." His proposal would allocate $70 million to road-building projects and a total of $290 million for bridge repair and highway maintenance. Concentrating efforts on expanding the existing road system would be inefficient when the funds could finance repairs on the decaying parts of the current structure. The state's road system has a sturdy foundation - it needs only attention and repair. While the proposal promises to "increase efficiency of county and local road commissions," there does not appear to be sufficient proposed allocations for local road repair and maintenance.
Some legislators say they would prefer to fix roads with funds raised by the state's existing gas tax - but a minor increase in the tax would produce such positive effects for such a low cost to consumers that it should certainly be the choice of action.
In addition, Engler's suggestion to create a bipartisan commission to persuade federal government to return transportation funds to Michigan could be a waste of time. Very little money the state sends to Washington comes back in the form of transportation funds - there is little reason for that to change.
State legislators should not attempt to lobby Washington when so many local roadways and bridges need immediate attention - the state can solve its own problems with comparable speed. A gas-tax increase appears to be a viable solution.